Lord Lyons to Mr. Seward.
Sir: Her Majesty’s government have considered the notes respecting the restrictions upon trade between New York and British colonies which you did me the honor to address to me on the 11th March, 18th April, 4th June, 8th June, and 11th June last.
Her Majesty’s government desire, in the first place, to observe, with regard to your note of the 18th March, that it is manifestly no answer to the objections of a neutral and friendly power that treaty obligations have been violated by the state which was the other party to the treaty, to allege that a municipal law of that state has rendered this Violation necessary. No municipal law can justify a departure from the obligations of a treaty so far as the other party to that treaty is concerned.
Nor can it be urged, in answer to the objections of her Majesty’s government to the exaction from British subjects of bonds on shipments of goods to British colonies, that the same bonds would be exacted from American citizens trading to any ports foreign or domestic from which supplies could be sent to the enemy of the United States. All citizens of the United States are, of course, by virtue of their allegiance, subject in all parts of the world, whether foreign or domestic, and in all their dealings of whatever nature, to the legislation of their own country. But the subjects of Great Britain trading with the United States owe no obedience to the legislation of the United States, except while they happen to be within the limits of United States territory. The attempt by legislation in the United States to make the freedom of trade between British subjects and the United States dependent upon conditions applicable not to their dealings or conduct while within United States territory, but to their dealings and conduct in their own country, or in other countries and places to which the jurisdiction of the United States does not extend, is, as her Majesty’s government have constantly affirmed, a departure from treaty engagements and an encroachment upon the rightful sovereignty of the Queen of Great Britain.
The extension of this novel system of restrictive bonds to Jamaica is regarded by her Majesty’s government as a consequence of the unjust and untenable principle upon which the system is founded, and as constituting an additional practical grievance.
The letter of the collector of customs at New York, of which a copy was communicated to me with your note of the 11th of June, and of which the United States Secretary of the Treasury expressed his approval, seems to her Majesty’s government to place beyond all doubt the justice of the opinion which they have before expressed, that this system of exacting bonds is resorted to as a means of giving efficacy to a blockade which is of itself inadequate.
The reason expressly assigned by the collector for this exaction is that what he calls “an illegal traffic” in articles of food, &c, is carried on between the principal ports of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and the West Indies, and ports and places under the control of persons in rebellion against the authority of the United States, and that “it is believed that such illegal trade would be carried on to a large amount” if these bonds were not exacted.
Her Majesty’s government have instructed me to remark to you, that if the blockade of the southern coasts cannot be rendered efficient by the naval power of the United States without recourse to these irregular and unprecedented methods of harassing and intercepting within the United States the ordinary trade of neutral powers, those powers might well be justified on their part in treating this as a virtual admission that the blockade is not adequately or legally [Page 668] maintained, and in declining under such circumstances any longer to recognize its legality.
I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obedient, humble servant,
Hon. William H. Seward, &c., &c., &c.