ship. This, however, is no concession to neutrals, for the international code protects their property thus situated." Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. de Stoeckl, Apr. 14, 1854. MSS. Notes, Russia. "You will observe that there is a suggestion in the inclosed for a convention among the principal maritime nations to unite in a declaration that free ships should make free goods, except articles contraband of war. This doctrine has had heretofore the sanction of Russia, and no reluctance is apprehended on her part to becoming a partner to such an arrangement. Great Britain is the only considerable power which has heretofore made a sturdy opposition to it. Having yielded it for the present in the existing war, she thereby recognizes the justice and fairness of the principle, and would hardly be consistent if she should withhold her consent to an agreement to have it hereafter regarded as a rule of international law." Mr. Marcy, Sec, of State, to Mr. Seymour, May 9, 1854. MSS. Inst., Russia. "You are aware that this Government has strenuously contended that free ships should make free goods, articles contraband of war excepted. Great Britain is believed to be almost the only maritime power which has constantly refused to regard this as a rule of international law, and her policy in this respect may, it is presumed, be ascribed rather to a consciousness of power, than a sense of right. The admiralty courts of the United States have followed English precedents in their decisions against this rule. It has, however, been expressly recognized in several treaties between the United States and France." Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Mason, Aug. 7, 1854. MSS. Inst., France. "The Government of the United States, as you are aware, has strenuously contended for the doctrine that free ships make free goods, contraband articles excepted. There is not, I believe, a maritime power which has not incorporated it in some of its treaties; but Great Britain, which is the most considerable of them, has constantly refused to regard it as a rule of international law. Her admiralty courts have rejected it and ours have followed after them. When Great Britain and France, at the commencement of the present war with Russia, agreed to act upon that principle for the time being, this Government believed that a fair occasion was presented for obtaining the general consent of commercial nations to recognize it as a principle of the law of nations." Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Buchanan, Aug. 7, 1854. MSS. Inst., Gr. Brit. The objections by the Government of the United States to the declaration of the Paris conference of 1856 are that (1) "All the four propositions must be taken or none;" (2) they limit the future sovereign power of the parties concerned; (3) they exact the surrender of priva teering, a surrender the United States cannot make; (4) they do not exempt private property of non-belligerents from confiscation. Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Seibels, July 14, 1856. MSS. Inst., Belgium. "You are instructed by the President to propose to the Government of Mexico to enter into an arrangement for its adherence with the United States to the four principles of the declaration of the congress, provided the first of them is amended, as specified in my note to the Count de Sartiges. Without such amendment, the President is constrained for many weighty reasons, some of which are stated in that note, to decline acceding to the first principle of the 'declaration.' The President, however, will readily give his consent to the remaining three principles." Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Forsyth, Aug. 29, 1856. MSS. Inst., Mex. "Long experience has shown that, in general, when the principal powers of Europe are engaged in war, the rights of neutral nations are endangered. This consideration led, in the progress of the war of our independence, to the formation of the celebrated confederacy of armed neutrality, a primary object of which was to assert the doctrine that free ships make free goods, except in the case of articles contraband of war; a doctrine which, from the very commencement of our national being, has been a cherished idea of the statesmen of this country. At one period or another every maritime power has, by some solemn treaty stipulation, recognized that principle; and it might have been hoped that it would come to be universally received and respected as a rule of international law; but the refusal of one power prevented this, and in the next great war which ensued, that of the French Revolution, it failed to be respected among the belligerent states of Europe. Notwithstanding this, the principle is generally admitted to be a sound and salutary one; so much so that at the commencement of the existing war in Europe, Great Britain and France announced their purpose to observe it for the present; not, however, as a recognized international right, but as a mere concession for the time being. The co-operation, however, of these two powerful maritime nations in the interest of neutral rights appeared to me to afford an occasion inviting and justifying, on the part of the United States, a renewed effort to make the doctrine in question a principle of international law, by means of special conventions between the several powers of Europe and America. Accordingly, a proposition, embracing not only the rule that free ships make free goods, except contraband articles, but also the less contested one, that neutral property other than contraband, though on board enemy's ships, shall be exempt from confiscation, has been submitted by this Government to those of Europe and America. "Russia acted promptly in this matter, and a convention was concluded between that country and the United States, providing for the observance of the principles announced, not only as between themselves, but also as between them and all other nations which shall enter into like stipulations. None of the other powers have as yet taken final action on the subject. I am not aware, however, that any objection to the proposed stipulations has been made; but, on the contrary, they are acknowledged to be essential to the security of neutral commerce; and the only apparent obstacle to their general adoption is the possibility that it may be encumbered by inadmissible conditions. "The King of the Two Sicilies has expressed to our minister at Naples his readiness to concur in our proposition relative to neutral rights, and to enter into a convention on that subject." President Pierce, Second Annual Message, 1854. See 144 Edinb. Rev., 353. "Soon after the commencement of the late war in Europe this Government submitted to the consideration of all maritime nations two principles for the security of neutral commerce; one, that the neutral flag should cover enemies' goods, except articles contraband of war; and the other, that neutral property on board merchant vessels of belligerents should be exempt from condemnation, with the exception of contraband articles. These were not presented as new rules of international law; having been generally claimed by neutrals, though not always admitted by belligerents. One of the parties to the warRussia as well as several neutral powers, promptly acceded to these propositions; and the two other principal belligerents, Great Britain and France, having consented to observe them for the present occasion, a favorable opportunity seemed to be presented for obtaining a general recognition of them both in Europe and America. "But Great Britain and France, in common with most of the states of Europe, while forbearing to reject, did not affirmatively act upon the overtures of the United States. "While the question was in this position, the representatives of Russia, France, Great Britain, Austria, Prussia, Sardinia, and Turkey, assembled at Paris, took into consideration the subject of maritime rights, and put forth a declaration containing the two principles which this Government had submitted nearly two years before, to the consideration of maritime powers, and adding thereto the following propositions : • Privateering is and remains abolished,' and 'blockades, in order to be binding, must be effective, that is to say, maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the coast of the enemy;' and to the declaration thus composed of four points, two of which had already been proposed by the United States, this Government has been invited to accede by all the powers represented at Paris, except Great Britain and Turkey. To the last of the two additional propositions, that in relation to blockades, there can certainly be no objection. It is merely the definition of what shall constitute the effectual investment of a blockaded place, a definition for which this Government has always contended, claiming indemnity for losses where a practical violation of the rule thus defined has been injurious to our commerce. As to the remaining article of the declaration of the conference of Paris, that privateering is and remains abolished,' I certainly cannot ascribe to the powers represented in the conference of Paris any but liberal and philanthropic views in the attempt to change the unquestionable rule of maritime law in regard to privateering. This proposition was doubtless intended to imply approval of the principle that private property upon the ocean, although it might belong to the citizen of a belligerent. state, should be exempted from capture; and had that proposition been so framed as to give full effect to the principle, it would have received my ready assent on behalf of the United States. But the measure proposed is inadequate to that purpose. It is true that, if adopted, private property upon the ocean would be withdrawn from one method of plunder, but left exposed, meanwhile, to another mode, which could be used with increased effectiveness. The aggressive capacity of great naval powers would be thereby augmented, while the defensive ability of others would be reduced. Though the surrender of the means of prosecuting hostilities by employing privateers, as proposed by the conference of Paris, is neutral in terms, yet, in practical effect, it would be the relinquishment of a right of little value to one class of states, but of essential importance to another and a far larger class. It ought not to have been anticipated that a measure so inadequate to the accomplishment of the proposed object, and so unequal in its operation, would receive the assent of all maritime powers. Private property would be still left to the depredations of the public armed cruisers. "I have expressed a readiness on the part of this Government to accede to all the principles contained in the declaration of the conference of Paris, provided that the one relating to the abandonment of privateering can be so amended as to effect the object for which, as is presumed, it was intended, the immunity of private property on the ocean from hostile capture. To effect this object, it is proposed to add to the declaration that 'privateering is and remains abolished,' the following amendment: "And that the private property of subjects and citizens of a belligerent on the high seas, shall be exempt from seizure by the public armed vessels of the other belligerent, except it be contraband. This amendment has been presented not only to the powers which have asked our assent to the declaration to abolish privateering, but to all other maritime states. Thus far it has not been rejected by any, and is favorably entertained by all which have made any communication in reply. "Several of the Governments, regarding with favor the proposition of the United States, have delayed definite action upon it only for the purpose of consulting with others parties to the conference of Paris. I have the satisfaction of stating, however, that the Emperor of Russia has entirely and explicitly approved of that modification, and will cooperate in endeavoring to obtain the assent of other powers; and that assurances of a similar purport have been received in relation to the disposition of the Emperor of the French." President Pierce, Fourth Annual Message, 1856, "It is unfortunate that various claims have been advanced and enforced by belligerent powers, in the prosecution of wars, for which it would be vain to seek any sufficient justification in the law of nations, and this consideration adds to the importance of some acceptable arrangement by which this source of apprehension may be removed and all danger of collision avoided by clearly defining the rights of the parties in all doubtful cases. "If the belligerent powers should substitute their own views for the fair provisions of the general law, the most serious consequences may be apprehended. It becomes all prudent Governments engaged in hostilities to take into consideration the actual condition of public sentiment, whenever measures of doubtful character are proposed, and satisfy themselves, not only that they are theoretically right, but that they are also practically expedient. "With respect to the protection of the vessel and cargo by the flag which waves over them, the United States look upon that principle as established, and they maintain that belligerent property on board a neutral ship is not liable to capture, and from existing indications they hope to receive the general concurrence of all commercial powers in this position. "The countries engaged in the pending war have adopted a much wiser policy. They hold on to the power of the flag to protect both vessel and cargo from all violation, and have proclaimed by public declarations their determination to respect the principle of exemption so happily established. And well is it, in the general interest, that this tribute has been rendered to the opinions of the age. The stopping of neutral vessels upon the high seas, their forcible entrance, and the overhauling and examination of their cargoes, the seizure of their freight at the will of a foreign officer, the frequent interruption of their voyages by compelling them to change their destination in order to seek redress, and above all the assumption of jurisdiction by a foreign armed party over what has been aptly termed the extension of the territory of an independent state, and with all the abuses which are so prone to accompany the exercise of unlimited power, where responsibility is remote, these are indeed serious obstructions' little likely to be submitted to in the present state of the world without a formidable effort to prevent them. "It is not necessary that a neutral power should have announced its adherence to this declaration (of Paris) in order to entitle its vessels to the immunity promised. * "The United States, indeed, declined to become a party to the Paris conference, though that circumstance does not affect the position they occupy." Mr. Cass, Sec. of State, to Mr. Mason, June 17, 1859. MSS. Inst., France. See 144 Ed. Rev., 353, |