and containing covenants, raising charges upon alienation. The late Patroon, Hon. Stephen Van Rensselaer, had suffered numerous arrearages of rent to remain uncollected for many years. At his decease, his heirs demanded payment of these arrearages. The tenants refused to comply. Differences growing out of these matters, which extended back through a period of near fifty years, ripened, in 1839, into discontents, popular outbreaks, and open resistance of the laws. Refusing to tamper with such violent proceedings for a moment, Gov. Seward issued his proclamation,* calling upon the discontented to reflect upon the nature and consequences of their unlawful acts, and apply to the legis lature for redress of their grievances, pledging himself to grant them every aid in his power, in bringing their complaints before that body. This proclamation was accompanied by the organization and despatch of a military force, which, acting under the authority of the sheriff, attended him until he had executed the legal processes in his hands, including those against the individuals who had resisted the laws.

In announcing these measures to the legislature in his annual message, in 1840,† Gov. Seward discussed the nature of the tenures out of which the disturbances had arisen, and recommended that efforts should be made for the removal of the difficulty which threatened to be lasting and serious in its consequences. He urged a compromise of the conflicting claims of landlord and tenant, with their consent, and without injustice to either party. The recommendation was adopted, and Hugh Maxwell and Gary V. Sacket, Esqs., were appointed commissioners to effect, if possible, a satisfactory adjustment. After examining the subject, and hearing all the parties, the commissioners decided on the basis of an adjustment, which they recommended for the adoption of the litigants. The tenants assented. But the landlord, under mistaken advice, refused the proffered terms, and insisted on the rights secured in his leases. So the settlement failed.

During the residue of Gov. Seward's administration, the laws were executed throughout the discontented regions, as in the other parts of the state. But the controversy between the proprietors of the Rensselaer manor and the tenants, still continued, and has not been settled to the present time. Loud complaints were made against the governor for what was alleged to be an unjust conces* See Vol. II, p. 352. † See Vol. II, p. 219.

sion to the claims of the tenants, in treating the restraints on alienation and other features in these cases, as illegal and inexpedient. Since Gov. Seward's retirement from the executive office, armed resistance has been more than once renewed, and a ruinous litigation has never been suspended. While we are writing these memoirs,* the Court of Appeals has vindicated the views of Gov. Seward, by declaring the restraints upon alienation, illegal and void.

This affair furnishes another instance of Gov. Seward's clear forecast and sound wisdom, in the adoption of measures for the removal of existing evils. For the time being, owing to a want of equally enlarged views, his recommendations have been discarded. But time vindicates their soundness. In the present case, after the subject had been litigated, discussed, and argued for years, before legislatures and courts, the decision was finally made in conformity with the views he had originally urged upon the parties interested.

In his earlier years, Gov. Seward, as we have seen, devoted considerable attention to military affairs. During his administration, he labored for the accomplishment of certain reforms in the militia system, which he had urged while a member of the Senate. Its unequal operation was regarded by him as an infringement of personal rights, and a great public evil. He endeavored to relieve the members of the society of Friends, and other persons who declined performing military duty from religious scruples. This measure was not adopted by the legislature. But he did not fail to use the pardoning power of the executive in behalf of those, who had incurred the penalty of the law, in obedience to their consciences. In this course, Gov. Seward was true to the enlarged and liberal sentiments, which he had long cherished, in regard to religious freedom. It was one of his strongest convictions, that no class of citizens should suffer from legal disabilities, on account of matters of conscience. Here, too, his views, at last, received the sanction of public opinion, and the changes in the militia system, which he had urged in his messages, became the policy of the state.

Previously to 1841, the elections in New York occupied three days a single board of inspectors receiving all the votes in each town or ward. This arrangement occasioned numerous inconve

October, 1852.

+ See Miscellaneous Correspondence, Vol. III., p. 481.

niences. In the larger cities, especially, it gave rise to a system of frauds and combinations, impairing the purity of elections, and impeding the voter in the exercise of his political rights. Violent contests took place at the polls, which often resulted in the destruction of the ballot-box. Every one acknowledged and deplored the evil. It was not so easy, however, to discover the remedy. The whigs were in favor of an act of registration; but this was regarded by the opposite party as a scheme to deprive the poorer classes of the exercise of suffrage. As the support of both the great political parties of the day was essential to the success of the measure, the whigs modified their demands, limiting the call for a registry to the city of New York. Gov. Seward could not give this course his approval. He was opposed to all partial, invidious legislation. Nor could he be convinced of the practicability of the measure, in the existing state of feeling. He accordingly dissuaded his friends from urging the passage of such an act. In its place, he recommended the division of towns and wards into election districts, each containing not more than five hundred voters, and the limitation of the time for holding elections to a single day. These suggestions were accepted by the whigs, who then formed a majority of the legislature. But under the influence of members from New York, they added a provision for a registry act in that city.

Gov. Seward was thus again brought into collision with his political friends. He prepared a veto message,* presenting his objections to the feature of the bill establishing a registry. On consultation, however, with the whigs, it was found that even if the bill should not pass in spite of the veto, yet the party would be convulsed by the consequent excitement, and incur the hazard of yielding the control of the state to their political opponents. The governor was thus induced to suppress the veto and approve the bill, frankly stating to the legislature his objections to the feature in question, and predicting its ultimate effect. An election was held under the new law, in the following autumn. The city of New York returned a democratic majority, induced by the new provision. The legislature at once repealed it by a unanimous vote. The other provisions of the law still remain in force.

The patriot disturbance in Canada which occurred in 1837, awakened deep interest among the people of the United States, *See Vol. III, p. 379.

VOL. I.-D.

who lived adjacent to the frontier. A military corps was organized to aid the Canadians in their struggle for independence. The federal government adopted stringent measures to enforce the neutrality laws. During these excitements an event took place which threatened serious embarrassment to the relations of the United States with Great Britain. On the night of Dec. 29, 1837, an armed force from Canada crossed the Niagara river, attacked a party of American citizens, who were then asleep in the steamboat Caroline, lying in the river at Schlosser. One man was killed; the rest were driven ashore. Having cut out the steamboat, the invaders set her on fire, towed her into the current of the stream and sent her flaming over Niagara Falls. This outrage everywhere excited the deepest indignation. In the border counties, especially, the people were almost in a frenzy of passion.

Three years after this occurrence, in the winter of 1840, a citizen of Canada, named Alexander M'Leod, while on a visit to Niagara county, was said to have boasted that he was an active member of the party which destroyed the Caroline. As he was known to be a warm loyalist, the assertion was readily believed. He was arrested on the charge of arson, and committed to jail. In due course of law he was subsequently indicted for that crime, and detained for trial. Upon this the British minister at Washington, Mr. Fox, made a reclamation on Mr. Van Buren, then president of 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 Gov. Seward, while Mr. Fox, on the other hand, submitted the subject for instruction to his government at home. Gov. 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 administra

tion had passed into the hands of Gen. Harrison. The affair was accordingly entrusted to Mr. Webster, the secretary of state under the new president.

Meantime Gov. Seward had dispatched the attorney-general 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, Gen. 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 communicated to Gov. 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 dispatched by the president to Niagara county, with directions to appear in court in behalf of M'Leod, and to urge upon Gov. Seward the entering of a nolle prosequi. In conversing upon the subject, Mr. Crittenden informed Gov. Seward, that Great Britain would declare war against the United States unless the surrender of M'Leod took place. It fully appeared, however, on further explanation, 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. Gov. 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