Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.
[From the
London Times, August 20,
1866.]
The Neutrality Laws.
To the Editor of the Times:
Sir: The recent intelligence from the
United States gives occasion for very serious reflections. It
appears that the House of Representatives has unanimously passed a
bill repealing the stringent provisions of the neutrality laws, and
modifying the penalties for their violation.
It is true that the bill has not passed the Senate; but the report of
the committee which prepared the bill, and the readiness of the
House of Representatives to pass it, afford a very significant and a
very unsatisfactory indication of the feelings with which this
country looked upon by a large section of the people of the United
States.
The professed object of the bill is to assimilate the municipal law
of the United States to that of England so far as regards the
precautions taken to preserve neutrality and the penalties imposed
for its violation. Of course, we have no right to complain that the
United State should seek to place their legislation on the same
footing as our own. But the report of the committee shows very
clearly that the desire for a change in the law had its origin in a
feeling of resentment on account of the depredations on American
commerce committed by the Alabama and other vessels built in British
ports. The Americans assert—whether justly not I need not now stop
to argue—that they have reason to complain of the course taken be
the government of this country during their late civil war. They say
that either our municipal law was not adequate for the preservation
of neutrality, or that it was not enforced with sufficient
stringency; that their trade suffered in consequence, and that we
have no right
[Page 175]
expect that
they should take upon themselves obligations which we refuse to
recognize. Now, it may be that some of the provisions of the
American law which it is proposed to repeal are inefficient, or that
they are superfluous, and impose unnecessary restrictions upon
legitimate trade. But, as regards our own municipal law, we have
high authority for asserting that it is hot adequate for the
maintenance of a strict neutrality. Lord Russell, when foreign
secretary, declared that it was “scandalous” that vessels like the
Alabama should be able to issue from British ports, and to prey upon
the commerce of a friendly power; and it is notorious that the
government overstepped the law in ordering the detention of the
Birkenhead rams. It is equally notorious that we should have been
involved in a war with the United States if these vessels had been
allowed to proceed to sea. There can be no better evidence that our
neutrality laws are in an unsatisfactory state and require revision.
And if it is our duty so to amend our law as to enable the
government to compel British subjects to abstain from interfering in
the quarrels of nations which may be at war with one another, though
on friendly terms with ourselves; I think it is obvious that it is
our interest, if possible, to induce other countries, and especially
the great maritime powers, to amend their neutrality laws, so as to
make them as stringent as our own.
But the recent proceedings of the House of Representatives show how
hopeless it is to expect any co-operation with us in this direction
on the part of the United States so long as the relations between
the two countries continue on their present footing. A formal demand
for compensation on account of the depredations committed on
American commerce by the Alabama and other vessels built in British
ports has been made by the government of the United States: it has
been peremptorily rejected by our own government. The government of
the United States have not abandoned the claim, but reserve the
right to press it whenever a favorable opportunity may arise. It
seems to me that, so far as we are concerned, the question could not
possibly have been left in a more unsatisfactory position. I confess
I have always thought that Lord Bussell committed a great mistake in
refusing to refer the claims of the United States to arbitration.
Our object should have been not only to maintain friendly relations
with the United States, and to conciliate the people of that
country, but to set aside as far as possible any precedent in favor
or of what has been called “free trade in ships of war” which might
have been created by the escape of the Alabama and other vessels of
that description. Now, it appears to me that we might have attained
both these objects if we had agreed to arbitration. We might have
come to an agreement with the United States as to the principles
which shall govern the conduct of neutrals towards belligerents, and
the legislation which would be required for carrying out those
principles. And, so far at least as regards maritime law, it is not
too much to say that if once this country and the United states
should agree to act in concert the rest of the world must follow in
their wake.
I hope it is not yet too late to retrieve Lord Russell’s errors. We
have a new government; he have a foreign secretary who is not
committed to the policy of his predecessor. The government of the
United States on their part have shown by their acts that they are
animated by the most friendly feelings towards this country.
I trust that our government may not be deterred by any feeling of
false pride from using as best efforts to settle our outstanding
differences with the United States, and at the same me to come to an
understanding with them as to the future rights and obligations of
neutrals.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
