Mr. Stuart to Mr. Seward.
The undersigned, her Britannic Majesty’s charge d’affaires to the United States of America, has received instructions from her Britannic Majesty’s principal secretary of state for foreign affairs to address to the Secretary of State of the United States a further representation respecting the restrictions imposed by the United States government on trade between New York and ports in the British West Indies.
The undersigned is instructed to say that her Majesty’s government consider the question to be one of great importance, and that, however desirous they may be of making every allowance for the difficulties of the position of the United States government, it is impossible for them to acquiesce in the system of interference with the legitimate trade of Great Britain which is now practiced by the United States authorities, such interference being not only in contravention of the existing treaties between Great Britain and the United States, but being also contrary to the established principles of international law.
It appears that British vessels lawfully trading between New York and the Bahamas are, in some instances, refused clearances at New York, and in others, after having been regularly cleared, with full knowledge by the United States authorities of the articles on board, are detained and searched, and are required either to reland portions of their cargoes, or to give bonds that no part of the cargo shall, at any indefinite time, be used by the enemies of the United States. And these proceedings are not claimed to be prescribed by any general law or regulation of commerce, but are avowed to be wholly discretionary with the collector of customs, to be enforced by him whensoever he shall entertain the suspicion and belief that the real destination of the cargo is, mediately or immediately, to some port in the possession of the enemies of the United States, or if he shall be satisfied that “there is imminent danger that the goods, wares, and merchandise, of whatever description, laden on such vessels, will fall into the possession or under the control of the insurgents,” &c. The collector of customs, in his report of the 12th of June, states that, “in the exercise of the discretion devolved upon him as an officer of the government of a sovereign people, he had prohibited the shipment of coals, and dry goods, and shoes, and quinine, and other drugs, and tin ware, and munitions of war, and sundry other articles, to Nassau and the West Indies, and other foreign ports, when he had reason to suspect that they were intended, by individual enterprise, or the special contracts of British subjects, to contribute directly to the welfare of the enemies of the United States.”
The undersigned is instructed to state that her Majesty’s government cannot call to mind any principle of international jurisprudence, nor any precedent approved by international law, to justify such interference with the trade of neutrals.
The undersigned would submit to the consideration of the cabinet at Washington that trade between Great Britain and the United States, at least as to ports and places in the undisturbed possession of the United States, is not in any degree affected by the state of war in which the United States are engaged, [Page 294] and, moreover, that trade between Great Britain and an enemy of the United States (the former preserving a strict neutrality or indifference between the belligerent parties) can be affected only in the manner and to the extent prescribed by the international law of blockade.
The United States government will admit that shipments similar to those now subjected to interference from New York to Nassau and other British ports, if made in time of peace, could not be prohibited without giving manifest cause of just complaint to Great Britain, especially while such shipments remain open to other nations not having with the United States treaties of a more favorable nature. It follows that to prohibit such shipments to British subjects while permitting them to the subjects of other nations is to assume a state of quasi hostility to Great Britain on account of geographical or other circumstances supposed to mix her up with interests of the enemy of the United States.
The doctrine assumed by the United States authorities would seem to be that goods which ordinarily may be lawfully shipped from the United States by British subjects to certain British ports in British bottoms may be embargoed, if, in the judgment of an inferior officer, such as the collector of a port, there is imminent danger that on their passage to the British port the enemy will unlawfully seize them, or that, having safely arrived at that port, they may, with greater facility, be exported thence to the enemy, or that they may, in any way, “fall into the possession of, or under the control of, the enemy.”
The undersigned is instructed to say that her Majesty’s government cannot assent to such a doctrine.
Great Britain has declared her neutrality in the contest now raging between the United States government and the so-styled Confederate States. She is, consequently, entitled to the rights of neutrals, and to insist that her commerce shall not be interrupted, except upon the principles which ordinarily apply to neutrals. These principles authorize nothing more than the maintenance of a strict and actual blockade of the enemy’s ports by such force as shall, at the least, make it evidently dangerous to attempt to enter them. But the fact of a neutral ship having succeeded in evading a blockade affords no ground for international complaint, nor is it an offence which can be punished upon any subsequent seizure of the ship after she shall have successfully run the blockade. Her Majesty’s government consider that it would be introducing a novel and dangerous principle in the law of nations if belligerents, instead of maintaining an effectual blockade, were to be allowed, upon mere suspicion or belief, well or ill-founded, that certain merchandise could ultimately find its way into the enemy’s country, to cut off all or any commerce between their commercial allies and themselves. This would be to substitute for the effectual blockade recognized by the law of nations a comparatively cheap and easy method of interrupting the trade of neutrals. But when this illegal substitute for such a blockade is applied to a particular nation on account of the geographical position of its territories, or for other reasons, while the same ports of the belligerent are open for like exports by other nations, the case assumes a still graver complexion.
The undersigned is further instructed to say that, although the question raised by this interference with the trade of Great Britain is as to what are the international obligations of the United States towards Great Britain as a neutral country, and not as to what may be at any given moment the local laws of the United States, which laws cannot override treaty rights, it may not be amiss to point out that the system of interference complained of is, apparently, not in conformity, even, with the terms of the act of Congress under which the treasury instructions were issued. That act authorizes the refusal of clearances to foreign vessels only when the Secretary of the Treasury should “have satisfactory reasons to believe that the goods, or some part of them, were intended for ports or places in possession or under control of insurgents against the [Page 295] United States,” and authorizes bonds to be taken only to secure the delivery of the cargo at the destination for which it is cleared, and in order that no part should be “used in affording aid or comfort to any person or parties in insurrection against the authority of the United States.”
If this latter condition is to be understood, as in reasonable construction it must, of any use preceding delivery at the specified destination, it may not be objectionable; but if meant to make the master and owner responsible for any subsequent use of the articles constituting the cargo after they have passed beyond their power or control, it is unreasonable and perfectly inadmissible. With respect to the apprehension of “imminent danger that goods, &c., may fall into the possession or under the control of the insurgents,” it may also be observed that the act of Congress appears to contain no provisions whatever applicable to any exports by sea from the United States; the third section, which relates to that subject, being strictly confined to “importations into any port of the United States,” and to “transportation upon any railroad, turnpike, or other road or means of transportation within the United States.” It would therefore appear that what has been done with respect to this point is not only contrary to the obligations of treaties and international law, but also beyond the letter of the special and extraordinary enactments passed by Congress itself.
The President cannot expect that Great Britain should allow British trade with her own colonies by way of the United States, or the trade between her own colonies and the United States, to be fettered by restrictions and conditions inconsistent with treaties between the United States and Great Britain, and repugnant to international law.
Her Majesty’s government expect, therefore, that the President, in the exercise of his discretion, will prohibit the imposing of all such restrictions and conditions as have been complained of in the present note.
The undersigned avails himself of this opportunity to renew to the Secretary of State the assurance of his highest consideration.