Mr. Dayton to Mr.
Seward.
No. 22.]
Paris,
July 30, 1861.
Sir: On the 21st of this month I received a
note from Mr. Adams, a copy of which, marked A, is hereunto annexed,
apprising me that, under renewed instructions from the government at
Washington, he had proposed to the British government, on the 11th of
this month, to negotiate on the basis of the project which had been
transmitted to him soon after his arrival at London, touching the four
points of the declaration of the convention at Paris in 1856, and
inquiring whether I felt empowered and disposed to remove the obstacle
of delay by entering at once into an arrangement for simultaneous action
with the Emperor of the French. Accompanying his note was the copy of a
communication from Lord John Russell, dated July 18, 1861, of which I
send a copy, (though I doubt not Mr. Adams has anticipated me in doing
so.) Feeling the great importance of this matter, and mindful of your
request that we should confer together when we could, I immediately went
over to London.
I found, by the date of your renewed instructions to Mr. Adams, that you
did not intend the negotiation upon this question should be conducted at
Washington, but that it should be done on this side; and further, that
with a full knowledge of all the facts, the original purpose of acceding
to the treaty of Paris of 1856 was adhered to. Under these
circumstances, I felt it my duty to say to Mr. Adams that there need be
no delay on my account.
[Page 237]
To
facilitate matters, while I was yet in London I made to him, in writing,
a communication to that effect, of which I send you a copy, marked
B.
You will observe that I ask Mr. Adams, in this communication, whether
Great Britain has, at his instance, or otherwise, considered the Marcy
amendment? This was done after conference with him, and after he had
told me what would be his answer. He said that after I had made the
proposition here it was considered at London, and Lord John Russell,
upon his (Mr. Adams) suggesting this amendment to the treaty there, said
at once that the principle was inadmissible; that the British government
would not assent to it. This answer I thought it most desirable we
should have on record, and therefore made a suggestion in my note which
Mr. Adams said he would adopt. Great Britain, so far as I know, never
has, before this, distinctly placed herself on record against the
adoption of that humane and noble principle as a provision of maritime
law.
I was much gratified that I had gone over to London. I felt a sense of
relief in conferring with Mr. Adams upon questions of so much
importance, and got knowledge of some facts of which I had no knowledge
before. I was in England but two days, and then returned immediately to
Paris. I missed, however, the mail by the steamer of last week, which I
much regretted.
With much respect, your obedient servant,
His Excellency Wm. H. Seward.
[Untitled]
Foreign
Office, July 18,
1861.
Sir: Upon considering your proposition of
Saturday last I have two remarks to make:
- 1.
- The course hitherto followed has been a simple
notification of adherence to the declaration of Paris by
those states which were not originally parties to it.
- 2.
- The declaration of Paris was one embracing various powers,
with a view to general concurrence upon questions of
maritime law, and not an insulated engagement between two
powers only.
Her Majesty’s government are willing to waive entirely any objection
on the first of these heads, and to accept the form which the
government of the United States prefers.
With regard to the second, her Majesty’s government arc of opinion
that they should be assured that the United States are ready to
enter into a similar engagement with France, and with other maritime
powers, who are parties to the declaration of Paris, and do not
propose to make singly and separately a convention with Great
Britain only.
But as much time might be required for separate communications
between the government of the United States and all the maritime
powers who were parties to or have acceded to the declaration of
Paris, her Majesty’s government would deem themselves authorized to
advise the Queen to conclude a convention on this subject with the
President of the United States so soon as they shall have been
informed that a similar convention has been agreed upon, and is
ready for signature, between the President of the United States and
the Emperor of the French, so that the two conventions might be
signed simultaneously and on the same day.
I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your
most obedient, humble servant,
Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &c., &c., &c.
[Page 238]
B.
Sir: Yours of the 19th instant, enclosing a
copy of Lord John Russell’s of the 18th instant, was duly received
by me at Paris. My powers to negotiate with France an accession by
the United States to the treaty of Paris of 1856 are of the same
general character as your own. Under those powers and the
instructions received by me from Washington I did propose such
accession to the government of France, but with an addition to the
first clause of the following words: “And the private property of
subjects or citizens of one of the belligerents shall not be seized,
upon the high seas, by the vessels of war of the other belligerents,
unless it may be contraband of war.” To this proposition I received
an answer from the French minister of foreign affairs, dated June
20, 1861, the substance of which was that the French government
declined to consider the proposition (inasmuch as it differed from
the provisions of the treaty of Paris) unless it was addressed to
all the powers who were parties to that convention. In the meantime
I saw it stated in the public press of Europe that the British,
French, Spanish, and Belgian governments had made a declaration of
their intentions as respects their conduct towards the United States
government and the insurgents of the south, and I was not certain
whether our government would desire, under the circumstances, that
the proposition to accede to the treaty in question, without the
amendment, should be made.
Your renewed instructions to proceed on the basis of that treaty are
subsequent to and with a full knowledge by our government of the
facts hereinbefore stated.
Under these circumstances, therefore, I feel authorized and required
to proceed without further delay. Before, however, I shall
communicate further with the French government, I wish to know
whether Great Britain has, at your instance, or otherwise,
considered the amendment of the treaty hereinbefore referred to.
Before abandoning the hope of obtaining the incorporation, in our
code of maritime law, of that great and humane principle, it seems
to me desirable that we should have distinct assurance that the
principle will not be admitted. I do not recollect that Great
Britain has any time, heretofore, answered distinctly, if at all,
upon that proposition, but seems rather to have avoided it. I think
it desirable that that answer should be of record, (either in a note
from or to you,) so that the responsibility may attach, through all
time, where it properly belongs.
Immediately upon the receipt of your answer I will enclose a copy of
your notes, in connexion with that from Lord John Russell to the
French government, and, as soon as heard from, advise you of its
reply.
Respectfully, your obedient servant,
His Excellency Chas. F. Adams.
