the United States, in behalf of the prisoner. He insisted that the destruction of the Caroline was an act of war, for which the British government should be held responsible, and not a private individual. Hence he protested against the trial of M'Leod, and demanded his release from imprisonment. The president did not assent to the position of Mr. Fox; he maintained that the act was a violation of the jurisdiction of New York, and of the United States in time of peace. Even assuming the views of Mr. Fox to be correct, the matter belonged to the courts of New York for judicial examination, with which the federal government could not interfere.

The decision of Mr. Van Buren was immediately communicated to Governor Seward, while Mr. Fox, on the other hand, submitted the subject for instruction to his government at home. Governor Seward promptly and dispassionately replied to the president accepting his decision on the part of New York. This reply did not reach Washington until after the 4th of March, 1841, when the administration had passed into the hands of General Harrison. The affair was accordingly intrusted to Mr. Webster, the secretary of state under the new president.

Meantime Governor Seward had despatched the attorneygeneral of the state, Hon. Willis Hall, to Niagara, in order to ascertain the facts relative to the transaction. The result of the investigation convinced the governor that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the indictment, as it appeared that M'Leod was not even on the American side of the river during the night on which the Caroline was destroyed.

Mr. Fox was instructed by his government to insist on the positions which he had assumed. He accordingly demanded the surrender of M'Leod, menacing the president with hostilities in case of non-compliance. In reply to Mr. Fox, General Harrison conceded that M'Leod could not be held to trial for the alleged offence, thus confirming the views of the British government. This decision was com

municated to Governor Seward, in a letter from the secretary of state, through Mr. Crittenden, the attorney-general of the United States, who announced the wish of the president that a nolle prosequi should be entered, and a stop put to further proceedings. Mr. Crittenden was despatched by the president to Niagara county, with directions to appear in court in behalf of M'Leod, and to urge upon Governor Seward the entering of a nolle prosequi. In conversing upon the subject, Mr. Crittenden informed Governor Seward, that Great Britain would declare war against the United States unless the surrender of M'Leod took place. It appeared, however, on further explanation, that the retaliation threatened by Great Britain was made contingent not on the detention, nor on the trial, nor even on the conviction of M'Leod, but on his execution. This view was sustained by the correspondence with Mr. Fox. Governor Seward then informed Mr. Crittenden of the course he should pursue. In the first place, it was not probable that M'Leod would be convicted, as there was no proof of his guilt-but if convicted, he could not be executed without the governor's consent; and inasmuch as both governments agreed that his conviction would be an infringement of international law, however he might differ from that opinion, he should feel bound to release the prisoner from his sentence. He added, moreover, that all the questions belonging to the case, must come under the cognizance of the state court, and therefore it was necessary for the trial to proceed. But this course involved no risk of compromising our relations with Great Britain,for the reasons already stated.

The trial, accordingly, was postponed. Mr. Crittenden returned to Washington to lay the views of Governor Seward before the president and his cabinet. It was understood that, if these views were not approved, the subject should receive further examination. But the sudden death of General Harrison, and the consequent dissolution of the cabinet, left the matter as it was.

Meantime, Joshua A. Spencer, Esq., who had been already retained as counsel for M'Leod, was appointed United States district attorney for the northern district of New York, although against the earnest remonstrances of Governor Seward. At the succeeding term of the supreme court, Mr. Spencer appeared with instructions from the president, and demanded M'Leod's discharge from the indictment, without the formality of a trial. The motion was resisted by Willis Hall, Esq., in behalf of the state, under the direction of the governor. After elaborate arguments on both sides, the demand for M'Leod's release was denied, sustaining the ground taken by President Van Buren and Governor Seward in opposition to the views of President Tyler.

In spite of the fact that war was suspended, not on the trial, but on the execution of M'Leod, the public mind was greatly excited by the fear of a collision with Great Britain. Governor Seward was reproached, in many political and commercial circles, with pursuing recklessly a course that tended to plunge the two nations in war. But this had no effect on his determination. He was convinced of the justice of his measures, and resolutely proceeded to carry them into effect.

At length the time for holding the court arrived. It was convened at Utica, remote from the immediate scene of excitement. On trial before a learned and impartial judge, M'Leod was acquitted, for want of evidence that he was concerned in the outrage. He was then sent into the British territory by Governor Seward, under an escort, and safely delivered on the north side of the Niagara river.

This critical transaction affords a fresh illustration of Governor Seward's firmness and sagacity. Had he listened to the advisers whose fears dictated to their judgment, and followed the cowardly policy of President Tyler, he would have disgraced both the state and the nation in the eyes of the world. But his bold and manly course sustained the

honor of the country. The fortunate conclusion of the affair restored the public mind to tranquillity, and strengthened the administration of the state in the esteem of the people.*

THE Erie and Champlain canals were completed in 1825. This great enterprise of internal improvements had been brought to a prosperous completion by De Witt Clinton, against the strenuous opposition of the Albany regency. But even before these works were finished, it was seen that they could not attain the objects of their construction without the addition of lateral canals, connecting with the Susquehanna and other rivers on the south, and with Lake Ontario on the north. The Erie canal was but forty feet wide, and four feet deep. It was soon evident, that, instead of a canal of such limited capacity, a ship-canal was necessary to unite the navigation of the lakes with that of Hudson river. As early as 1835, it was found necessary to replace the locks and other structures of the Erie canal. At the same time, the state debt incurred in its construction, and that of the Champlain canal, had been virtually paid. Under these favorable circumstances, the legislature voted the enlargement of the Erie canal, on a scale to be fixed by the canal board. The scale adopted was seventy feet wide and seven feet deep, with double instead of single locks, as before used. But the act limited the expenditures for the enlargement to the annual surplus of the tolls after deducting a large amount for the general purposes of the state treasury.

*See Correspondence, Vol. II., pp. 547-586.

In 1836, the construction of the Genesee Valley and the Black River canals was decided on by the legislature. These works were intended as branches of the system of internal improvements which had previously been completed, including the Oswego, Seneca, and Cayuga and Crooked Lake and Chenango canals. A loan of three millions of dollars had been made, during the same year, to the New York and Erie Railroad Company, for the aid of their enterprise. The next year saw the progress of all these works, while the canal commissioners recommended a more vigorous prosecution of the enlargement of the Erie canal. The recommendation was urgently renewed by Governor Marcy and the canal commissioners in 1838. But the state was then suffering from a commercial revulsion. The comptroller, Mr. Flagg, indirectly opposed the recommendations, in a report insisting on the necessity of taxation for the support of the treasury. This report was answered by Hon. Samuel B. Ruggles, chairman of the committee of ways and means in the assembly, who showed that the increase of tolls on the canals would sustain a loan of thirty millions of dollars, reimbursing it in twenty years, or of forty millions of dollars, reimbursing it in twenty-eight years. In accordance with this estimate, the legislature, in 1838, made an appropriation of four millions of dollars for the prosecution of the enlargement, and authorized the loan of eight hundred thousand dollars on the credit of the state, in aid of the Central and other railroads.

Such was the condition of internal improvements in the state, when Mr. Seward entered upon the executive office on the first of January, 1839. The state debt was then eleven millions of dollars; but there were four millions of dollars in the treasury available for the public works, reducing the actual debt to about seven millions of dollars. Governor Seward vigorously followed up the legislative policy of 1838. He recommended that measures should be adopted to secure the enlargement of the Erie canal,