1841, Dec. 20. [Great Britain, Austria, Russia, Prussia, and France:  Quintuple Treaty.] British and Foreign State Papers, 1841-2, p. 269 ff.

1842, Feb. 15.  Right of Search:  Cass’s Protest.

Cass writes to Webster, that, considering the fact that the signing of the Quintuple Treaty would oblige the participants to exercise the Right of Search denied by the United States, or to make a change in the hitherto recognized law of nations, he, on his own responsibility, addressed the following protest to the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, M. Guizot:—­

“LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,
“PARIS, FEBRUARY 13, 1842.

“SIR:  The recent signature of a treaty, having for its object the suppression of the African slave trade, by five of the powers of Europe, and to which France is a party, is a fact of such general notoriety that it may be assumed as the basis of any diplomatic representations which the subject may fairly require.”

The United States is no party to this treaty.  She denies the Right of Visitation which England asserts. [Quotes from the presidential message of Dec. 7, 1841.] This principle is asserted by the treaty.

" ...  The moral effect which such a union of five great powers, two of which are eminently maritime, but three of which have perhaps never had a vessel engaged in that traffic, is calculated to produce upon the United States, and upon other nations who, like them, may be indisposed to these combined movements, though it may be regretted, yet furnishes no just cause of complaint.  But the subject assumes another aspect when they are told by one of the parties that their vessels are to be forcibly entered and examined, in order to carry into effect these stipulations.  Certainly the American Government does not believe that the high powers, contracting parties to this treaty, have any wish to compel the United States, by force, to adopt their measures to its provisions, or to adopt its stipulations ...; and they will see with pleasure the prompt disavowal made by yourself, sir, in the name of your country, ... of any intentions of this nature.  But were it otherwise, ...  They would prepare themselves with apprehension, indeed, but without dismay—­with regret, but with firmness—­for one of those desperate struggles which have sometimes occurred in the history of the world.”

If, as England says, these treaties cannot be executed without visiting United States ships, then France must pursue the same course.  It is hoped, therefore, that his Majesty will, before signing this treaty, carefully examine the pretensions of England and their compatibility with the law of nations and the honor of the United States. Senate Doc., 27 Cong. 3 sess.  II.  No. 52, and IV.  No. 223; 29 Cong. 1 sess.  VIII.  No. 377, pp. 192-5.

1842, Feb. 26.  Mississippi:  Resolutions on Creole Case.

The following resolutions were referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs in the United States Congress, House of Representatives, May 10, 1842: