Mr. Seward to Mr. Burnley.
Sir: On the 30th day of May last Commander Trenchard, of the United States steamer Rhode Island, while chasing the insurgent vessel the Margaret and Jessie, in the open sea, off the coast of Eleuthera, in the Bahamas, fired at her at least one cannon-shot, which is alleged to have reached the neutral coast Her Britannic Majesty’s government thereupon complained to this government that the Rhode Island had come and was within the distance of a marine league, or three miles from the shore, when the cannon-ball was fired. On investigating the complaint it did not satisfactorily appear that a cannon-ball was fired by the chaser within the distance of three miles from the land; but, on the other hand, it was established that a Parrott gun, which was discharged, had a range of Jive miles, and that a ball from it might have reached the neutral shore, although fired outside of the line of maritime jurisdiction. Upon this state of facts her Majesty’s government have, through you, expressed a hope that the United States will concur with the British government in opinion that vessels should not fire towards a neutral shore at a less distance than that which would insure shot not falling in neutral waters, or in a neutral territory. To this suggestion I at once replied, by order of the President, that the subject would be brought to the attention of other maritime powers, in order that, if any change of the existing construction of the maritime law should be made, it should first receive the assent of all the great maritime states.
There is reason to apprehend that the subject, although now abstractly presented, may soon become a practical question. Spain claims a maritime jurisdiction of six miles around the island of Cuba. In pressing this claim upon the consideration of the United States, Spain has used the argument that the modern improvement in gunnery renders the ancient limit of a marine league inadequate to the security of neutral states.
[Page 709]When it was understood at Paris that an engagement was likely to come off before Cherbourg, between the United States ship-of-war Kearsarge and the pirate Alabama, the French government remonstrated with both parties against firing within the actual reach of the shore by cannon-balls fired from their vessels, on the ground that the effect of a collision near the coast would be painful to France.
For these reasons I think that the subject may now be profitably discussed; but there are some preliminary considerations which it is deemed important to submit to her Majesty’s government: First. That the United States, being a belligerent, now when the other maritime states are at peace, are entitled to all the advantages of the existing construction of maritime law, and cannot, without serious inconvenience, forego them. Secondly. That the United States, adhering in war, no less than when they were in the enjoyment of peace, to their traditional liberality towards neutral rights, are not unwilling to come to an understanding upon the novel question which has thus been raised “in consequence of the improvement in gunnery.” But, thirdly. It is manifestly proper and important that any such new construction of the maritime law as Great Britain suggests should be reduced to the form of a precise proposition, and then that it should receive, in some manner, by treaty or otherwise, reciprocal and obligatory acknowledgments from the principal maritime powers.
Upon a careful examination of the note you have addressed to me, the suggestions of her Majesty’s government seem to me to be expressed in too general terms to be made the basis of a discussion. Suppose, by way of illustration, that the utmost range of cannon now is five miles, are her Majesty’s government understood to propose that the marine boundary of neutral jurisdiction, which is now three miles from the coast, should be extended two miles beyond the present limit? Again, if cannon-shot are to be fired so as to fall not only not upon neutral land, but also not upon neutral waters, then supposing the range of cannon-shot to be five miles, are her Majesty’s government to be understood as proposing that cannon-shot shall not be fired within a distance of eight miles from the neutral territory? Finally, shall measure-distances be excluded altogether from the statement, and the proposition to be agreed upon be left to extend with the increased range of gunnery; or shall there be a pronounced limit of jurisdiction, whether five miles, eight miles, or any other measured limit ?
I have to request that you will submit these suggestions to your government, to the end that they may define, with necessary precision, the amendment of maritime law which they think important, and upon which they are willing to agree with the other great maritime powers.
I have the honor to be, with high consideration, sir, your most obedient servant,
J. Hume Burnley, Esq., &c., &c, &c,