To Dr. Lieber he wrote, Jan. 11, 1842:— In point of principle, this was as great an insult to the representative of a people not accustomed to any such form at home, nor recognizing it as essential under their institutions, as Lord Macartney's prostration before the Emperor of China. But we do not talk of war with Russia! I have always thought that our ministers ought to refuse to wear any uniform at a foreign court. Our high officers wear none at home; nor is it necessary that any citizen, or other person, native or foreign, should assume one in approaching the President. I should not wish to get the reputation of George IV.,—of interfering in clothes and uniforms; but if I were President of the United States, I should send instructions to our ministers to discontinue their uniforms,—the Kow-towof Europe. Ever and ever yours,
Howe will soon publish another report on Laura. She, poor girl, was delighted at his return. She cried with joy; and her nervous excitement deprived her fingers for a while of the power of language.
To Jacob Harvey, New York.Boston, Jan. 14, 1842.My dear sir,—I have been much gratified by your letter of Jan. 12, which I have just received with the newspaper containing an able article on ‘War with England.’ I agree with you entirely with regard to the ‘Creole’ affair,—except, perhaps, that I go further than you do. In the first place, England cannot deliver up the slaves who are not implicated in the mutiny and murder by which the government of the ship was overthrown. She has laid down a rule not to recognize property in human beings since the date of her great Emancipation Act. The principle of this is very clear. She will not in any way lend her machinery of justice to execute foreign laws which she has pronounced immoral, unchristian, and unjust. She had not so pronounced until her Act of Emancipation. It is common learning among jurists, that no nation will enforce contracts or obligations of an immoral character, even though not regarded as immoral in the country where they were entered into. Thus, in Algiers, the wages of prostitution may be recoverable in the courts, or a contract of concubinage may be enforced (I merely put these cases, without absolute knowledge that such could arise); but the courts of England, and—thank God!—of the United States, would peremptorily decline to recognize the validity of any promise or contract arising from such impurities. So must it be now with England. To her, slavery is worse than polygamy and concubinage. She cannot be called upon in any way to acknowledge the legal existence of a relation which she has denounced as a crime majoris abollo;. Next, as to the slaves, participators in the mutiny and murder. Their case is not so clear as that of the others; but, nevertheless, sufficiently clear