Papers Relating to Foreign Affairs, Accompanying the Annual Message of the President to the Third Session of the Fortieth Congress

Mr. Moran to Mr. Seward

No. 42.]

Legation of the United States, London, June 3, 1868.

Sir: Several of the London newspapers of last Monday contained the substance of the report of the royal commissioners appointed in January, 1867, to inquire into the character and working of what is known here as the foreign enlistment act; and yesterday the report itself, and its accompanying papers appeared in the form, of a blue book. I have the honor to transmit four copies herewith, as well as copies of several of the most influential London journals, with remarks upon the amendments proposed by the commissioners. That some of these will be adopted by Parliament when the act comes up for alteration is tolerably certain. Mr. Yernon Harcourt, as you will perceive, dissents from certain of the recommendations of his fellow commissioners and gives his reasons in a rather lengthy paper.

The memorandum by Mr. Abbott of the foreign office on the neutrality laws of the United States goes somewhat into detail, but I have not yet had time to give it a careful examination or to form an opinion of its merits.

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

BENJAMIN MORAN.

Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.

Report of the neutrality laws commissioners, together with an appendix containing reports from foreign states and other documents.

[Presented to both houses of Parliament by command of her Majesty.]

CONTENTS.

Commission.

Report.

Reasons given by Mr. Vernon Harcourt for dissenting from certain portions of the report.

Appendix:

I. British foreign enlistment act.

II. United States foreign enlistment act.

III Historical memorandum, by Mr. Abbott.

IV Reports from foreign States.

Proclamations, &c. issued by several foreign States on breaking out of the civil war in America.

V. British proclamations of neutrality.

VI Regulations and instructions published by her Majesty’s government during the civil war in America.

VII Memorial from Liverpool shipowners suggesting an alteration in the foreign enlistment act.

Commission.

Victoria, by the grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland Queen, defender of the faith.

To our right trusty and well-beloved Councillor Robert Monsey Baron Cranworth; our right trusty and well-beloved Richard Monckton Baron Houghton; our right trusty and well-beloved Councillor Sir Hugh McCalmont Cairns, knight, a judge of the court of appeal in chancery; our right trusty and well-beloved Councillor Stephen Lushington, doctor of civil law, judge of the high court of admiralty; our right trusty and well-beloved Councillor Sir William Erle, knight; our trusty and well-beloved Sir George William Wilshere Bramwell, knight, one of the barons of the court of exchequer; our trusty and well-beloved Sir Robert Joseph Phillimore, knight, doctor of civil law; our advocate general; our trusty and well-beloved Sir Roundell Palmer, knight; our trusty and well-beloved Travers Twiss, doctor of civil law; our trusty and well-beloved William George Granville Venables Vernon Harcourt, esquire, one of our counsel learned in the law; our trusty and well-beloved Thomas Baring, esquire; our trusty and well-beloved William Henry Gregory, esquire, and our trusty and well-beloved William Edward Forster, esquire, greeting:

Whereas we have deemed it expedient that a commission should forthwith issue to inquire into and consider the character, working, and effect of the laws of this realm, available for the enforcement of neutrality during the existence of hostilities between other States with whom we are at peace; and to inquire and report whether any and what changes ought to be made in such laws for the purpose of giving to them increased efficiency and bringing them into full conformity with our international obligations:

Now know ye that we, reposing great trust and confidence in your knowledge and ability, have authorized and appointed, and do by these presents authorize and appoint you the said Robert Monsey Baron Cranworth, Richard Monckton Baron Houghton, Sir Hugh McCalmont Cairns, Stephen Lushington, Sir William Erle, Sir George William Wilshere Bramwell, Sir Robert Joseph Phillimore, Sir Roundell Palmer, Travers Twiss, William George Granville Venables Vernon Harcourt, Thomas Baring, William Henry Gregory, and William Edward Forster, to be our commissioners for the purposes aforesaid.

And for the better effecting the purposes of this our commission, we do by these presents give and grant to you, or any five or more of you, full power and authority to call before you such persons as you shall judge likely to afford you any information upon the subject of this our commission, and also to call for, have access to, and examine all such books, documents, registers, and records as may afford the fullest information on the subject, and to inquire of and concerning the premises by all other lawful ways and means whatsoever.

And we do by these presents will and ordain that this our commission shall continue in full force and virtue, and that you our said commissioners, or any five or more of you, may from time to time proceed in the execution thereof, and of every matter and thing therein contained, although the same be not continued from time to time by adjournment.

And we do further ordain that you, or any five or more of you, may have liberty to report your proceedings under this commission from time to time, if you should judge it expedient so to do.

And our further will and pleasure is that you do, with as little delay as possible, report to us under your hands and seals, or under the hands and seals of any five or more of you, your opinion upon the several points herein submitted for your consideration.

And for your assistance in the due execution of this our commission, we have made choice of our trusty and well-beloved Francis Phipps Onslow, esquire, barrister-at-law, to be secretary to this our commission, and to attend you, whose services and assistance we require you to use from time to time as occasion may require.

Given at our court at St. James’s the 30th day of January, 1867, in the 30th year of our reign.

By her Majesty’s command.

S. H. WALPOLE.

Report.

To the Queen’s most excellent Majesty:

We, your Majesty’s commissioners, appointed “to inquire into and consider the character, working, and effect of the laws of this realm available for the enforcement of neutrality during the existence of hostilities between other states with whom your Majesty is at peace, and to inquire and report whether any and what changes ought to be made in such laws for the purpose of giving to them increased efficiency and bringing them into full conformity with your Majesty’s international obligations,” have now to state to your Majesty that we have held twenty-four meetings, and having inquired into and considered the subject so referred to us, have agreed to the following report:

The statute now available for the enforcement of neutrality during the existence of hostilities between states with whom your Majesty is at peace is the 59 Geo. III, c. 69, commonly called the “foreign enlistment act.” The title of that act is “An Act to prevent the enlisting or engagement of his Majesty’s subjects to serve in foreign service, and the fitting out or equipping in his Majesty’s dominions vessels for warlike purposes without his Majesty’s license.” And the preamble runs thus: “Whereas the enlistment or engagement of his Majesty’s subjects to serve in war in foreign service without his Majesty’s license, and the fitting out and equipping and arming of vessels by his Majesty’s subjects without his Majesty’s license for warlike operations in or against the dominions or territories of any foreign prince, state, potentate, or persons exercising or assuming to exercise the powers of government in or over any foreign country, colony, province, or part of any province, or against the ships, goods, or merchandise of any foreign prince, state, potentate, or persons as aforesaid, or other subjects, maybe prejudicial to and tend to endanger the peace and welfare of this kingdom; and whereas the laws in force are not sufficiently effectual for preventing the same.”

This, then, being the statute directly available in this country for the enforcement of neutrality, our duty has been to inquire and report whether it is susceptible of any and what amendments, and we are of opinion that it might be made more efficient by the enactment of provisions founded upon the following resolutions:

I. That it is expedient to amend the foreign enlistment act by adding to its provisions a prohibition against the preparing or fitting out in any part of her Majesty dominions of any naval or military expedition to proceed from thence against the territory or dominions of any foreign state with whom her Majesty shall not then beat war.

II. That the first paragraph of section seven of the foreign enlistment act should be amended to the following effect:

If any person shall within the limits’ of her Majesty’s dominions—

(a) Fit out, arm, dispatch, or cause to be dispatched, any ship with intent or knowledge that the same shall or will be employed in the military or naval service of any foreign power in any war then being waged by such power against the subjects or property of any foreign belligerent power with whom her Majesty shall not then be at war;

(b.) Or shall within her Majesty’s dominions build or equip any ship with the intent that the same shall, after being fitted out and armed either within or beyond her Majesty’s dominions, be employed as aforesaid;

(c.) Or shall commence or attempt to do, or shall aid in doing, any of the acts aforesaid, every person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor.

III. That in order to enable the executive government more effectually to restrain and prevent attempted offenses against section 7 of the foreign enlistment act, additional provisions to the following effect should be inserted in the statute:

(a.) That if a secretary of state shall be satisfied that there is a reasonable and probable cause for believing that a ship which is within the limits of her Majesty’s dominions has been or is being built, equipped, fitted out, or armed contrary to the enactment, and is about to be taken beyond the limits, or that the ship is about to be dispatched contrary to the enactment, such secretary of state shall have power to issue a warrant stating that there is such a reasonable and probable cause for believing as above aforesaid, and upon such warrant the commissioners of customs or any other person or persons named in the warrant shall have power to arrest and search such ship, and to detain the same until it shall be either condemned or released by process of law, or in manner hereinafter mentioned.

(b.) That the power hereinbefore given to a secretary of state may, in parts of her Majesty’s dominions beyond the seas, be exercised by the governor or other person having chief authority.

(c.) That power be given to the owner of the ship or his agent to apply to the court of admiralty of the place where the ship is detained, or, it there be no such court there, to the nearest court of admiralty for its release.

(d.) That the court shall put the matter of such detention in course of trial between the applicant and the Crown, with usual admiralty appeal to the privy council.

(e.) That if the owner shall establish to the satisfaction of the court that the ship was not and is not being built, equipped, fitted out, or armed, or intended to be dispatched, contrary to the enactment, the ship shall be released and restored.

(f.) That if the owner shall fail to establish to the satisfaction of the court that the ship was not, and is not being, built, equipped, fitted out, or armed, or intended to be dispatched, contrary to the enactment, then the ship shall be detained till released, by order of the secretary of state; nevertheless the court may, if it shall think fit, order its release, provided the owner shall give security to the satisfaction of the court that the ship shall not be employed contrary to the enactment, and provided that no proceedings are pending for its condemnation.

(g.) That if the court shall be of opinion that there was not reasonable and probable cause for the detention, and if no such cause shall appear in the course of the proceedings, the court shall have power to declare that the owner ought to be indemnified by the payment of costs and damages, which in that case shall be payable out of any moneys legally applicable by the commissioners of the treasury for that purpose.

(h.) That any warrant of the secretary of state shall be laid before Parliament.

(i.) That the proceedings herein provided shall not affect the power of the Crown to proceed if it thinks fit to condemnation of the ship.

(k.) That the following exceptions be made from this resolution:

Any foreign commissioned ship.

Any foreign non-commissioned ship dispatched from this country after having come within it under stress of weather or in the course of a peaceful voyage, and upon which ship no fitting out or equipping of a warlike character shall have taken place in this country.

IV. That it is expedient to make the act of hiring, engaging, or procuring any person within her Majesty’s dominions to go on board any ship, or to embark from any part of her Majesty’s dominions, by means of false representations as to the service in which such persons are intended to be employed, with intent on the part of the person so hiring, engaging, or procuring as aforesaid, that the persons so hired, engaged, or procured as aforesaid shall be employed in any land or sea service prohibited by section 2 of the foreign enlistment act, a misdemeanor, punishable like other misdemeanors under the same section.

V. That the forms of pleading in informations and indictments under the foreign enlistment act should be simplified.

VI. That if, during the continuance of any war in which her Majesty shall be neutral, any prize not being entitled to recognition as a commissioned ship of war shall be brought within the jurisdiction of the Crown by any person acting on behalf of or under the authority of any belligerent government, which prize shall have been captured by any vessel fitted out during the same war for the service of such government, whether as a public or a private vessel of war, in violation of the laws for the protection of the neutrality of this realm, or if any such prize shall be brought within the jurisdiction as aforesaid by any subject of the Crown, or of such belligerent government, having come into possession of such prize with notice of the unlawful fitting out of the capturing vessel, such prize should upon due proof in the admiralty courts at the suit of the original owner of such prize or his agent, or of any person authorized in that behalf by the government of the state to which such owner belongs, be restored.

VII. That in time of war no vessel employed in the military or naval service of any belligerent which shall have been built, equipped, fitted out, armed, or dispatched contrary to the enactment, should be admitted into any port of her Majesty’s dominions.

In making the foregoing recommendations we have not felt ourselves bound to consider whether we were exceeding what could actually be required by international law, but we are of opinion that if those recommendations should be adopted, the municipal law of this realm available for the enforcement of neutrality will derive increased efficiency, and will, so far as we can see, have been brought into full conformity with your Majesty’s international obligations.

We have thought it better to present our recommendations in the form of general resolutions laying down the principles on which legislation should be framed rather than to attempt to draw up in detail the precise form of the statute.

We have subjoined, in an appendix to this report, certain papers relating to the laws of foreign countries on this subject, which have been communicated to us by your Majesty’s secretary of state for foreign affairs, together with a short historical memorandum prepared by Mr. Abbott^* for our information, and some other documents illustrative of the subject.

All which we submit to your Majesty’s gracious consideration.

CRANWORTH. [l. s.]

HOUGHTON. [l. s.]

CAIRNS. [l. s.]

W. ERLE. [l. s.]

G. W. W. BRAMWELL. [l. s.]

R. J. PHILLIMORE. [l. s.]

ROUNDELL PALMER. [l. s.]

T. TWISS. [l. s.]

W. VERNON HARCOURT. [l. s.]

T. BARING. [l. s.]

W. H. GREGORY. [l. s.]

W. E. FORSTER. [l. s.]

Dr. Lushington did not sign the report, as he was, from indisposition, unable to attend the meetings after June, 1867.

Reasons given by Mr. Vernon Harcourt for dissenting from certain portions of the report.

Though the undersigned has signed the report, he wishes it to be understood that he has only signed it subject to the following observations:

In the main part of the recommendations of the report I entirely concur, more especially in those which have for their object to increase the efficiency of the power of the executive government to restrain attempted violations of the neutrality of the country.

The portions of the report with respect to the policy of which I entertain considerable doubt are those parts of resolution II., § b, and resolution III., § a, the first of which extends the punitive power of the law, and the second the preventive authority of the executive, to the building of ships, apart from the question of their arming or dispatch from the realm.

My apprehension is lest such an extension of the law should unnecessarily—and if unnecessarily then unwisely—interfere with the shipbuilding trade of the country. It is needless to enlarge on the capital importance of that trade. As a commercial question it is one of the greatest consequence. It is perhaps, the trade in which alone Great Britain still retains an unrivaled superiority. Everything which tends unnecessarily to hamper or embarrass it must be regarded with suspicion and adopted with caution. It is not of course argued that the interests of a trade, however valuable, should not yield to considerations of imperial necessity, and of international obligation, if there be such an obligation, But this particular branch of trade has a special national value which belongs to hardly any other. Upon it depend in no small degree those naval resources which constitute the main defense of the realm. I believe it is the fact that at the present moment by far the greater proportion of the existing ironclad navy of Great Britain has been constructed in the yards of private shipbuilders. These private yards have been created and are maintained at no expense to the nation by the custom of foreign states. Most of the powers of Europe rely for their naval construction on the private yards of English shipbuilders. In this respect, therefore, apart from the commercial question, the nature of this trade involves public consequences of the utmost political importance. The monopoly of the construction of the iron-clad navies of the world has become a new and gigantic arm of our maritime superiority. England has become, and is daily still more becoming, the naval dockyard of Europe. One effect of discouraging this trade must be either that foreign powers will construct for themselves, or else that some other nation whose restrictions are less rigid and whose trade is more free shall construct for them. Either alternative will deprive Great Britain of a great and special national advantage, which she now enjoys owing to her manufacturing skill and her peculiar resources in coal and iron. If England should unhappily be engaged in an European war, we should lose the incalculable benefit of the control we now possess over the naval reserves of Europe. All these reservoirs of naval construction which the demands of foreign governments at present support in this country, can now in case of need be diverted from the foreign supply and be made immediately available for our own defense. If this trade is discouraged and possibly destroyed, the consequences are obvious. Foreign governments must build for themselves the vessels we now build for them. They will, therefore, be independent of this country in a manner which they now are not. Or they will build elsewhere, and the country to which they resort will then acquire the advantage we shall lose. This will be the first result. But the indirect effect on our own resources will be equally serious. At present, in time of peace, we are able to limit ourselves to comparatively moderate, though still enormously expensive, public establishments, because we know that in time of war the private yards will supplement our resources to an almost unlimited extent. But, if this private trade should cease or be seriously diminished, we must keep up constantly in time of peace such establishments as will be adequate to our utmost wants in time of war. The whole reserve of constructing power which we now possess in the private yards must be supplied by the public establishments. And consequently all that expenditure in plant, machinery, and the maintenance of skilled workmen, which is now defrayed by the custom of the foreigner in the private yards, must in future be permanently sustained out of the public taxation. Few people conversant with the subject will dispute that if the yards which now manufacture iron-clads for the world were abolished, the navy estimates must be largely increased in order to establish and keep on foot equal means of construction in the public dock-yards. We have a dozen private yards in the country which could in a limited time turn out vessels as powerful as any in the English navy, and which have in fact constructed many of the best ships we possess. Relying on this reserve of producing power we are able to economize our resources and to diminish our stock. But if these establishments cease we must always be prepared to supply their place at a far greater cost to the country. It is also deserving of consideration that the competition of these private yards among one another and with the government dock-yards, keeps up probably a higher standard of excellence than could be obtained by mere official supervision.

It will, therefore, be seen that the question is by no means one of the interest of private ship-builders, but does in fact involve a great question of national resource and public economy.

It is worthy of remark that when in the year 1817 the Congress of the Unite d States were called upon to alter and amend their foreign enlistment act, the bill as reported by the Committee on Foreign Affairs in the House of Representatives bore the following title:

“A bill to prevent citizens of the United States from selling vessels of war to the citizens or subjects of any foreign power, and more effectually to prevent the arming and equipping vessels of war in the ports of the United States, intended to be used against nations in amity with the United States.”

By the first section, “if any citizen of the United States * * * shall fit out and arm * * * any private ship or vessel of war, to sell the said vessel or contract for the sale of said vessel, to be delivered in the United States or elsewhere to the purchaser, with intent * * * to cruise or commit hostilities upon the subjects * * * of any prince or state with whom the United States are at peace, such person shall be punished” with fine and imprisonment, &c.

This bill was much discussed in the Senate, and in the end the first section above quoted was struck out, and the title of the statute altered accordingly. (These facts are stated on authority of a letter of Mr. Bemis of Boston, published in 1866.) The legislature of the United States have thus, it will be seen, deliberately declined to interfere with the commerce of that country in vessels of war. It may be worthy of consideration, having regard to these facts, whether the result of the proposed interference with the ship-building trade of England may not be to transfer to America the whole of the custom of foreign states.

But it will be argued that if the equipping, arming, and despatching of such vessels is to be prohibited, it is necessary on the principle obsta principiis to extend the prohibition to the earlier stages of the transaction. That reasoning does not carry conviction to my mind; the arming, equipping, and despatching are conspicuous acts directly and obviously connected with the belligerent intent. To build is nothing unless the vessel be armed and dispatched; it is in these acts that the real breach of neutrality consists. The law should lay its hand on the immediate offense, and not be astute to search out its remote sources and springs. To attempt to do so involves consequences which will be politically difficult and dangerous.

The great advantage of the summary and extensive preventive powers which the present report recommends should be conferred on the executive to stay the dispatch of vessels which may compromise our neutrality, is that they supply a reason which might justify us in mitigating the strictness of the penal code rather than an argument for augmenting its rigor. The notorious indisposition of juries to enforce such penalties creates a mischief which should be avoided. We may sustain the great inconvenience of making laws which we shall find it practically impossible to execute, because they exceed in severity the standard of public opinion. The present report recommends the creation of an absolute, and I conceive a sufficient power to stop all vessels which ought to be stopped. The case of the Birkenhead rams, stopped by Earl Russell, is an instance of the exercise of the sort of power which it is the object of these recommendations to make more effectual and easy. As soon as reasonable grounds of suspicion arise, the power will be put in force. But assuming the vessel to be stopped, if there remains behind a statute which makes the original building penal, how are we to justify not proceeding to prosecute the builders after the vessel is stopped? If such a prosecution is not instituted the law is brought into contempt; if it is instituted the law will probably break down—results in either case to be greatly deprecated. When juries are called upon to inflict on their own countrymen, on behalf of foreigners, severe penalties for acts which are not punished but are held lawful in all other countries, is it not more than probable that popular sentiment will correct tha severity of the law?

It must be remembered that in adding the word “building” to the penal part of the act we are distinctly creating a new crime. We are making our own subjects liable to criminal penalties for acts which are clearly lawful by the law of nations, which are lawful by the law and practice of all nations, and which have hitherto been lawful by the law and practice of our own people. We shall have not only to enact a new crime which does not exist, but to create an opinion and conscience of criminality which it is more difficult to inspire.

The authors of the English foreign enlistment act distinctly declined to carry back the offense to a period of the transaction which in no way partook of an offensive character and had no obvious or necessary connection with an attitude of war. The American government equally, after mature consideration, refused to adopt the alteration now proposed. They did so, upon principles of policy, by departing from which we may involve ourselves in inextricable difficulties, and probably not command on the part of other nations any corresponding reciprocity. It may be urged that whilst it is proposed to confer these extended powers, a large discretion is left to the government to determine how far they shall be put in operation. But as a fact, this discretion will be more nominal than real, and with the view of precluding international complaints, it will be absolutely null. Whatever power is conferred, in effect creates an obligation on the part of the government to put it in force, and a responsibility on the part of the nation if any neglect to enforce it should occur. If the government are authorized to interfere by prosecution and seizure at all stages of the building, then, at the first suggestion of any belligerent power they will be compelled, almost without discretion, to interfere, because, should they decline to do so, their responsibility and that of the nation will be involved, even by an error of judgment, in a case where the obligation is admitted. Thus we shall be made liable for acts for which at present no nation would hold us responsible. The reason why it has been considered inexpedient and impossible to enforce a prohibition of the exportation of munitions of war from the neutral territory is because to do so would involve a system of repression and espionage on the part of the neutral government which would be wholly intolerable to the trade of its subjects. If the thing is forbidden it is the duty of the neutral government to see that the prohibition is in fact enforced. But in order to enforce it we must establish on every occasion of war in foreign countries a sort of belligerent excise in the bosom of our own people. And this is precisely the evil in which we shall involve ourselves by undertaking to prohibit “building” with an unlawful intent. If we create and assume this duty we are bound to execute it, and in order to execute it we must ascertain at our own peril the intent and the future destination of every keel laid in the United Kingdom and even in out most distant possessions. If this is done honestly and efficiently it will place the whole ship-building trade under a supervision of a most odious and oppressive description, which would hardly be endured even for the security of our own interests, and certainly will not be tolerated for the advantage of foreign states.

There are those who reconcile themselves to such a course by supposing that in fact this new crime would never practically be prosecuted in its early stage. If so, then to what purpose is it created? But in fact if it is made a crime the neutral government must proceed against it in its earliest inception at the risk of being held responsible for what may happen in its further progress. There is an immense difference in this respect between the offense of arming and fitting out, which, especially in modern warfare, is a fact sufficiently obvious and patent, and may be easily detected in time to prevent the dispatch of the vessel. But if all building with a certain intent is to be constituted a crime which it is part of the duty of the government to repress, then there is not a keel laid, a bolt driven, or plank sawn in any yard in the country which may not at every instant be exposing the nation to a responsibility hitherto unknown.

The objections which forcibly strike me are these:

(1.) We shall create a new duty which it will be difficult and probably impossible to execute.

(2.) In creating such a duty we shall incur a new responsibility by its non-execution.

(3.) The attempt to execute it will be odious to our own subjects, and the failure to execute it will be a just ground of complaint to foreign states.

(4.) We shall be placing the trade of our own country at an uncalled for disadvantage as compared with that of the rest of the world.

Either the creation of this new offense will or will not tend to embarrass and injure the ship-building trade of the country. If it will not, as some believe, it would be satisfactory that this should be clearly established. I confess if I were satisfied of this, my objections to the course proposed would be in a great measure removed. But if, as I believe, the necessity of a perpetual official supervision and interference would greatly hamper, and probably ultimately destroy, this branch of our commerce, that again is a point on which I think the nation has a right to expect that we should afford them the means of forming a sound judgment. It may be that for adequate objects we should be willing to sacrifice such a trade. But it is well that we should estimate the amount of the sacrifice, being as it is wholly gratuitous and without example in the case of other nations. I regret that the commission have not taken evidence to show how far the proposed prohibition would in fact affect this particular trade and the general naval resources of the country. I venture to think that before any legislation on this matter is attempted, such an inquiry should be instituted. If the preventive powers of detention recommended in the report are (as I believe) sufficient for all practical purposes and the performance of all legitimate duties, every argument of policy would dissuade us from carrying the any any further.

I entirely share the desire to make abundant provision that the duties of neutrality should be honestly, fully, and effectually carried out. But in creating new duties, which do not at present exist, either in principle, precedent, or practice, it is worth while to consider whether by exaggerating the obligations of neutrality we are not creating a discouragement to its practice. We may end by making the duties of neutrality so irksome and intolerable, that on a mere calculation of expediency a prudent government would prefer to go to war. And thus we may defeat the end we have in view by the means we adopt to attain it.

There is one condition of things for which it seems especially necessary to make provision. A contract may be made by a foreign government for the building in this country of an iron-clad in time of peace and without any contemplation of present war. Such vessels require many months for completion and their cost is enormous. The foreign government may have paid several hundred thousand pounds by instalments during the construction of the vessel, and the property in the incomplete vessel will have passed to the foreign government. What is to be done to such a vessel in case the contracting government is involved subsequently in war? Is the vessel to be forfeited and the builder to be prosecuted because he proceeds with a contract which was perfectly lawful when it was made? If so, what chance is there for the future that any foreign government will ever build in England, or indeed that any English builder will venture to undertake their contracts? This singular state of things might easily arise. The recent war between Austria and Prussia lasted less than two months; a vessel might have been contracted for by one of those governments with an English shipbuilder; the vessel might have been half finished before the war, and wholly completed after the war. In respect of the work done before the war and after the war, i. e. for the beginning and ending of the ship, the ship-builder would be innocent; but in respect of the work done during the few weeks of the war, i. e. for the middle of the ship, he would be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to fine and imprisonment. This may seem an extreme illustration, but it shows the necessity of providing some protection for contracts bonâ fide made and commenced in time of peace, unless it is intended wholly to prohibit the trade.

There is one other matter which I should gladly have seen embodied in the recommendations of the report. A strong feeling has recently grown up against the recognition of belligerent commissions granted to vessels on the high seas, by which such vessels become at once raised to the position of lawful belligerent cruisers, though they start from no belligerent port, and, in fact, derive no support from the natural and legitimate naval resources of those on whose behalf they wage war. It seems to me that for all reasons it is wise to discourage such a practice. As there is no rule of international law which forbids such delivering of commissions on the high seas, we cannot of course refuse to recognize the title of such a cruiser to all the legitimate rights of war in places beyond our jurisdiction. But we are masters of our own actions and our own hospitality within the realm. Though, therefore, we cannot dispute the validity of such a commission on the high seas, or the legality of captures made by such a vessel, we may refuse to admit into our ports any vessel which has not received its commission in a port of its own country. By so doing we should be acting strictly within the principles of the law of nations, and our example would very probably be followed by other maritime states, and thus in the end tend to repress the practice altogether. For this purpose I should have been very glad if the commission had thought fit to recommend that in time of war no armed vessel engaged in hostilities should be admitted into any of our ports which should not hold a commission delivered to it in some port of military or naval equipment actually in the occupation of the government by which she is commissioned.

W. V. HARCOURT.

Appendix No. I.

[June 3, 1867].

BRITISH FOREIGN ENLISTMENT ACT.

(59 George III, Cap. 69, July 3, 1819.)

Cap. LXIX.—An act to prevent the enlisting or engagement of his Majesty’s subjects to serve in foreign service, and the fitting out or equipping, in his Majesty’s dominions, vessels for warlike purposes, without his Majesty’s license.

Whereas the enlistment or engagement of his Majesty’s subjects to serve in war in foreign service, without his Majesty’s license, and the fitting out and equipping and arming of vessels by his Majesty’s subjects, without his Majesty’s license, for warlike operations in or against the dominions or territories of any foreign prince, state, potentate, or persons exercising or assuming to exercise the powers of government in or over any foreign country, colony, province, or part of any province, or against the ships, goods, or merchandise of any foreign prince, state, potentate, or persons as aforesaid, or their subjects, may be prejudicial to and tend to endanger the peace and welfare of this kingdom; and whereas the laws in force are not sufficiently effectual for preventing the same: Be it therefore enacted by the King’s most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords, spiritual and temporal, and commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that from and after the passing of this act, an act passed in the ninth year of the reign of his late Majesty King George the Second, intituled “An act to prevent the listing his Majesty’s subjects to serve as soldiers without his Majesty’s license;” and also an act passed in the twenty-ninth year of the reign of his said late Majesty King George the Second, intituled “An act to prevent his Majesty’s subjects from serving as officers under the French King, and for better enforcing an act passed in the ninth year of his present Majesty’s reign to prevent the enlisting his Majesty’s subjects to serve as soldiers without his Majesty’s license; and for obliging such of his Majesty’s subjects as shall accept commissions in the Scotch brigade in the service of the States-general of the United Provinces to take the oaths of allegiance and abjuration,” and also an act passed in Ireland in the eleventh year of the reign of his said late Majesty King George the Second, intituled, “An act for the more effectual preventing the enlisting of his Majesty’s subjects to serve as soldiers in foreign service without his Majesty’s license;” and also an act passed in Ireland in the nineteenth year of the reign of his said late Majesty King George the Second, intituled “An act for the more effectual preventing his Majesty’s subjects from entering into foreign service, and for publishing an act of the seventh year of King William the Third, intituled ‘An act to prevent foreign education,’” and all and every the clauses and provisions in the said several acts contained, shall be and the same are hereby repealed.

II. And be it further declared and enacted, that if any natural-born subject of his Majesty, his heirs and successors, without the leave or license of his Majesty, his heirs or successors, for that purpose first had and obtained under the sign-manual of his Majesty, his heirs or successors, or signified by order in council, or by proclamation of his Majesty, his heirs or successors, shall take or accept, or shall agree to take or accept, any military commission, or shall otherwise enter into the military service as a commissioned or noncommissioned officer, or shall enlist or enter himself to enlist, or shall agree to enlist or to enter himself to serve as a soldier, or to be employed or shall serve in any warlike or military operation in the service of or for or under or in aid of any foreign prince, state, potentate, colony, province, or part of any province or people, or of any person or persons exercising or assuming to exercise the powers of government in or over any foreign country, colony, province, or part of any province or people, either as an officer or soldier, or in any other military capacity; or if any natural-born subject of his Majesty shall, without such leave or license as aforesaid, accept, or agree to take or accept, any commission, warrant, or appointment as an officer, or shall enlist or enter himself, or shall agree to enlist or enter himself to serve as a sailor or marine, or to be employed or engaged, or shall serve in and on board any ship or vessel of war, or in and on board of any ship or vessel used or fitted out, or equipped, or intended to be used for any warlike purpose, in the service of or for or under or in aid of any foreign power, prince, state, potentate, colony, province, or part of any province or people, or of any person or persons exercising or assuming to exercise the powers of government in or over any foreign country, colony, province, or part of any province or people; or if any natural-born subject of his Majesty shall, without such leave and license as aforesaid, engage, contract, or agree to go, or shall go to any foreign state, country, colony, province, or part of any province, or to any place beyond the seas, with an intent or in order to enlist or enter himself to serve or with intent to serve in any warlike or military operation whatever, whether by land or by sea, in the service of or for or under or in aid of any foreign prince, state, potentate, colony, province, or part of any province or people, or in the service of or for or under or in aid of any person or persons exercising or assuming to exercise the powers of government in or over any foreign country, colony, province, or part of any province or people, either as an officer or a soldier, or in any other military capacity, or as an officer or sailor, or marine, in any such ship or vessel as aforesaid, although no enlisting money or pay or reward shall have been or shall be in any or either of the cases aforesaid actually paid to or received by him, or by any person to or for his use or benefit; or if any person whatever, within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or in any part of his Majesty’s dominions elsewhere, or in any country, colony, settlement, island, or place belonging to or subject tohis Majesty, shall hire, retain, engage, or procure or shall attempt or endeavor to hire, retain, engage, or procure any person or persons whatever to enlist, or to enter or engage to enlist, or to serve or to be employed in any such service or employment as aforesaid, as an officer, soldier, sailor, or marine, either in land or sea service, for or under and in aid of any foreign prince, state, potentate, colony, province, or part of any province or people, or for or under or in aid of any person or persons exercising or assuming to exercise any powers of government as aforesaid, or to go or to agree to go or embark from any part of his Majesty’s dominions, for the purpose or with intent to be so enlisted, entered, engaged, or employed as aforesaid, whether any enlisting money, pay, or reward shall have been or shall be actually given or received or not; in any or either of such cases every person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon being convicted thereof, upon any information or indictment, shall be punishable by fine and imprisonment, or either of them, at the discretion of the court before which such offender shall be convicted.

III. Provided always, and be it enacted, that nothing in this act contained shall extend or be construed to extend to render any person or persons liable to any punishment or penalty under this act, who at any time before the first day of August, 1819, within any part 01 the United Kingdom, or of the islands of Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney, or Sark, or at any time before the first day of November, 1819, in any part or place out of the United Kingdom, or of the said islands, shall have taken or accepted, or agreed to take or accept any military commission, or shall have otherwise enlisted into any military service as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer, or shall have enlisted, or entered himself to enlist, or shall have agreed to enlist or to enter himself to serve as a soldier, or shall have served, or having so served, shall, after the said first day of August, 1819, continue to serve in any warlike or military operation, either as an officer or soldier, or in any other military capacity, or shall have accepted, or agreed to take or accept any commission, warrant, or appointment as an officer, or shall have enlisted or entered himself to serve, or shall have served, or having so served, shall continue to serve as a sailor or marine, or shall have been employed or engaged, or shall have served, or having so served, shall, after the said first day of August, continue to serve in and on board of any ship or vessel of war, used or fitted out, or equipped or intended for any warlike purpose; or shall have engaged, or contracted or agreed to go, or shall have gone to, or having so gone to, shall, after the said first day of August, continue in any foreign state, country, colony, province, or part of a province, or to or in any place beyond the seas, unless such person or persons shall embark at or proceed from some port or place within the United Kingdom, or the islands of Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney, or Sark, with intent to serve as an officer, soldier, sailor, or marine, contrary to the provisions of this act, after the said first day of August, or shall embark or proceed from some port or place out of the United Kingdom, or the islands of Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney, or Sark, with such intent as afore said, after the said first day of November, or who shall, before the passing of this act, and within the said United Kingdom, or the said islands, on or before the first day of November, 1819, in any port or place out of the said United Kingdom, or the said islands, have hired, retained, engaged, or procured, or attempted or endeavored to hire, retain, engage, or procure any person or persons whatever to enlist or to enter, or to engage to enlist or to serve, or be employed in any such service or employment as aforesaid as an officer, soldier, sailor, or marine, either in land or sea service, or to go, or agree to go or embark for the purpose or with the intent to be so enlisted, entered, or engaged, or employed contrary to the prohibitions respectively in this act contained, anything in this act contained to the contrary in anywise notwithstanding; but that all and every such person and persons shall be in such state and condition, and no other, and shall be liable to such fines, penalties, forfeitures, and disabilities, and none other, as such person or persons was or were liable and subject to before the passing of this act, and as such person or persons would have been in, and been liable and subject to, in case this act and the said recited acts by this act repealed had not been passed or made.

IV. And be it further enacted, that it shall and may be lawful for any justice of the peace residing at or near to any port or place within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, where any offense made punishable by this act as a misdemeanor shall be committed, on information on oath of any such offense, to issue his warrant for the apprehension of the offender, and to cause him to he brought before such justice, or any justice of the peace; and it shall be lawful for the justice of the peace before whom such offender shall be brought, to examine into the nature of the offense upon oath, and to commit such person to jail, there to remain until deliv ered by due course of law, unless such offender shall give bail, to the satisfaction of the said justice, to appear and answer to any information or indictment to be preferred against him, according to law, for the said offense; and that all such offenses which shall be committed within that part of the United Kingdom called England, shall and may be proceeded and tried in his Majesty’s Court of King’s Bench at Westminster, and the venue in such case laid at Westminster, or at the assizes or session of oyer and terminer and jail delivery, or at any quarter or general sessions of the peace in and for the county or place where such offense was committed; and that all such offenses which shall be committed within that part of the United Kingdom called Ireland, shall and may be prosecuted in his Majesty’s Court of King’s Bench at Dublin, and the venue be laid at Dublin, or at any assizes or session of oyer and terminer and jail delivery, or at any quarter or general sessions of the peace in and for the county or place where such offense was committed; and all such offenses as shall be committed in Scotland shall and may be prosecuted in the court of justiciary in Scotland, or any other court competent to try criminal offenses committed within the county, shire, or stewartry within which such offense was committed; and where any offense made punishable by this act as a misdemeanor shall be committed out of the said United Kingdom, it shall be lawful for any justice of the peace residing near to the port or place where such offense shall be committed, on information on oath of any such offense, to issue his warrant for the apprehension of the offender, and to cause him to be brought before such justice, or any other justice of the peace for such place; and it shall be lawful for the justice of the peace before whom such offender shall be brought, to examine into the nature of the offense upon oath, and to commit such person to jail, there to remain till delivered by due course of law, or otherwise to hold such offender to bail to answer for such offense in the superior court, competent to try and having jurisdiction to try criminal offenses committed in such port or place; and all such offenses committed at any place out of the said United Kingdom shall and may be prosecuted and tried in any superior court of his Majesty’s dominions competent to try and having jurisdiction to try criminal offenses committed at the place where such offense shall be committed.

V. And be it further enacted, that in case any ship or vessel, in any port or place within his Majesty’s dominions, shall have on board any such person or persons who shall have been enlisted or entered to serve, or shall have engaged, or agreed, or been procured to enlist, or enter, or serve, or who shall be departing from his Majesty’s dominions for the purpose and with the intent of enlisting or entering to serve, or to be employed, or of serving or being engaged or employed in the service of any foreign prince, state, or potentate, colony, province, or part of any province or people, or of any person or persons exercising or assuming to exercise the powers of government in or over any foreign colony, province, or part of any province or people, either as an officer, soldier, sailor, or marine, contrary to the provisions of this act, it shall be lawful for any of the principal officers of his Majesty’s customs where any such officer of the customs shall be, and in any part of his Majesty’s dominions in which there are no officers of his Majesty’s customs, for any governor, or persons having the chief civil command, upon information on oath given before them respectively, which oath they are hereby respectively authorized and empowered to administer, that such person or persons as aforesaid is or are on board such ship or vessel, to detain and prevent any such shid or vessel, or to cause such ship or vessel to be detained and prevented from proceeding to sea on her voyage with such persons as aforesaid on board: Provided, nevertheless, that no principal officer, governor, or person shall act as aforesaid upon such information upon oath as aforesaid unless the party so informing shall not only have deposed in such information that the person or persons on board such ship or vessel hath or have been enlisted or entered to serve, or hath or have engaged, or agreed, or been procured to enlist, or enter, or serve, or is or are departing as aforesaid for the purpose and with the intent of enlisting, or entering to serve, or to be employed, or of serving, or being engaged or employed in such service as aforesaid, but shall also have set forth in such information, upon oath, the facts or circumstances upon which he forms his knowledge or belief, enabling him to give such information upon oath; and that all and every person and persons convicted of willfully false swearing in any such information upon oath, shall be deemed guilty of and suffer the penalties on persons convicted of willful and corrupt perjury.

VI. And be it further enacted, that if any master, or other person having or taking the charge or command of any ship or vessel, in any part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or in any part of his Majesty’s dominions beyond the seas, shall knowingly and willingly take on board, or if such master or other person having the command of any such ship or vessel, or any owner or owners of any such ship or vessel, shall knowingly engage to take on board any person or persons who shall have been enlisted or entered to serve, or shall have engaged, or agreed, or been procured to enlist, or enter, or serve, or who shall be departing from his Majesty’s dominions for the purpose and with the intent of enlisting or entering to serve, or to be employed, or of serving, or being engaged or employed in any naval or military service, contrary to the provisions of this act, such master, or owner, or other person as aforesaid shall forfeit and pay the sum of fifty pounds for each and every such person so taken or engaged to be taken on board; and, moreover, every such ship or vessel so having on board, conveying, carrying, or transporting any such person or persons, shall and may be seized and detained by the collector, comptroller, surveyor, or other officer of the customs, until such penalty or penalties shall be satisfied and paid, or until such master or person, or the owner or owners of such ship or vessel, shall give good and sufficient bail, by recognizance before one of his Majesty’s justices of the peace, for the payment of such penalty or penalties.

VII. And be it further enacted, that if any person, within any part of the United Kingdom, or in any part of his Majesty’s dominions beyond the seas, shall, without the leave and license of his Majesty for that purpose first had and obtained as aforesaid, equip, furnish, fit out, or arm, or attempt or endeavor to equip, furnish, fit out, or arm, or procure to be equipped, furnished, fitted out, or armed, or shall knowingly aid, assist, or be concerned in the equipping, furnishing, fitting out, or arming of any ship or vessel with intent or in order that such ship or vessel shall be employed in the service of any foreign prince, state, or potentate, or of any foreign colony, province, or part of any province or people, or of any person or persons exercising or assuming to exercise any powers of government in or over any foreign state, colony, province, or part of any province or people, as a transport or store ship, or with intent to cruise or commit hostilities against any prince, state, or potentate, or against the subjects or citizens of any prince, state, or potentate, or against the persons exercising or assuming to exercise the powers of government in any colony, province, or part of any province or country, or against the inhabitants of any foreign colony, province, or part of any province or country, with whom his Majesty shall not then be at war; or shall, within the United Kingdom, or any of his Majesty’s dominions, or in any, settlement, colony, territory, island, or place belonging or subject to his Majesty, issue or deliver any commission for any ship or vessel, to the intent that such ship or vessel shall be employed as aforesaid, every such person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, upon conviction thereof, upon any information or indictment, be punished by fine and imprisonment, or either of them, at the discretion of the court in which such offender shall be convicted; and every such ship or vessel, with the tackle, apparel, and furniture, together with all the materials, arms, ammunition, and stores which may belong to or be on board of any such ship or vessel, shall be forfeited; and it shall be lawful for any officer of his Majesty’s customs or excise, or any officer of his Majesty’s navy, who is by law empowered to make seizures for any forfeiture incurred under any of the laws of customs or excise, or the laws of trade and navigation, to seize such ships and vessels as aforesaid, and in such places and in such manner in which the officers of his Majesty’s customs or excise and the officers of his Majesty’s navy are empowered respectively to make seizures under the laws of customs and excise, or under the laws of trade and navigation; and that every such ship and vessel, with the tackle, apparel, and furniture, together with all the materials, arms, ammunition, and stores which may belong to or be on board of such ship or vessel, may be prosecuted and condemned in the likemanner and in such courts as ships or vessels may be prosecuted and condemned, for any breach of the laws made for the protection of the revenues of customs and excise, or of the laws of trade and navigation.

VIII. And be it further enacted, that if any person in any part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or in any part of his Majesty’s dominions beyond the seas, without the leave and license of his Majesty for that purpose first had and obtained as aforesaid, shall, by adding to the number of the guns of such vessel, or by changing those on board for other guns, or by the addition of any equipment for war, increase or augment, or procure to be increased or augmented, or shall he knowingly concerned in increasing or augmenting the warlike force of any ship or vessel of war, or cruiser, or other armed vessel which at the time of her arrival in any part of the United Kingdom or any of his Majesty’s dominions, was a ship of war, cruiser, or armed vessel in the service of any foreign prince, state, or potentate, or of any person or persons exercising or assuming to exercise any powers of government in or over any colony, province, or part of any province or people belonging to the subjects of any such prince, state, or potentate, or to the inhabitants of any colony, province, or part of any province or country under the control of any person or persons so exercising or assuming to exercise the powers of government, every such person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, upon being convicted thereof, upon any information or indictment, be punished by fine and imprisonment, or either of them, at the discretion of the court before which such offender shall be convicted.

IX. And be it further enacted, that offenses made punishable by the provisions of this act, committed out of the United Kingdom, may be prosecuted and tried in his Majesty’s Court of King’s Bench at Westminster, and the venue in such case laid at Westminster, in the county of Middlesex.

X. And be it further enacted, that any penalty or forfeiture inflicted by this act may be prosecuted, sued for, and recovered, by action of debt, bill, plaint, or information, in any of his Majesty’s courts of record at Westminster or Dublin, or in the Court of Exchequer, or in the Court of Session in Scotland, in the name of his Majesty’s attorney general for England or Ireland, or his Majesty’s advocate for Scotland, respectively, or in the name of any person or persons whatsoever; wherein no essoign, protection, privilege, wager of law, nor more than one imparlance shall be allowed; and in every action or suit the person against whom judgment shall be given for any penalty or forfeiture under this act shall pay double costs of suit; and every such action or suit shall and may be brought at any time within twelve months after the offense committed, and not afterwards; and one moiety of every penalty to be recovered by virtue of this act shall go and be applied to his Majesty, his heirs or successors, and the other moiety to the use of such person or persons as shall first sue for the same, after deducting the charges of prosecution from the whole.

XI. And be it further enacted, that if any action or suit shall be commenced, either in Great Britain or elsewhere, against any person or persons for anything done in pursuance of this act, all rules and regulations, privileges and protections, as to maintaining or defending any suit or action, and pleading therein, or any costs thereon, in relation to any acts, matters, or things done, or that may be done by any officer of customs or excise, or by any officer of his Majesty’s navy under any act of Parliament in force on or immediately before the passing of this act, for the protection of the revenues of customs and excise, or prevention of smuggling, shall apply and be in full force in any such action or suit as shall be brought for anything done in pursuance of this act, in as full and ample a manner to all intents and purposes as if the same privileges and protections were repeated and re-enacted in this act.

XII. Provided always, and be it further enacted, that nothing in this act contained shall extend, or be construed to extend, to subject to any penalty any person who shall enter into the military service of any prince, state, or potentate in Asia, with leave or license, signified in the usual manner, from the governor-general in council, or vice-president in council, of Fort William in Bengal, or in conformity with any orders or regulations issued or sanctioned by such governor-general or vice-president in council.

Appendix No. II.

[June 3, 1867].

UNITED STATES FOREIGN ENLISTMENT ACT.

(Fifteenth Congress. Sess. 1, ch. 8, April 20, 1818.)

Chap. LXXXVIIL—An act in addition to the “Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States,” and to repeal the acts therein mentioned.^*

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That if any citizen of the United States shall, within the territory or jurisdiction thereof, accept and exercise a commission to serve a foreign prince, state, colony, district, or people, in war, by land or by sea, against any prince, state, colony, district or people, with whom the United States are at peace, the person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and shall be fined not more than two thousand dollars, and shall be imprisoned not exceeding three years.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That if any person shall, within the territory or jurisdiction of the United States, enlist or enter himself, or hire or retain another person to enlist or enter himself, or to go beyond the limits or jurisdiction of the United States with intent to be enlisted or entered in the service of any foreign prince, state, colony, district, or people, as a soldier, or as a marine or seaman, on board of any vessel of war, letter of marque, or privateer, every person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and shall be fined not exceeding one thousand dollars, and be imprisoned not exceeding three years: Provided, That this act shall not be construed to extend to any subject or citizen of any foreign prince, state, colony, district, or people, who shall transiently be within the United States, and shall on board of any vessel of war, letter of marque, or privateer, which at the time of its arrival within the United States, was fitted and equipped as such, enter and enlist himself, or hire or retain another subject or citizen of the same foreign prince, state, colony, district, or people, who is transiently within the United States, to enlist or enter himself to serve such foreign prince, state, colony, district, or people, on board such vessel of war, letter of marque, or privateer, if the United States shall then be at peace with such foreign prince, state, colony, district, or people.

Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That if any person shall, within the limits of the United States, fit out and arm, or attempt to fit out and arm, or procure to be fitted out and armed, or shall knowingly be concerned in the furnishing, fitting out, or arming, of any ship or vessel with intent that such ship or vessel shall be employed in the service of any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district or people, to cruise or commit hostilities against the subjects, citizens, or property of any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district, or people with whom the United States are at peace, or shall issue or deliver a commission within the territory or jurisdiction of the United States, for any ship or vessel, to the intent that she may be employed as aforesaid, every person so offending shall be guilty of a high misdemeanor, and shall be fined not more than ten thousand dollars, and imprisoned not more than three years; and every such ship or vessel, with her tackle, apparel, and furniture, together with all materials, arms, ammunition, and stores, which may have been procured for the building and equipment thereof, shall be forfeited: one-half to the use of the informer, and the other half to the use of the United States.

Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That if any citizen or citizens of the United States shall, without the limits thereof, fit out and arm, or attempt to fit out and arm, or procure to be fitted out and armed, or shall knowingly aid or be concerned in the furnishing, fitting out, or arming, any private ship or vessel of war, or privateer, with intent that such ship or vessel shall be employed to cruise, or commit hostilities, upon the citizens of the United States, or their property, or shall take the command of, or enter on board of any such ship or vessel, for the intent aforesaid, or shall purchase any interest in any such ship or vessel, with a view to share in the profits thereof, such persons so offending shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and fined not more than ten thousand dollars, and imprisoned not more than ten years; and the trial for such offense, if committed within the limits of the United States, shall be in the district in which the offender shall be apprehended or first brought.

Sec. 5. And he it further enacted, That if any persons shall, within the territory or jurisdiction of the United States, increase or augment, or procure to be increased or augmented, or shall knowingly be concerned in increasing or augmenting, the force of any ship of war, cruiser, or other armed vessel, which, at the time of her arrival within the United States, was a ship of war, or cruiser, or armed vessel, in the service of any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district, or people, or belonging to the subjects or citizens of any such prince or state, colony, district, or people, the same being at war with any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district, or people with whom the United States are at peace, by adding to the number of the guns of such vessel, or by changing those on board of her for guns of a larger caliber, or by the addition thereto of any equipment solely applicable to war, every person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars, and be imprisoned not more than one year.

Sec. 6. And be it further enacted, That if any person shall, within the territory or jurisdiction of the United States, begin or set on foot, or provide or prepare the means for any military expedition or enterprise, to be carried on from thence against the territory or dominions of any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district, or people, with whom the United States are at peace, every person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and shall be fined not exceeding three thousand dollars, and be imprisoned not more than one year.

Sec. 7. And be it further enacted, That the district courts shall take cognizance of complaints, by whomsoever instituted, in cases of captures made within the waters of the United States, or within a marine league of the coasts or shores thereof.

Sec. 8. And be it further enacted, That in every case in which a vessel shall be fitted out and armed, or attempted to be fitted out and armed, or in which the force of any vessel of war, cruiser, or other armed vessel, shall be increased or augmented, or in which any military expedition or enterprise shall be begun or set on foot, contrary to the provisions and prohibitions of this act; and in every case of the capture of a ship or vessel within the jurisdiction or protection of the United States as before defined, and in every case in which any process issuing out of any court of the United States shall be disobeyed or resisted by any person or persons having the custody of any vessel of war, cruiser, or other armed vessel of any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district, or people, or of any subjects or citizens of any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district, or people, in every case it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, or such other person as he shall have empowered for that purpose, to employ such part of the land or naval forces of the United States, or of the militia thereof, for the purpose of talking possession of and detaining any such ship or vessel, with her prize or prizes, if any, in order to the execution of the prohibitions and penalties of this act, and to the restoring the prize or prizes in the cases in which restoration shall have been adjudged, and also for the purpose of preventing the carrying on any such expedition or enterprise from the territories or jurisdiction of the United States against the territories or dominions of any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district, or people, with whom the United States are at peace.

Sec. 9. And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, or such person as he shall empower for that purpose, to employ such part of the land or naval forces of the United States, or of the militia thereof, as shall be necessary to compel any foreign ship or vessel to depart the United States in all cases in which, by the law of nations or the treaties of the United States, they ought not to remain within the United States.

Sec. 10. And be it further enacted, That the owners or consignees of every armed ship or vessel sailing out of the ports of the United States, belonging wholly or in part to citizens thereof, shall enter into bond to the United States, with sufficient sureties, prior to clearing out the same, in double the amount of the value of the vessel and cargo on board, including her armament, that the said ship or vessel shall not be employed by such owners to cruise or commit hostilities against the subjects, citizens, or property, of any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district, or people, with whom the United States are at peace.

Sec. 11. And be it further enacted, That the collectors of the customs be, and they are hereby respectively, authorized and required to detain any vessel manifestly built for warlike purposes, and about to depart the United States, of which the cargo shall principally consist of arms and munitions of war, when the number of men shipped on board, or other circumstances, shall render it probable that such vessel is intended to be employed by the owner or owners to cruise or commit hostilities upon the subjects, citizens, or property of any foreign state, or of any colony, district, or people, with whom the United States are at peace, until the decision of the President be had thereon, or until the owner or owners shall give such bond and security as is required of the owners of armed ships by the preceding section of this act.

Sec. 12. And be it further enacted, That the act passed on the fifth day of June, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-four, entitled “An act in addition to the act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States,” continued in force, for a limited time, by the act of the second of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-seven, and perpetuated by the act passed on the twenty-fourth of April, one thousand eight hundred, and the act passed on the fourteenth day of June, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-seven, entitled “An act to prevent citizens of the United States from privateering against nations in amity with, or against the citizens of, the United States,” and the act passed the third day of March, one thousand eight hundred and seventeen, entitled “An act more effectually to preserve the neutral relations of the United States,” be, and the same are hereby severally repealed: Provided nevertheless, That persons having heretofore offended against any of the acts aforesaid may be prosecuted, convicted, and punished as if the same were not repealed; and no forfeiture heretofore incurred by a violation of any of the acts aforesaid shall be affected by such repeal.

Sec. 13. And be it further enacted, That nothing in the foregoing act shall be construed to prevent the prosecution or punishment of treason, or any piracy defined by the laws of the United States.

Appendix No. III.

[June 3, 1867].

MEMORANDUM BY MR. ABBOTT.

THE FOREIGN ENLISTMENT ACT.

(59 Geo. III, c. 69, July 3, 1819.)

The foreign enlistment acts of Great Britain and the United States, the circumstances under which they were passed, as well as the principles of neutrality involved in them, are so similar that a consideration of the British must necessarily be prefaced by an account of the history of the American act.^*

THE UNITED STATES FOREIGN ENLISTMENT ACT.

When, after the execution of Louis the XVIth, the French national convention declared war, on the first of February, 1793, against England and Holland, one of their first acts was to appoint a representative to proceed to the United States to solicit the support of the sister republic, and to reclaim the privileges to which they considered France to be entitled under the two treaties of the 6th of February, 1778.^†

The first of those treaties was a treaty of friendship and commerce, and contained the following articles:

[Translation.]

“Article XVII. It shall be lawful for the ships of war of either party, and privateers, freely to carry whithersoever they please, the ships and goods taken from their enemies, without being obliged to pay any duty to the officers of the admiralty or any other judges; nor shall such prizes be arrested or seized when they come to and enter the ports of either party; nor shall the searchers or other officers of those places search the same, or make examination concerning the lawfulness of such prizes; but they may hoist sail at any time, and depart and carry their prizes to the places expressed in their commissions, which the commanders of such ships of war shall be obliged to show; on the contrary, no shelter or refuge shall be given in their ports to such as shall have made prize of the subjects, people, or property of either of the parties; but if such shall come in, being forced by stress of weather or the danger of the sea, all proper means shall be rigorously used, that they go out and retire from thence as soon as possible.Martens: “Recueil des Traités,” tom. 1, p. 145.

“Article XXII. It shall not be lawful for any foreign privateers, not belonging to subjects of the Most Christian King, nor citizens of the said United States who have commissions from any other prince or state in enmity with either nation, to fit their ships in the ports of either the one or the other of the aforesaid parties, to sell what they have taken, or in any other manner whatsoever to exchange their ships, merchandises, or any other lading; neither shall they be allowed even to purchase victuals, except such as shall be necessary for their going to the next port of that prince or state from which they have commissions.”

The other treaty, styled “Traité d’Alliance Eventuelleet Défensive,” provided (Article XI) for the mutual guarantee of the French and United States possessions in North America.

[Translation.]

“The whole as their possessions shall be fixed and assured to the said states at the moment of the cessation of their present war with England;” and, (Article 12,) “In order to fix more precisely the sense and application of the preceding article, the contracting parties declare, that in case of a rupture between France and England, the reciprocal guarantee declared in the said article shall have its full force and effect the moment such war shall break out; and if such rupture shall not take place, the mutual obligations of the said guarantee shall not commence until the moment of the cessation of the present war, between the United States and England, shall have ascertained their possessions.”Martens: “Recueil des Traités,” tom. 1, p. 145.

The national convention assumed that under these stipulations they might claim the exclusive right to arm and commission privateers within American ports, to bring into them their prizes, to cause the prizes thus brought in to be condemned by French consuls and sold, and even to capture enemy‘s vessels within the limits of the maritime jurisdiction of the United States. At least such were the pretensions of their envoy, Monsieur, or as he styled himself, Citizen Genet, a Girondist of the most exaggerated type, whose avowed object was to excite the people of the United States to a war with Great Britain.

On the other hand, Washington, then entering on his second term of office as President, was determined to preserve the neutrality of his country, and immediately on receiving intelligence of the outbreak of war, hastened from Mount Vernon to Philadelphia, and summoned his cabinet to consider:

1. Whether a proclamation of neutrality should be issued.

2. Whether a minister should be received from the party then in power in France.

3. Whether the United States were bound by the guarantee in the treaty of 1778.

Tucker‘s “History of the United States,” ed. 1856, vol. i, pages 504 to 517.

The cabinet differed on the second and third points, but were unanimous in the favor of the issue of a proclamation.

On referring to the history of the United States for this period, it will be seen that the President was placed in a position which made it very difficult for him to carry out the policy of neutrality which he had decided upon.

The sympathies of the people of the United States were warmly engaged on behalf of France. The hostility against England generated during the war of independence was kept alive and fostered by the excesses committed by the frontier Indians, who, it was alleged, were encouraged by the British authorities; disputes had been raised as to the interpretation or the treaty of 1783; American seamen were pressed for the British navy; the English government were said to exercise the right of search at sea, and to interfere with American merchant vessels in an arbitrary and unfriendly manner. Besides the difficulties arising from these and other similar complaints against the British government, which rendered any measure which might be supposed to be favorable to England in the highest degree unpopular, the cabinet of the President was divided into factions headed respectively by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury. The former, who had served from 1782 to 1789 as minister at Paris, was at the head of the party who advocated the rights of separate government in the several States. He was a republican of extreme views, and favored the French cause. The latter, the leader of the federal or centralization party, was inclined towards the constitutional system of England, with which country he consequently in some degree sympathized.Tucker’s “History of the United States.” Guizot. Washington.

It is necessary to take some notice of these obstacles to the President’s policy of neutrality, as explaining the subsequent proceedings of the United States government. The nation at large and two of the cabinet, Jefferson, and the Attorney General, Edmund Randolph, were for affording assistance to France in the first instance, and even for engaging eventually in the war. Washington, with Hamilton and Henry Knox, the Secretary for War, advocated a strict neutrality, and were supported in their views by the federalist party. Washington’s strength of character overcame the opposition of the French party, and he succeeded in commencing and maintaining that policy of non-intervention in European affairs which has since been consistently followed by his country up to the present time.

The proclamation of neutrality was issued on the 22d of April, 1793, and was as follows:American State Papers, vol. i, p. 140.

“Whereas it appears that a state of war exists between Austria, Prussia, Sardinia, Great Britain, and the United Netherlands, on the one part, and France on the other part; and the duty and interest of the United States require that they should with sincerity and good faith adopt and pursue a conduct friendly and impartial towards the belligerent powers:

“I have therefore thought fit, by these presents, to declare the disposition of the United States to observe the conduct aforesaid towards those powers respectively, and to exhort and warn the citizens of the United States carefully to avoid all acts and proceedings whatsoever which may in any manner tend to contravene such disposition.

“And I do hereby also make known, that whosoever of the citizens of the United States shall render himself liable to punishment or forfeiture under the law of nations, by committing, aiding, or abetting hostilities against any of the said powers, or by carrying to any of them those articles which are deemed contraband by the modern usage of nations, will not receive the protection of the United States against such punishment or forfeiture; and further, that I have given instructions to those officers to whom it belongs to cause prosecutions to be instituted against all persons who shall, within the cognizance of the courts of the United States, violate the law of nations with respect to the powers at war, or any of them.

(Signed)

“WASHINGTON.

“Philadelphia, April 22, 1793.

“By the President:

(Signed)

“Th. Jefferson.”

In the meanwhile, M. Genet had sailed from France provided with blank commissions, or letters of marque, for distribution in the ports of the United States. He arrived at Charleston on the 8th at April; but the intelligence of his landing was not received by the United States government at Philadelphia until the day on which the proclamation was issued. He at once organized a system of privateering, and within a week commissioned four vessels, the Republican, the Sans Culotte, the Anti-George, and the Citizen Genet. He also authorized the French consuls in the United States to hold courts of vice-admiralty on any vessels their cruisers might capture, to condemn them and sell the prizes. Instead of proceeding by sea to Philadelphia, M. Genet made a triumphant progress by land, haranguing the people, instituting “bonnet rouge” clubs, and endeavoring to excite the citizens of the towns through which he passed to afford active aid to the French republic, in spite of the President’s declaration of neutrality. Mr. Hammond lost no time in remonstrating against these proceedings, and on the 8th of May addressed the following note to Mr. Jefferson:Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Morris, United States minister at Paris, Aug. 16, 1793.American State Papers, vol. i, p. 167.Tucker, vol. i, page 509.

“The undersigned, her Britannic Majesty’s minister plenipotentiary to the United States of America, has the honor of informing the Secretary of State that he has received intelligence from his Majesty’s consul at Charleston, South Carolina, that two privateers have been fitted out from that port under French commissions. They carry six small guns, and are navigated by 40 or 50 men, who are for the most part citizens of the United States. One of these privateers left the harbor of Charleston on the 18th ultimo, and the other was on the 22d ultimo ready to depart.MS. Inclosure in Mr. Hammond’s dispatch to Lord Greenville, May 17, 1793.

“The undersigned does not deem it necessary to enter into any reasoning upon these facts, as he conceives them to be breaches of that neutrality which the United States profess to observe, and direct contraventions of the proclamation which the President issued upon the 22d of last month. Under this impression he doubts not that the executive government of the United States will pursue such measures as to its wisdom may appear the best calculated for repressing such practices in future and for restoring to their rightful owners any captures which these particular privateers may attempt to bring into any of the ports of the United States.”Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Hammond, May 15, 1865.]

Mr. Hammond, at the same time, forwarded to Mr. Jefferson three other notes, complaining respectively of the illegal prize court established by the French consul at Charleston, of the intended shipment of arms and munitions of war for France from American ports, and of the seizure of the British bark Grange by the French frigate Abondance in the Delaware river.

In acknowledging the receipt of these communications, Mr. Jefferson observed, with reference to the export of arms, that “American citizens have always been free to make, vend, and export arms; it is the constant occupation and livelihood of some of them; to suppress their callings, the only means perhaps of their subsistence, because a war exists in foreign and distant countries in which we have no concern, would scarcely be expected; it would be hard in principle and impossible in practice; the law of nations, therefore, respecting the rights of those at peace, does not require from them such an internal derangement of their occupations; it is satisfied with the external penalty pronounced by the President’s proclamation, that of confiscation of such portion of those arms as shall fall into the hands of any of the belligerent powers on the way to the ports of their enemies; to this penalty American citizens are warned that they will be abandoned, and that even private contraventions may work no inequality between the parties at war, the benefit of them will be left equally free and open to all.”Jefferson’s Works, vol. iii, p. 557.

“Mr. Jefferson also declared that the United States government ‘condemned in the highest degree the conduct of any of its citizens who might personally engage in committing hostilities at sea against any of the nations who were parties to the war, and that it would exert all the means with which the laws and Constitution armed them to discover such as offended therein, and would bring them to condign punishment,’ and that ‘the practice of commissioning, equipping, and manning vessels in American ports to cruise on any of the belligerent parties was equally and entirely disapproved, and that the government would take effectual measures to prevent a repetition of it.” He likewise promised that the government would take measures for the liberation of the crew of the Grange, and restitution of the vessel and cargo, and concurred with Mr. Hammond that the establishment of a French prize court at Charleston was “not warranted by the usage of nations nor by the stipulations existing between the United States and France.”

Mr. Hammond’s note requesting the restoration of the prizes was reserved for further consideration.

M. Genet reached Philadelphia on the 16th of May, 1793. The previous day a note had been addressed to his predecessor, M. Ternant, by Mr. Jefferson, recounting the claims of violations of neutrality preferred by the British minister, Mr. George Hammond, and calling his attention to the seizure of the English bark Grange by the French frigate Abondance in the Delaware river. Attached to this note is a report of Attorney General Randolph on the general question of maritime jurisdiction. M. Genet restored the vessel. The correspondence continued until the 5th of June, when the final decision of the United States government was conveyed to M. Genet and Mr. Hammond in the following official notes:American State Papers, vol. i, p. 147.

Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Genet.Jefferson’s, Works, vol. iii, p. 571.

“Philadelphia, June 5, 1793.

“Sir: In my letter of May the 15th to Mr. Ternant, your predecessor, after stating the answer which had been given to the several memorials of the British minister of May the 8th, it was observed that a part still remained unanswered of that which respected the fitting out of armed vessels in Charleston, to cruise against nations with whom we were at peace.

“In a conversation which I had afterwards the honor of holding with you, I observed that one of these armed vessels, the Citizen Genet, had come into this port with a prize; that the President had thereupon taken the case into further consideration, and after mature consultation and deliberation, was of opinion, that the arming and equipping vessels in the ports of the United States to cruise against nations with whom they are at peace was incompatible with the territorial sovereignty of the United States, that it made them instrumental to the annoyance of those nations, and thereby tended to compromise their peace; and that he thought it necessary, as an evidence of good faith to them, as well as a proper reparation to the sovereignty of the country, that the armed vessels of this description should depart from the ports of the United States.

“The letter of the 27th ultimo, with which you have honored me, has been laid be fore the President, and that part of it which contains your observations on this subject has been particularly attended to. The respect due to whatever comes from your friendship for the French nation and justice to all have induced him to re-examine the subject, and particularly to give your representations thereon the consideration they deservedly claim. After fully weighing again, however, all the principles and circumstances of the case, the result appears still to be, that it is the right of every nation to prohibit acts of sovereignty from being exercised by any other within its limits; and the duty of a neutral to prohibit such as would injure one of the warring powers, thatthe granting military commissions within the United States by any other authority than their own, is an infringement on their sovereignty, and particularly so when granted to their own citizens to lead them to act contrary to the duties they owe to their own country; that the departure of vessels thus illegally equipped from the ports of the United States will be but an acknowledgment of respect analogous to the breach of it, while it is necessary on their part, as an evidence of their faithful neutrality. On these considerations, sir, the President thinks that the United States owe it to themselves and to the nations in their friendship, to expect this out of reparation on the part of vessels marked in their very equipment with offense to the laws of the land, of which the law of nations makes an integral part.

“The expressions of friendly sentiment which we have already had the satisfaction of receiving from you, leave no room to doubt that the conclusion of the President being thus made known to you, these vessels will be permitted to give no further umbrage by their presence in the ports of the United States.

“I have, &c.,

“T. JEFFERSON.”

Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Hammond.

“Philadelphia, June 5, 1793.

“Sir: In the letter which I had the honor of writing you on the 15th of May, in answer to your several memorials of the 8th of that month, I mentioned that the President reserved for further consideration a part of the one which related to the equipment of two privateers in the port of Charleston. The part alluded to was that wherein you express your confidence that the executive government of the United States would pursue measures for repressing such practices in future, and for restoring to their rightful owners any captures which such privateers might bring into the ports of the United States.

“The President, after a full investigation of this subject and the most mature consideration, has charged me to communicate to you that the first part of this application is found to be just, and that effectual measures are taken for preventing repetitions of the act therein complained of; but that the latter part, desiring restitution of the prizes, is understood to be inconsistent with the rules which govern such cases, and would, therefore, be unjustifiable towards the other party.

“The principal agents in this transaction were French citizens. Being within the United States at the moment a war broke out between their own and another country, they determined to go into its defense; they purchase, arm, and equip a vessel with their own money, man it themselves, receive a regular commission from their nation, depart out of the United States, and then commence hostilities by capturing a vessel. If, under these circumstances, the commission of the captors was valid, the property according to the laws of war was by the capture transferred to them, and it would be an aggression on their nation for the United States to rescue it from them, whether on the high seas or on coming into their ports. If the commission was not valid, and consequently the property not transferred by the laws of war to the captors, then the case would have been cognizable in our courts of admiralty, and the owners might have gone thither for redress. So that on neither supposition would the Executive be justifiable in interposing.

“With respect to the United States, the transaction can in no wise be imputed to them. It was in the first moment of the war, in one of their most distant ports, before measures could be provided by the government to meet all the cases which such a state of things was to produce, impossible to have been known, and therefore impossible to have been prevented by that government.

“The moment it was known the most energetic orders were sent to every State and port in the Union to prevent a repetition of the accident. On a suggestion that citizens of the United States had taken part in the act, one who was designated was instantly committed to prison for prosecution; one or two others have been since named and committed in like manner; and should it appear that there were still others, no measures will be spared to bring them to justice. The President has even gone further. He has required, as a reparation of their breach of respect to the United States, that the vessels so armed and equipped shall depart from our ports.

“You will see, sir, in these proceedings of the President unequivocal proofs of the line of strict right which he means to pursue. The measures now mentioned are taken in justice to the one party; the ulterior measure of seizing and restoring the prizes is declined in justice to the other, and the evil thus early arrested will be of very limited effect; perhaps, indeed, soon disappear altogether.

“I have, &c.,

“TH. JEFFERSON.”

Shortly afterwards a case occurred in which M. Genet openly defied the authority of the government. An English letter of marque, the Little Sarah, had been captured by a French frigate and sent into Philadelphia, where she was fitted out as a privateer under the name of the Little Democrat. M. Genet was applied to to stop this vessel from sailing, but he refused to interfere, and said that force would be repelled by force. A detachment of 120 militia were sent to guard the vessel, but on M. Genet entering into an implied engagement that the vessels should not leave the river, they were withdrawn. The President then determined to submit to the judges a series of questions upon the points at issue between the government and M. Genet, and requested the latter to detain the Little Democrat, the ships Jane and William, in the Delaware, the Citoyen Genet, and her two prizes, the Lovely Lass and Prince William Henry, and the brig Fanny, in the Chesapeake, until the opinion of the judges could be ascertained. The Little Democrat sailed four or five days alter this, while the judges declined to answer the queries put by the Executive as out of the sphere of their judicial duties, which were limited to cases of legal controversy. The cabinet accordingly decided to lay down certain rules to be observed towards belligerents in the ports of the United States. These rules were carefully framed in accordance with the received doctrines of international law, slightly modified by the treaty between the United States and France, and were communicated to the collectors of customs with the following circular:Tucker, vol. i, p. 513.American State Papers, vol. i, p. 163.Mr. Jefferson to M. Genet, July 12, 1793.Tucker, vol. i, p. 515.

Instructions to the collectors of customs.

“Philadelphia, August 4, 1793.

“Sir: It appearing that repeated contraventions of our neutrality laws have taken place in the ports of the United States, without having been discovered in time for prevention or remedy, I have it in command from the President to address to the collectors of the respective districts a particular instruction oh the subject.Mr. Hamilton to the collectors of customs; Aug. 4, 1793.American State Papers, vol. i, p. 141.

“It is expected that the officers of customs in each district will, in the course of their official functions, have a vigilant eye upon whatever may be passing within the ports, harbors, creeks, inlets, and waters of such district, of a nature to contravene the laws of neutrality, and upon discovery of anything of the kind, will give immediate notice to the governor of the State, and to the attorney of the judicial district comprehending the district of the customs within which any such contravention may happen.

“To assist the judgment of the officers on this head, I transmit herewith a schedule of rules concerning sundry particulars which have been adopted by the President, as deductions from the laws of neutrality, established and received among nations. Whatever shall be contrary to these rules will, of course, be to be notified as above mentioned.

“There are some points which, pursuant to our treaties, and the determination of the Executive, I ought to notice to you.

“If any vessel of the powers at war with France should bring or send within your district a prize made of the subjects, people, or property of France, it is immediately to be notified to the governor of the State, in order that measures may be taken, pursuant to the 17th article of the treaty with France, to oblige such vessel and her prize, or such prize, when sent in without the capturing vessel, to depart.

“No privateer of any of the powers at war with France, coming within a district of the United States, can, by the 22d article of our treaty with France, enjoy any other privilege than that of purchasing such victuals as shall be necessary for her going to the next port of the prince or state from which she has her commission. If she should do anything besides this, it is immediately to be reported to the governor, and the attorney of the district. You will observe by the rules transmitted, that the term privateer is understood not to extend to vessels armed, for merchandise and war, commonly called with us letters of marque, nor, of course, to vessels of war in the immediate service of the government of either of the powers at war.

“No armed vessel which has been or shall be originally fitted out in any port of the United States, by either of the parties at war, is henceforth to have asylum in any district of the United States. If any such armed vessel shall appear within your district she is immediately to be notified to the governor and to the attorney of the district, which is also to be done in respect to any prize that such armed vessel shall bring or send in. At foot is a list of such armed vessels of the above description as have hitherto come to the knowledge of the Executive.

“The purchasing within and exporting from the United States, by way of merchandise, articles commonly called contraband, being generally warlike instruments and military stores, is free to all the parties at war, and is not to be interfered with. If our own citizens undertake to carry them to any of the parties, they will be abandoned to the penalties which the laws of war authorize.

“You will be particularly careful to observe, and to notify as directed in other instances, the case of any citizen of the United States who shall be found in the service of either of the parties at war.

“In case any vessel shall be found in the act of contravening any of the rules or principles which are the ground of this instruction, she is to he refused a clearance until she shall have complied with what the governor shall have decided in reference to her. Care, however, is to be taken in this, not unnecessarily or unreasonably to embarrass trade or to vex any of the parties concerned.

“In order that contraventions may be the better ascertained, it is desired that the officer who shall first go on board any vessel arriving within your district shall make an accurate survey of her then condition as to military equipment to be forthwith reported to you; and that prior to her clearance a like survey be made, that any transgression of the rules laid down may be ascertained.

“But, as the propriety of any such inspection of a vessel of war in the immediate survey of the government of a foreign nation is not without question in reference to the usage of nations, no attempt is to be made to inspect any such vessel till further orders on the point.

“The President desires me to signify to you his most particular expectation that the instructions contained in this letter will be executed with the greatest vigilance, care, activity and impartiality. Omissions will tend to expose the government to serious imputations and suspicions, and proportionably to commit the good faith and peace of the country, objects of too much importance not to engage every proper exertion of your zeal.

“With consideration, I am, sir, &c,

“ALEXANDER HAMILTON.”

“1. The original arming and equipping of vessels in the ports of the United States by any of the belligerent parties for military service, offensive or defensive, is deemed unlawful.

“2. Equipments of merchant vessels by either of the belligerent parties in the ports of the United States, purely for the accommodation of them as such, is deemed lawful.

“3. Equipments in the ports of the United States of vessels of war in the immediate service of the government of any of the belligerent parties, which, if done to other vessels, would be of a doubtful nature, as being applicable either to commerce or war, are deemed lawful; except those which shall have made prize of the subjects, people, or property of France, coming with their prizes into the ports of the United States, pursuant to the XVIIth article of our treaty of amity and commerce with France. “4. Equipments in the ports of the United States, by any of the parties at war with France, of vessels fitted for merchandise and war, whether with or without commissions, which are doubtful in their nature, as being applicable either to commerce or war, are deemed lawful, except those which shall have made prize, &c.

“5. Equipments of any of the vessels of France, in the ports of the United States, which are doubtful in their nature as being applicable to commerce or war, are deemed lawful.

“6. Equipments of every kind, in the ports of the United States, of privateers of the powers at war with France, are deemed unlawful.

“7. Equipments of vessels in the ports of the United States, which are of a nature solely adapted to war, are deemed unlawful; except those stranded or wrecked, as mentioned in the XVIIIth article of our treaty with France, the XVIth of our treaty with the United Netherlands, the XVIIIth of our treaty with Prussia.

“8. Vessels of either of the parties not armed, or armed previous to their coming into the ports of the United States, which shall not have infringed any of the foregoing rules, may lawfully engage or enlist their own subjects or citizens, not being inhabitants of the United States, except privateers of the powers at war with France, and except those vessels which have made prizes, &c.”

On the 7th of August Mr. Jefferson wrote to M. Genet, stating that the President had decided that compensation or restitution should be made in the case of vessels brought into United States ports as prizes by privateers fitted out in such ports since the 5th of June, and consequently called on him to restore these prizes, as otherwise the government of France would be considered liable for the repayment of the compensation paid to the persons aggrieved. Mr. Jefferson adds, “that besides taking efficacious measures to prevent the future fitting out of privateers in the ports of the United States, they will not give asylum therein to any which shall have been at any time so fitted out, and will cause restitution of all such prizes as shall be hereafter brought within their ports by any of the said privateers.”

American State Papers, vol. i, page 167.

Mr. Hammond was also informed of this decision of the President:

Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Hammond.

“Philadelphia, August 7, 1793.

“Sir: A constant expectation of carrying into full effect the declaration of the President against permitting the armament of vessels within the ports of the United States to cruise on nations with which they are at peace, has hitherto prevented me giving you a final answer on the subject of such vessels and their prizes. Measures to this effect are still taking, and particularly for excluding from all further asylum in our ports the vessels so armed and for the restoration of the prizes the Lively Lass, the Prince William Henry, and the Jane of Dublin, taken by them; and I am authorized in the meantime to assure you that should the measures for restoration fail in their effect, the President considers it as incumbent upon the United States to make compensation for the vessels.

“I have, &c.,MS. inclosure in Mr Hammond’s dispatch to Lord Grenville August 10, 1793.

“T. JEFFERSON.”

The affair of the Little Democrat, in which the government was thus “insulted and set at defiance by M. Genet,” determined them on asking for his recall; and the United States minister at Paris was accordingly instructed, on the 16th of August, to represent to the French government that if M. Genet persevered in his proceedings the United States government would be forced even to suspend his functions before a successor could arrive to continue them.”Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Morris, United States minister at Paris, August 16, 1793.American State Papers, vol. i, page 167.

M. Genet seems to have tried to test the neutrality of the United States government on every point. He maintained the right of the French government not only to issue commissions and to equip vessels, but also openly to man their privateers in American ports. Two seamen, named Henfield and Singletary, were arrested on board the Citizen Genet at Philadelphia, for having enlisted in the French service. M. Genet remonstrated in his usual bombastic style, demanding their immediate release. This was refused, and Henfield brought to trial. The jury, however, acquitted him on the plea of his having been ignorant of having committed an offense in taking service in a French privateer. M. Genet also engaged in an intrigue for the seizure of New Orleans by some malcontents in Kentucky. In short, he managed, during the few months he remained the representative of France, to damage the interests of his country in every conceivable way; while the temperate remonstrances of the English minister afforded a contrast to these exaggerated pretensions, and served to confirm the President in his policy of neutrality and to influence the cabinet in favor of England.M. Genet to Mr. Jefferson; June 1, 1793.American State Papers, vol. i, page 151.Tucker, vol. i, pages 517 and 518.

Certain prizes having been brought in by vessels fitted out after the 5th of June as well as those brought in by vessels fitted out before that date, of which restitution had already been refused, Mr. Hammond wrote on the 30th of August to Mr. Jefferson requesting to be informed of the precise intentions of the government respecting the restoration of prizes.MS. inclosure in Mr. Hammond’s dispatch to Lord Grenville of the 17th of September, 1793.

Mr. Hammond says: “I understand that all captures made subsequently to the 5th of June, and antecedently to the 7th of August, by any vessel fitted out, armed and equipped in the ports of the United States, are either to be restored to the captors, or a compensation for their full value is to be paid to their owners by the government of the United States, and that all prizes made by vessels of this description subsequently to the 7th of August are to be seized, and immediately restored by the government of the United States, or if the restitution cannot be effected, a compensation for their full value is to be paid in the same manner as in the former case.”

Mr. Jefferson replied on the 5th of September:

“Philadelphia, September 5, 1793.

“Sir: I am honored with yours of August 30. Mine of the 7th of that month assured you that measures were taken for excluding from all further asylum in our ports vessels armed in them to cruise on nations with which we are at peace, and for the restoration of the prizes the Lovely Lass, Prince William Henry, and the Jane, of Dublin, and that should the measures for restitution fail in their effect, the President considered it as incumbent on the United States to make compensation for the vessels.

“We are bound by our treaties with three of the belligerent nations, by all the means in our power, to protect and defend their vessels and effects in our ports or waters, or on the seas near our shores, and to recover and restore the same to the right owners when taken from them. If all the means in our power are used, and fail in their effect, we are not bound by our treaties with those nations to make compensation.

“Though we have no similar treaty with Great Britain, it was the opinion of the President that we should use towards that nation the same rule which, under this article, was to govern us with the other nations, and even to extend it to captures made on the high seas, and brought into our ports, if done by vessels which had been armed within them.

“Having, for particular reasons, forbore to use all the means in our power for the restitution of the three vessels mentioned in my letter of August 7, the President thought it incumbent on the United States to make compensation for them; and though nothing was said in that letter of other vessels taken under like circumstances, and brought in after the 5th of June, and before the date of that letter, yet, when the same forbearance had taken place, it was and is his opinion that compensation would be equally due.

“As to prizes made under the same circumstances, and brought in after the date of that letter, the President determined that all the means in onr power should he used for their restitution. If these fail, as we should not he hound by our treaties to make compensation to the other powers, in the analogous case, he did not mean to give an opinion that it ought to he done to Great Britain. But still, if any cases shall arise subsequent to that date, the circumstances of which shall place them on similar ground with those before it, the President would think compensation equally incumbent on the United States.

“Instructions are given to the governors of the different States to use all the means in their power for restoring prizes of this last description found within their ports. Though they will, of course, take measures to be informed of them, and the general government has given them the aid of the custom-house officers for this purpose, yet you will be sensible of the importance of multiplying the channels of their information as far as shall depend on yourself or any person under your direction, in order that the governors may use the means in their power for making restitution. Without knowledge of the capture, they cannot restore it. It will always be best to give the notice to them directly; but any information which you shall be pleased to send to me also, at any time, shall be forwarded to them as quickly as distance will permit.

“Hence you will perceive, sir, that the President contemplates restitution or compensation in the cases before the 7th of August, and after that date, restitution, if it can be effected by any means in our power, and that it will be important that you should substantiate the fact that such prizes are in our ports or waters.

“Your list of the privateers illicitly armed in our ports is, I believe, correct.

“With respect to losses by detention, waste, spoliation, sustained by vessels taken as before mentioned, between the dates of the 5th June and the 7th August, it is proposed as a provisional measure that the collector of the customs of the district, and the British consul, or any other person you please, shall appoint persons to establish the value of the vessel and cargo, at the time of her capture, and of her arrival in the port into which she is brought, according to their value in that port.

“If this shall be agreeable to you, and you will be pleased to signify it to me, with the names of the prizes understood to be of this description, instructions will be given accordingly to the collectors of the customs where the respective vessels are.

“I have, &c.,

(Signed) “TH. JEFFERSON.”

This letter was appended to the treaty of the 19th of November, 1794.

The particular reasons referred to were the unwillingness of the United States government to oppose the sailing of the French privateers by force.Hertslett’s State Paper, vol. i, p. 801.

The result of the publication of the rules of the 4th August was that the system of privateering was, generally speaking, suppressed, though cases seem to have occurred until the arrival of M. Genet’s successor in February, 1794, who disavowed his acts, and recalled the commissions he had granted to privateers.Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Morris; August 16, 1793.American State Papers, vol. i. p. 167.

It must be remembered that the United States did not possess any navy at this time, the construction of a naval force not being carried out until 1794; so that even if the government wished to stop a privateer, they could only do so by employing militia to board her, unless she happened to be lying under the guns of a fort.

In October, M. Duplaine, the French vice-consul at Boston, having rescued by force a suspected vessel which had been seized by the marshal, the United States government withdrew his exequatur.

Congress met on the 3d of December, and in his address the President spoke of the measures adopted for the preservation of neutrality, and the necessity for legislation on the subject in the following terms:

“As soon as the war in Europe had embraced those powers with whom the United States have the most extensive relations, there was reason to apprehend that our intercourse with them might be interrupted, and our disposition for peace drawn into question by the suspicions too oiten entertained by belligerent nations.” * * * * “In this posture of affairs, both new and delicate, I resolved to adopt general rules which should conform to the treaties and assert the privileges of the United States.” * * * “Although I have not thought myself at liberty to forbid the sale of prizes permitted by our treaty of commerce with France to be brought into our ports, I have not refused to cause them to be restored when they were taken within the protection of our territory or by vessels commissioned or equipped in warlike form within the limits of the United States. It rests with the wisdom of Congress to correct, improve, or enforce this plan of procedure, and it will probably be found expedient to extend the legal code and the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States to many eases which, though dependent on principles already recognized, demand some further provisions.American State Papers, vol. i, p. 21.

“Where individuals shall within the United States array themselves in hostility against any of the powers at war, or enter upon military expeditions or enterprizes within the jurisdiction of the United States, or usurp and exercise judicial authority within the United States, or where the penalties on violations of the law of nations may have been indistinctly marked or are inadequate; these offences cannot receive too early and close an attention, and require prompt and decisive remedies.” * * * * “In like manner, as several of the courts have doubted under particular circumstances their power to liberate the vessels of a nation at peace, and even of a citizen of the United States, although seized under a false color of being hostile property, and have denied their power to liberate certain captures within the protection of our territory, it would seem proper to regulate their jurisdiction in these points.”

Soon after the opening of the sessions Jefferson retired from the cabinet into private life, and did not take any active part in politics for the next three years. Washington was thus left free to carry out his policy and to establish relations with England on a more friendly footing.Tucker, vol i, page 526.

The early part of the session was occupied with discussions on the imposition of a protective duty on trade with nations not having commercial treaties with the United States. This measure was aimed at British trade, and was a consequence of the ill-feeling that had been occasioned by the British orders in council of June and November, 1793, authorizing the seizure of United States merchant ships laden with corn for France, or found attempting to break the blockade.

The next measure introduced was for the construction of a navy, and was intended as a provision against the contingency of a war with England, although nominally adopted as a defence for American commerce against the Algerine pirates.

On the 27th of March, Mr. Dayton, of New Jersey, offered a resolution for sequestering all debts due to British subjects, as a fund to indemnify citizens of the United States for the unlawful depredations of British cruisers.

Before any vote was taken, Mr. Clarke, of New Jersey, proposed that all intercourse with Great Britain should be prohibited until satisfaction was obtained.

While these subjects were pending, the President, on the 4th of April, communicated to Congress a dispatch from Mr. Pinckney, the United States minister in London, forwarding a copy of an order in council of the 8th of January, modifying the instructions to cruisers contained in the previous orders.American State Papers, vol. i, page 431.

This caused the popular feeling to incline in favor of England, and the republican or anti-federal party abandoned their scheme of commercial retaliation, and assented to a proposition made by the federalists, that a special mission should be sent to England to settle the various questions in dispute.Tucker. vol i. page 544.

Mr. Jay, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, a descendant of one of the families which took refuge in England at the time of the revocation of the edict of Nantes, a federalist, and friend of the English cause, was selected for the post of envoy.^*Vie de Washington, par De Witt.

He was nominated on the 16th of April but did not arrive in London until the 15th of June.

The inadequacy of the existing law to deal with even the grossest breach of the neutrality proclamation had been shown a short time previously by the grand jury of Philadelphia having refused to find a true bill against the French vice-consul, Duplaine, (the vice-consul whose exequatur had been withdrawn in October, 1793) for the forcible rescue of the Greyhound.

It was apparent that no time must be lost in amending the law on this subject, and in accordance with the recommendation in the President’s message, a bill was now introduced for the purpose.

The bill was vigorously opposed by the republicans, and “would have been defeated in the Senate, if repeated motions made with that view had not been lost by the vote of the Vice-President.Tucker, vol. i, page 546.

“The republican party had a majority in the Senate of one member, but the seat of Mr. Galatin, from Pennsylvania, one of that majority, having been contested and set aside on the ground that he had not been a citizen so long as the Constitution required, the two parties were exactlv balanced.”

This act, which which the basis of the United States neutrality laws contains ten clauses, and is entitled “An act in addition to the act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States.” (The act thus referred to is the act of April 30, 1790, providing for the punishment of high treason and other offenses against the state or individuals.) As this act is substantially the same as the act of 1818, and as in referring to that act attention will be called to the points in which they differ, it will be sufficient to give here a short abstract of the different articles.United States Statutes at Large; third Congress, sess. 1, ch. 50. June 5, 1794. British State Papers, (Hertslet’s,) vol. iv, page 339.

Section 1. Any citizen of the United States, within the jurisdiction of the same, accepting or exercising a commission to serve a foreign prince or state by sea or land, liable to a fine of $2,000, or imprisonment for not more than three years.

Sec. 2. Any person within the jurisdiction of the United States entering himself or enlisting others, or hiring or retaining another person to enlist for the service of the army or navy of any foreign prince or state, liable to a fine of $1,000, or three years’ imprisonment. This not to apply to foreigners transiently within the United States. Any person so enlisted giving information within 30 days to be indemnified from punishment.

Sec. 3. Any person within any of the ports, harbors, bays, rivers, or other waters of the United States, fitting out and arming, or attempting to fit out and arm, or procuring to be fitted out and armed, or attempting to, &c., or knowingly concerned in the furnishing, &c, of any ship or vessel, with intent that such ship or vessel shall be employed in the service of any foreign state, to cruise or commit hostilities against the subjects, citizens, or property of another state, with which the United States shall be at peace, or commissioning any such vessel, to be liable to a fine of $5,000 or three years’ imprisonment, and the vessel, tackle, &c., to be forfeited, one half to the informer and the other half to the United States.

Sec. 4. Any person augmenting or procuring to be augmented the force of any ship of war in the service of a state at war with a state with which the United States are at peace, by adding to the number or size of the guns of such vessel, or by the addition thereto of any equipment solely applicable to war, to be liable to a fine of $1,000 or imprisonment for one year.

Sec. 5. Any person within the jurisdiction of the United States setting on foot or preparing any military enterprise against any state with which the United States are at peace, to be liable to a fine of $3,000 or one year’s imprisonment.

Sec. 6. District courts to have cognizance of captures made within the waters or within a marine league of the coasts or shores of the United States.

Sec. 7. The militia or land or naval forces to be employed for enforcing this act, for detaining any vessel contravening it and her prizes, and for restoring such prizes when restoration may be adjudged, and for preventing illegal military expeditions.

Sec. 8. The militia, &c, to be employed as shall be necessary to compel any foreign ship or vessel to depart the United States in all cases in which, by the laws of nations or the treaties of the United States, they ought not to remain within the United States.

Sec. 9. Prosecution of treason or piracy not to be impaired.

Sec. 10. The act to continue in force for two years, and thence to the end of the next session of Congress.^*

This act afforded an answer to M. Genet’s pretensions and to Mr. Hammond’s complaints. It now only remains to be seen how the British claims acknowledged in Mr. Jefferson’s letter of the 5th of September, 1793, were disposed of.

This was done by the insertion in the treaty concluded by Mr. Jay on the 19th of November,^† 1794, of articles providing for the appointment of commissioners to consider the compensation to be awarded (Article VII) in cases of complaints made by United States merchants of loss and damage sustained “by reason of irregular or illegal captures or condemnations of their vessels and other property under color of authority or commissions from his Majesty;” and also in cases of complaints of his Majesty’s subjects, “that in the course of the war they have sustained loss and damage by reason of the capture of their vessels and merchandise taken within the limits and jurisdiction of the States, and brought into the ports of the same, or taken by vessels originally armed in ports of the said States,”American State Papers, vol. i,: page 520.

“where restitution shall not have been made agreeably to the tenor of the letter from Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Hammond, dated at Philadelphia, September 5, 1793.” And (Article XXI) it is likewise “agreed that the subjects and citizens of the two nations shall not do any acts of hostility or violence against each other, nor accept commissions or instructions so to act from any foreign prince or state,” &c.

“Art. XXIV. It shall not be lawful for any foreign privateers, (not being subjects or citizens of either of the said parties,) who have commissions from any other prince or state in enmity with either nation, to arm their ships in the ports of either of the said parties, nor to sell what they have taken,” &c.

“Art. XXVIII. It is agreed that the first ten articles of this treaty shall be permanent, and the subsequent articles, except the twelfth, (providing for trade with the West Indies,) shall be limited in their duration to 12 years” from the exchange of ratifications.

As previously stated, Mr. Jefferson’s letter of the 5th of September, 1793, was annexed to this treaty, so that the effect of the 7th article was to make compensation to Great Britain for all prizes taken by vessels fitted out by France in the United States after the 5th of June, 1793, (the date of Mr. Jefferson’s letter of prohibition to M. Genet,) if such prizes had been brought into ports of the United States; but not to make compensation for any prizes brought in by vessels fitted out before the 5th of June, 1793, or for any prizes whatever not brought into United States ports.

Having thus traced the United States neutrality law from its origin in the proclamation of the 22d of April, 1793, to the act of 1794, it may be convenient to notice some of the principal decisions in the Supreme Court of cases illustrative of the operation of the law as thus originally framed.

February, 1794, the sloop Betsy, (a vessel captured by the French privateer the Citizen Genet, and sent in to Baltimore.)

Judgment.—No foreign power can rightfully erect any court of judicature within the United States unless by force of a treaty.Decisions in the Supreme Court of the United States. Curtis, vol. i, page 74. Curtis, vol. i, page 128.

The admiralty jurisdiction exercised by consuls of France in the United States is not of right.

August, 1795. Talbot v. Janson. Case of a Dutch vessel, the Magdalena, brought into Charleston by the privateer L’Ami de la Liberté, alleged to have been an American-owned ship, armed and equipped in Chesapeake bay and Charleston.Curtis, vol. i, page 128.

Judgment.—The capture of a vessel of a country at peace with the United States, made by a vessel fitted out in one of our ports, and commanded by one of our citizens, is illegal; and if the captured vessel is brought within our jurisdiction, the district courts, upon a libel for a tortious seizure, may inquire into the facts and decree restitution.

Restitution decreed with damages.

August, 1796. Moodie v. The ship Alfred.

Judgment.—It is not a violation of the neutrality laws of the United States to sell to a foreigner a vessel built in this country, though suited to be a privateer, and having some equipments calculated for war, but frequently used for merchant-ships.Ibid., vol. i. page 234.

Restitution refused.

August, 1796. Moodie v. The ship Phoebe Anne.

Judgment.—Under the XIXth article of the treaty with France a privateer has a right to make repairs in our ports.Ibid., vol. i, page 237.

The replacement of her force is not an augmentation of it. Restitution refused.

In June, 1797, a short act was passed prohibiting any citizen of the United States, “without the limit of the same,” from fitting out and arming, &c., any private ship or vessel of war with intent, &c., or taking the command of or entering on board of, or purchasing any interest in any such vessel, under penalty of a fine of $10,000, or imprisonment for not more than ten years.“United States Statutes at Large, vol. i, page 520. Fifth Congress, sess. 1, ch. 1; June 14, 1797.

This act was entirely repealed by the act of 1818.

The restriction imposed on intercourse with France in 1799, by the act of Congress of the 9th of February, put a stop to any further privateering cases, and the next report of a decision affecting international relations occurs in February, 1804.

“Church v. Hubbart.” Case of the Aurora seized at Para for attempted smuggling. The case was brought before the United States court on an insurance claim.Curtis, vol. i, page 470.

In pronouncing judgment, Chief Justice Marshall observed: “The authority of a nation within its own territory is absolute and exclusive. The seizure of a vessel within the range of its cannon by a foreign force is an invasion of that territory, and is a hostile act which it is its duty to repel. But its power to secure itself from injury may certainly be exercised beyond the limits of its territory. Upon this principle, the right of a belligerent to search a neutral vessel on the high seas for contraband of war is universally admitted.

A case arose in 1808 as to the validity of the capture by a French privateer of a ship dispatched from a port held by the St. Domingo rebels, and the subsequent condemnation of her cargo in the court of the French delegate at Santo Domingo, (Rose v. Himely. Case of the Sarah, February, 1808.) Amongst other matters affecting the law of prize, it was laid down that, whether a revolted colony is to be treated as a sovereign state, is a political question to be decided by governments, not by courts of justice; and the courts of the United States must consider the ancient state of things as remaining until the sovereignty of the revolted colony is acknowledged by the government of the United States.Curtis, vol. ii, page 87.

Restitution decreed without costs.

In March, 1866, Miranda’s expedition against Caracas was fitted out at New York. The expedition consisted of the Leander, armed vessel of 18 guns, and two schooners. Miranda was met by two Spanish ships of war off Puerto Cabello. An action ensued, in which he lost his schooners and was compelled to take refuge at Grenada. Fifty-seven of his followers were taken in the schooners and carried to Puerto Cabello, where they were tried for piracy, 10 of them condemned to death and the rest to imprisonment.Annual Register, 1866.

President Jefferson, in his message to Congress of the 2d of December, 1806, speaks of this expedition in the following terms: “Having received information that, in another part of the United States, a great number of private individuals were combining together, arming, and organizing themselves, contrary to law, to carry on a military expedition against the territories of Spain, I thought it necessary, by proclamation as well as by special orders, to take measures for preventing and suppressing this enterprise, for seizing the vessels, arms, and other means provided for it, and for arresting and bringing to justice its authors and abettors. It was due to that good faith which ought ever to be the rule of action in public as in private transaction; it was due to good order and regular government, that while the public force was acting strictly on the defensive, and merely to protect our citizens from aggression, the criminal attempts of private individuals to decide for their country the question of peace or war by commencing active and unauthorized hostilities, should be promptly and efficaciously suppressed.”American State Papers, vol. i, page 68.

Writing to Don Valentine de Foronda in 1809, President Jefferson said of this transaction: “Your predecessor, soured on a question of etiquette against the administration of this country, wished to impute wrong to them in all their actions, even where he did not believe it himself. In this spirit he wished it to be believed that we were in unjustifiable co-operation in Miranda’s expedition. I solemnly, and on my personal truth and honor, declare to you that this was entirely without foundation and that there was neither co-operation nor connivance on our part. He informed us he was about to attempt the liberation of his native country from bondage, and intimated a hope of our aid, or connivance at least. He was at once informed that although we had great cause of complaint against Spain and even of war, yet whenever we should think proper to act as an enemy it should be openly and above-board, and that our hostility should never be exercised by such petty means. We had no suspicion that he expected to engage men here, but merely to purchase military stores. Against this there was no law, nor consequently any authority for us to interpose obstacles. On the other hand, we deemed it improper to betray his voluntary communication to the agents of Spain. Although his measures were many days in preparation at New York, we never had the least intimation or suspicion of his engaging men in his enterprise until he was gone; and I presume the secrecy of his proceeding kept them equally unknown to the Marquis Yrujo at Philadelphia and the Spanish consul at New York, since neither of them gave us any information of the enlistment of men, until it was too late for any measures taken at Washington to prevent their departure. The officer in the customs who participated in this transaction with Miranda we immediately removed, and should have had him and others further punished had it not been for the protection given them by private citizens at New York, in opposition to the government, who, by their impudent falsehoods and calumnies, were able to overbear the minds of the jurors.”Jefferson’s Works, vol. v, page 473.

Mr. Dana, in his recent edition of Wheaton, remarks: “The Spanish government complained that a military expedition had been fitted out in New York, under Miranda, in 1806, to operate against Spain in South America. There seems no doubt that this might and ought to have been prevented by us.”Wheaton’s Elements of International Law is edited by R. H. Dana; 8th edition, 1866, page 558.— Note.

The war between Spain and her colonies broke out in 1810, and the United States government again found themselves placed in a position of great difficulty for maintaining their neutrality. The sympathies of the people of the United States were naturally warmly enlisted on behalf of their fellow republicans; while it would appear that the equipment of vessels to cruise against Spanish commerce was a profitable as well as a popular undertaking, and became a kind of commercial speculation.Correspondence between the governments of Spain and the United States, 1817–18, and of Portugal and the United States, 1816–’51.

In December, 1810, a vessel named the Exchange, of Baltimore, was captured by a French privateer on a voyage to St. Sebastian’s, in Spain; afterwards coming to Philadelphia as a French public vessel under the name of the Balaon.

The schooner Exchange vs. McFadden and others, February, 1812.

The French captain averred that he had put into Philadelphia from stress of weather, and produced an affidavit of the French consul verifying his commission, and stating that the public vessels of the Emperor of France never carry with them any other document or evidence that they belong to him than his flag, the commission, and the possession of his officers.Curtis, vol. ii, p. 478.

Judgment.—A public armed vessel in the service of a sovereign at peace with the United States is not within the ordinary jurisdiction of our tribunals while in a port in the United States.

But the sovereign power of the United States may interpose and impart such a jurisdiction.

Restitution refused.

February, 1815.—The brig Alerta and cargo vs. Blas.

Judgment.—If a capture be made by a privateer which had been illegally equipped in a neutral country, the priz eeourts of such neutral country have power, and it is their duty, to restore the captured property, if brought within their jurisdiction, to its owner.Curtis, vol. iii, p. 379.

Vessel and cargo restored.

On the 1st of September, 1815, President Madison issued a proclamation prohibiting the outfit of illegal expeditions in the United States:

“Whereas information has been received that sundry persons, citizens of the United States, or residents within the same, and especially within the State of Louisiana, are conspiring together to begin and set on loot, provide, and prepare the means for a military expedition or enterprise against the dominions of Spain, with which the United States are happily at peace; that for this purpose they are collectign arms, military stores, provisions, vessels, and other means, and deceiving and seducing honest and well-meaning citizens to engage in their unlawful enterprises; or organizing, officering, and arming themselves for the same, contrary to the laws in such cases made and provided. I have therefore thought fit to issue this my proclamation, warning and enjoining all faithful citizens who have been led, without due knowledge or consideration, to participate in the said unlawful enterprises, to withdraw from the same without delay, and commanding all persons whatsoever engaged or concerned in the same to cease all further proceedings therein, as they will answer the contrary at their peril. And I hereby enjoin and require all officers, civil and military, of the United States, or of any of the States or Territories, all judges, justices, and other officers of the peace, all military officers of the army or navy of the United States, and officers of the militia, to be vigilant, each within his respective department, and according to his functions, in searching out and bringing to punishment all persons engaged or concerned in such enterprises; in seizing and detaining, subject to the disposition of the law, all arms, military stores, vessels, or other means provided or providing for the same, and in general in preventing the carrying on such expedition or enterprise by all the lawful means within their power; and I require all good and faithful citizens and others within the United States to be aiding and assisting herein, and especially in the discovery, apprehension, and bringing to justice all such offenders, in preventing the execution of their unlawful combinations or designs, and in giving information against them to the proper authorities.American State Papers, vol. iv, p. 1.

“JAMES MADISON.

“Washington, September 1, 1815.”

In 1816 the Portuguese-Brazilian government intervened by force in Buenos Ayres, and thus became a party to the contest between Spain and her South American colonies.Annual Register, 1816.

In December of that year President Madison communicated to Congress the following message:American State Papers, vol. iv, p. 103.

“Washington, December 26, 1816.

“It is found that the existing laws have not the efficacy necessary to prevent violations of the obligations of the United States as a nation at peace towards belligerent parties, and other unlawful acts in the high seas by armed vessels equipped within the waters of the United States.

“With a view to maintain more effectually the respect due to the laws, to the character, and to the neutral and pacific relations of the United States, I recommend to the consideration of Congress the expediency of such further legislative provisions as may be requisite for detaining vessels actually equipped, or in a course of equipment, with a warlike force, within the jurisdiction of the United States; or, as the case may be, for obtaining from the owners or commanders of such vessels adequate securities against the abuse of their armaments, with the exceptions in such provisions of the cases of merchant vessels furnished with the defensive armaments used on distant and dangerous expeditions, and of a private commerce in military stores permitted by our laws, and which the law of nations does not require the United States to prohibit.

“JAMES MADISON.”

The Committee on Foreign Affairs at the same time laid before the House of Representatives some papers relating to this subject, among which were a letter from the Secretary of State, (Mr. Monroe,) reporting “That the provisions-necessary to make the laws effectual against fitting out armed vessels in our ports for the purpose of hostile cruising seem to be—

“1st. That they should be laid under bond not to violate the treaties of the United States or the obligations of the United States under the law of nations, in all cases where there is reason to suspect such a purpose on foot, including the cases of vessels taking on board arms and munitions of war, applicable to the equipment and armament of such vessels subsequent to their departure.

“2d. To invest the collectors, or other revenue officers where there are no collectors, with power to seize and detain versels under circumstances indicating strong presumption of an intended breach of the law; the detention to take place until the Executive, on a full representation of the facts had thereupon can he obtained. The statute book contains analogous powers to this above suggested. (See particularly the 11th section of the act of Congress of April 25, 1808.)

“The existing laws do not go to this extent. They do not authorize the demand of security in any shape, or any interposition on the part of the magistracy as a preventive, where there is reason to suspect an intention to commit the offense. They rest upon the general footing of punishing the offense where, if there be full evidence of the actual perpetration of the crime, the party is bonded over after the trial to the penalty denounced.”

On the 3d of March, 1817, a short act was passed, in which (in order to meet a question which had been raised as to whether the South American armies, not being formerly recognized as independent communities, came within the scope of the act of 1794) the terms “army, district, or people,” are inserted after the phrase “prince or state,” as it stands in the first section of the act of 1794.United States Statutes at Large, vol. iii, p. 370.“British and Foreign State Papers,” vol. iv, p. 839.

The recommendations of the President and Mr. Monroe were partially carried out by provisions in the 2d and 3d sections of this act for a bond being taken from the owners of suspected vessels.

The President in his message to Congress of the 2d of December, 1817, called attention to piratical establishments which had been constituted at Amelia island and Galveston, and stated that instructions had been given for their suppression. “The establishments, if ever sanctioned by any authority whatever, which is not believed, have abused their trust and forfeited all claim to consideration.”American State Papers, vol. iv, p. 130.

It appears that these places were used as rendezvous for smugglers and slave dealers, who introduced slaves from them into the United States in defiance of the laws.

Amelia island was in Spanish territory, and had been the subject of negotiation between Spain and the United States.

Galveston was in the disputed territory on the Spanish and United States boundary.American State Papers, vol. iv, p. 132.

It appears that “among the avowed projects of the persons who had occupied Amelia island was that of making a conquest of East and West Florida, professedly for the purpose of establishing there an independent government. * * * The greater part of West Florida being in the actual possession of the United States, this project involved in it designs of direct hostility against them; and, as the express object of the resolution and act of January 15, 1811, was to authorize the President to prevent the province of East Florida from passing into the hands of any foreign power, it became the obvious duty of the President to exercise the authority vested in him by that law.”

Moreover, it was “a matter of public notoriety that two of the persons who had successively held the command at Amelia island, whether authorized themselves by any government or not, had issued commissions for privateers, as in the name of the Venezulean and Mexican governments, to vessels fitted out in the ports of the United States, and chiefly manned and officered by United States citizens.”

The Galveston establishment was formed by a Commodore Oury, principally for the purpose of privateering and slave dealing. He issued commissions in the name of the Mexican republic, and fitted out his vessels in United States ports, and brought his prizes to Galveston, where they were condemned by a fictitious admiralty court, and the prize vessels and cargoes afterwards sent to the United States for sale. Some of these prizes were restored to the original owners by process in the Louisiana district court.

A United States force was dispatched against both these establishments, and in December, 1817, they were forcibly suppressed. Spain remonstrated against the occupation of Amelia, island, but the United States government stated that it was a temporary measure which had been carried out in the public interest, and was not intended as an infraction of any Spanish rights of sovereignty.American State Papers, vol. iv, p. 183.

In 1818, a further foreign enlishment act was passed (April 3) repealing and revising the acts of 1794, 1797, and 1817. This act is the one now in force.“United States Statutes at Large,” vol. iii, p. 447.

The principal points in which it differs from the act of 1794 are as follows:“British and Foreign State Papers,” vol. ix, p. 382.

Section 1. Instead of the words “foreign prince or state,” the words are “foreign prince, state, colony, district, or people,” and so throughout the act.

Sec. 2. Omits the last paragraph of indemnity to the informer.

Sec. 3. Has “within the limits of the United States,” instead of “within any of the ports, harbors, bays, rivers, or other waters.” The penalty is made $10,000 instead of $5,000.

Sec. 4. Has no corresponding clause in the act of 1794. It provides against the equipment of vessels “without the limits” of the United States to commit hostilities “upon the citizens of the United States or their property,” under penalty of a fine of $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than 10 years.

This clause is similar in its general provisions to the act of 1797, with the material difference that that act provided for the punishment of an offense committed “without the limits” of the United States upon “the citizens or property of any prince or state with whom the United States are at peace, or upon the citizens of the United States or their property.”

Sec. 5. Is the same as section 4 in the act of 1794, with the addition of “or by changing those on board of her for guns of a larger caliber” after the words “by adding to the number of the guns in such vessel.”

Sec. 6 (same as Sec. 5.) The penalty is made one year instead of three years’ imprisonment.

Secs. 7 and 8. Same as Secs. 8 and 9.

Secs. 10 and 11. The “bonding” clauses are nearly the same as those in the act of 1817, and as they are of importance as constituting the chief difference between the English and American foreign enlistment acts, are here given at length:

“Sec. 10. And be it further enacted, That the owners or consignees of every armed ship or vessel sailing out of the ports of the United States, belonging wholly or in part to citizens thereof, shall enter into bond to the United States, with sufficient sureties, prior to clearing out the same, in double the amount of the value of the vessel and cargo on board, including her armament, that the said ship or vessel shall not be employed by such owners to cruise or commit hostilities against the subjects, citizens, or property, of any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district, or people, with whom the United States are at peace.

“Sec. 11. And be it further enacted, That the collectors of the customs be, and they are hereby, respectively authorized and required to detain any vessel manifestly built for warlike purposes, and about to depart the United States, of which the cargo shall principally consist of arms and munitions of war, when the number of men shipped on board, or other circumstances, shall render it probable that such vessel is intended to be employed by the owner or owners to cruise or commit hostilities upon the subjects, citizens, or property of any foreign state, or of any colony, district, or people with whom the United States are at peace, until the decision of the President be had thereon, or until the owner or owners shall give such bond and security as is required of the owners of armed ships by the preceding section of this act.”^*

Sec. 12. Repeals the acts of 1794 and 1797.

A few more decisions in the Supreme Court remain to be noticed.

The “Divina Pastora,” February, 1819.Curtis, vol. iv, page 345.

Judgment.—The government of the United States having recognized the existence of a civil war between Spain and her colonies, our courts are bound to recognize as lawful those acts which war authorizes, and the new government in South America.

Captures made under their commission must be treated by us like other captures.

Their legality cannot be determined in our courts, unless made in violation of our neutrality.

The pleadings being defective in form, the cause was remanded to the circuit court. The result does not appear.

February, 1819, the “Estrella.”Curtis, vol. iv, page 406.

Judgment.—In the absence of any act of Congress on the subject, the courts of the United States would have authority, under the general law of nations, to decree restitution of property captured in violation of their neutrality.

Vessel and cargo restored with costs.

February, 1820, “La Amistad de Rues.”Ibid., vol. iv, page 673.

Judgment.—In cases of violation of our neutrality by any of the belligerents, if the prize comes voluntarily within our territory, it is restored to the original owners by our courts. But their jurisdiction for this purpose under the law of nations extends only to restitution of the specific property, with costs and expenses during the pendency of the suit, and does not extend to the infliction of vindictive damages or compensation for plunderage, as in ordinary cases of marine torts.

In delivering judgment, Chief Justice Story observed: “We entirely disclaim any right to inflict such damages, and consider it no part of the duty of a neutral nation to interpose, upon the mere footing of the law of nations, to settle all the rights and wrongs which may grow out of a capture between belligerents. Strictly speaking, there can be no such thing as a marine tort between the belligerents. Each has an undoubted right to exercise all the rights of war against the other, and it cannot be a matter of judicial complaint that they are exercised with severity, even if the parties do transcend those rules which the customary laws of war justify. At least, they have never been held within the cognizance of the prize tribunals of neutral nations. The captors are amenable to their own government exclusively for any excess or irregularity in their proceedings, and a neutral nation ought no otherwise to interfere than to prevent captors from obtaining any unjust advantage by a violation of its neutral jurisdiction. Neutral nations may, indeed, inflict pecuniary or other penalties on the parties for any such violation; but it then does it professedly, in vindication of its own rights, and not by way of compensation to the captured. When called upon by either of the belligerents to act in such cases, all that justice seems to require is that the neutral nation should fairly execute its own laws and give no asylum to the property unjustly captured. It is bound, therefore, to restore the property if found within its own ports; but beyond this it is not obliged to interpose between the belligerents. If, indeed, it were otherwise, there would be no end to the difficulties and embarrasments of neutral prize tribunals. They would be compelled to decide, in every variety of shape, upon marine trespasses in rem and in personam between belligerents, without possessing adequate means of ascertaining the real facts, or of compelling the attendance of foreign witnesses, and thus they would draw within their jurisdiction almost every incident of prize. Such a course of things would necessarily create irritations and animosities, and very soon embark neutral nations in all the controversies and hostilities of the conflicting parties. Considerations of public policy came, therefore, in aid of what we consider the law of nations in this subject, and we may add that Congress in his legislation has never passed the limit which is here marked out.”

The action was brought on appeal from the district court, which had ordered restitution and awarded damages against the captors on the ground of an illegal augmentation of force at New Orleans. The claimants having failed to prove such an augmentation of force before the Supreme Court, the sentence of the district court was reversed, and the prize restored to the captor (the Venezuelan privateer La Guerrière) and the damages disallowed, as stated above.

February, 1822. The “Santissima Trinidad” and the “St. Ander.” This was a claim preferred by the Spanish consul, as representing the Spanish owners, for “eighty-nine bales of cochineal, two bales of jalap, and one box of vanilla, originally constituting part of the cargoes of the Spanish ships Santissima Trinidad and St. Ander, and alleged to have been unlawfully and piratically taken out of those vessels on the high seas, by a squadron consisting of two armed vessels, called the Independencia del Sud and the Altravida, and manned and commanded by persons assuming themselves to be citizens of the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata.”Curtis, vol. v, page 269.

Chief Justice Story thus stated the case as regarded the Independencia: “She was originally built and equipped at Baltimore as a privateer during the late war with Great Britain, and was then rigged as a schooner and called the Mammoth, and sailed against the enemy. After the peace she was rigged as a schooner and sold by her original owners. In January, 1816, she was loaded with a cargo of munitions of war by her new owners, (who are inhabitants of Baltimore,) and being armed with 12 guns, constituting a part of her original armament. She was dispatched from that port under the command of the claimant on a voyage, ostensibly to the northwest coast, but in reality to Buenos Ayres. By the written restrictions given to the supercargo on this voyage, he was authorized to sell the vessel to the government of Buenos Ayres if he could obtain a suitable price. She duly arrived at Buenos Ayres, having exercised no act of hostility, but sailed under the protection of the American flag during the voyage. At Buenos Ayres the vessel was sold to Captain Chaytor and two other persons; and soon afterwards she assumed the flag and character of a public ship, and was understood by the crew to have been sold to the government of Buenos Ayres; and Captain Chaytor made known these facts to the crew, and asserted that he had become a citizen of Buenos Ayres, and had received a commission to command the vessel as a national ship, and invited the crew to enlist in the service, and the greater part of them accordingly enlisted. From this period, which was in May, 1816, the public functionaries of our own and other foreign governments at that port considered the vessel as a public ship of war, and such was her avowed character and reputation. No bill of sale of the vessel to the government of Buenos Ayres is produced, and a question has been made, principally from this defect in the evidence, whether her character as a public ship is established. It is not understood that any doubt is expressed as to the genuineness of Captain Chaytor’s commission, nor as to the competency of the other proofs in the cause introduced to corroborate it. The only point is, whether, supposing them true, they afford satisfactory evidence of her public character. We are of opinion that they do. In general, the commission of a public ship, signed by the proper authorities of the nation to which she belongs, is complete proof of her national character. * * * The commission of a public ship when duly authenticated, so far at least as foreign courts are concerned, imports absolute verity and the title is not examinable. * * *

“There is another objection urged against the admission of this vessel to the privileges and immunities of a public ship. * * * * It is that Buenos Ayres has not yet been acknowledged as a sovereign independent government by the executive or legislature of the United States, and therefore is not entitled to have her ships of war recognized by our courts as national ships. We have in former cases had occasion to express our opinion on this point. The government of the United States has recognized the existence of a civil war between Spain and her colonies, and has avowed a determination to remain neutral between the parties, and to allow to each the same right of asylum and intercourse. Each party is therefore deemed by us a belligerent nation, having, so far as concerns us, the sovereign rights of war, and entitled to be respected in the exercise of those rights. * * * * *

“The next question growing out of this record is, whether the property in question was captured in violation of our neutrality, so that restitution ought, by the law of nations, to be decreed to the belligerents. Two grounds are relied upon to justify restitution: 1. That the Independencia and Altravida were originally equipped, armed and manned as vessels of war in our ports. 2. That there was an illegal augmentation of the force of the Independencia within our ports. * * * *

“The question as to the original illegal armament and outfit of the Independencia may be dismissed in a few words. It is apparent that, though equipped as a vessel of war, she was sent to Buenos Ayres on a commercial adventure, contraband indeed, but in no shape violating our laws or our national neutrality. If captured by a Spanish ship of war during the voyage, she would have been justly condemnable as good prize for being engaged in a traffic prohibited by the law of nations. But there is nothing in our laws, or in the law of nations, that forbids our citizens from sending armed vessels, as well as munitions of war, to foreign parts for sale. It is a commercial venture, which no nation is bound to prohibit, and which only exposes the persons engaged in it to the penalty of confiscation. Supposing, therefore, the voyage to have been for commercial purposes, and the sale at Buenos Ayres to have been a bona fide sale, (and there is nothing in the evidence before us to contradict it,) there is no pretense to say that the original outfit in the voyage was illegal, or that a capture made after the sale, for that cause alone, invalid.”

On the second point, the court found that there had been a subsequent illegal augmentation of force both of the Independencia and of the Altravida, and on this ground the prize was ordered to be restored to the Spanish claimants.

February, 1822.—The “Gran Para.”

Judgment.—It is firmly settled that if captures are made by vessels which have violated our neutrality acts, the property may be restored if brought within our territory.

Curtis, vol. v, page 302.

A vessel armed and manned in one of our ports and sailing thence to a belligerent port, with the intent thence to depart on a cruise with the crew and armament obtained here, and so departing, and capturing belligerent property, violates our neutrality laws, and her prizes coming within our jurisdiction will be restored.

A bona fide termination of the cruise for which the illegal armament was here obtained puts an end to the disability growing out of the violation of our neutrality laws, which does not attach indefinitely, but a colorable termination has no such effect.

The prize, bullion taken out of the Portuguese vessel Gran Para, and brought to Baltimore in September, 1818, in the capturing privateer Irresistible, sailing under the Artigan flag, was restored to the Portuguese claimants, with costs.

February, 1823, “La Nereyda.”

Curtis, vol. v, page 374.

This was an action brought by the Spanish consul for the recovery of the brig Nereyda.

The Nereyda was a Spanish ship of war, captured in 1818 by the privateer Irresistible, of which John Daniels was the commander and Henry Childs lieutenant, and which had been illegally equipped at Baltimore. The Nereyda was carried to the island of Margaritta under the command of Childs as prize master. It was alleged that at Margaritta the Nereyda was condemned as prize, and sold to one Franchesche; but no proof of the sale was adduced; and it appeared that during the short time she remained at Margaritta she was under the control of Childs, who obtained a commission as a privateer for her from the Veuezuelan government, changed her name to the El Congresso de Venezuela, and sailed back in her to the United States, where she was eventually libelled at Baltimore.

Childs opposed the claim of the Spanish consul by a counter-claim on behalf of the alleged purchaser, Franchesche.

The case was brought up on appeal from the district court. Time was allowed to the respondent to produce a copy of the judgment of the Margaritta prize court, and also to show that the sale there was a real one, and Franchesche a bona fide purchaser.

Childs failed to produce this evidence, and it having been shown that although four years had elapsed since the pretended sale, Franchesche had never asserted any rights over the vessel, which had continued in the possession of Childs and Daniels since the capture, the decree of the district court was reversed, and the vessel restored to the Spanish consul.

United States vs. Quincy, January, 1832.Curtis, vol. x, page 189.

The question before the court was as to the instructions which ought to have been given to the jury of the circuit court for the Maryland district in a prosecution against John D. Quincy for a violation of the act of 1818.

In December, 1828, the Bolivar, a small vessel of 70 tons, sailed for Baltimore from St. Thomas under the command of Quincy, with her owner, Armstrong, on board. At St. Thomas, Armstrong fitted her out as a privateer under the name of Las Damas Argentinas, to cruise under the Buenos Ayres flag against Brazil. Quincy continued to command her and made some prizes. He afterwards returned to the United States, and the prosecution in question was instituted against him for being concerned in fitting out the Bolivar.

Judgment.—“It is not necessary that the jury should believe or find that the Bolivar, when she left Baltimore and when she arrived at St. Thomas, and during the voyage from Baltimore to St. Thomas, was armed, or in a condition to commit hostilities, in order to find the defendant guilty of the offense charged in the indictment.

“The first instruction, therefore, prayed on the part of the defendant must be denied, and that on the part of the United States given.

“The second and third instructions asked on the part of the defendant were:

“That if the jury believe that when the Bolivar was fitted and equipped at Baltimore the owner and equipper intended to go to the West Indies in search of funds with which to arm and equip the said vessel, and had no present intention of using or employing the said vessel as a privateer, but intended, when he equipped her, to go to the West Indies to endeavor to raise funds to prepare her for a cruise, then the defendant is not guilty.

“Or if the jury believe that when the Bolivar was equipped at Baltimore, and when she left the United States, the equipper had no fixed intention to employ her as a privateer, but had a wish so to employ her, the fulfillment of which wish depended on his ability to obtain funds in the West Indies for the purpose of arming and preparing her for war, then the defendant is not guilty.

“We think these instructions ought to be given. The offense consists principally in the intention with which the preparations were made. These preparations, according to the very terms of the act, must be made within the limits of the United States, and it is equally necessary that the intention with respect to the employment of the vessel should be formed before she leaves the United States. And this must be a fixed intention, not conditional or contingent, depending on some future arrangements. This intention is a question belonging exclusively to the jury to decide. It is the material point on which the legality or criminality of the act must turn, and decides whether the adventure is of a commercial or warlike character.

“The law does not prohibit armed vessels belonging to citizens of the United States from sailing out of our ports; it only requires the owner to give security (as was done in the present case) that such vessels shall not be employed by them to commit hostilities against foreign powers at peace with the United States.

“The collectors are not authorized to detain vessels, although manifestly built for warlike purposes, and about to depart from the United States, unless circumstances shall render it probable that such vessels are intended to be employed by the owner to commit hostilities against some foreign power at peace with the United States.

“All the latitude, therefore, necessary for commercial purposes, is given to our citizens, and they are restrained only from such acts as are calculated to involve the country in war.”

Other cases might be quoted, but it is only intended to convey a general idea of the ruling of the United States courts in carrying out the neutrality laws. There does not appear to have occurred, either during the French war or the South American war, any case similar to the Alabama, where the vessel was dispatched to an unoccupied island, and there met by another vessel bringing her armament and crew. This no doubt is owing in some measure to the difficulty there might have been in carrying out such a project with sailing vessels.

Spanish and Portuguese claims, arising out of the system of privateering pursued by American citizens under the flags of the revolted colonies, have recently been so fully discussed in the communications between Lord Russell and Mr. Adams, respecting the Alabama and Shenandoah cases, that a short account of the correspondence will probably be sufficient for the purposes of the present memorandum.Parliamentary Papers, “North America, No. 1, 1861,” &c.

The treaty between Spain and the United States of America of the 27th of October, 1795, contained the following stipulation:

“Article XIV. No subject of his Catholic Majesty shall apply for or take any commission or letters of marque for arming any ship or ships to act as privateers against the said United States, or against the said citizens, people or inhabitants of the said United States, or against the property of any of the inhabitants of any of them, from any prince or state with which the United States shall be at war.

“Nor shall any citizen, subject, or inhabitant of the said United States apply for, or take any commission or letters of marque for arming any ships to act as privateers against the subjects of his Catholic Majesty, or the property of any of them, from any prince or state with which the said King shall he at war. And if any person of either nation shall take such commissions or letters of marque, he shall be punished as a pirate.”

When diplomatic relations between Spain and the United States, which had been suspended in 1808, were renewed in 1815, the Spanish minister addressed a note to the Secretary of State containing proposals as the basis of negotiation for the settlement of the various differences in dispute between the two countries.

The Chevalier de Onis mentions as one of the points on which an understanding was urgent, “That the President will be pleased to give the necessary orders to the collectors of customs not to admit into the ports of the United States vessels under the insurrectionary flag of Carthagena, of the Mexican Congress of Buenos Ayres, or of the other places which have revolted against the authority of the King, my master, nor those coming from them, that they should not permit them to land, or to sell in this country the shameful proceeds of their piracy or atrocities, and much less to equip themselves in these ports, as they do, for the purpose of going to sea to destroy and to plunder the vessels which they may meet with under the Spanish flag. This tolerance, subversive of the most solemn stipulations in the treaties between Spain and the United States, and diametrically opposed to the general principles of public security and good faith, and to the laws of nations, produces the most melancholy effects on the interest and the prosperity of the subjects of his Catholic Majesty. Certain it is that neither Carthagena nor any other place in the Spanish dominions in this hemisphere, which has revolted, can he in communication with any power friendly to Spain, since neither on its part, nor on that of any other government, has their independence been acknowledged; and it is, consequently, an offense against the dignity of the Spanish monarchy, and against the sovereignty of the King, my master, to admit vessels from such places, manned and commanded by insurgents, and armed in the dominions of this confederation, particularly as they are all pirates who do not respect any flag, are justly considered the disgrace of the seas, and are execrated by all nations.” (The Chevalier de Onis to the Secretary of State, December 30, 1815.)American State Papers, vol. iv, p. 423. British State Papers, vol. iii, p. 109.

Mr. Monroe replied, “With regard to your third demand, the exclusion of the flag of the revolting provinces, I have to observe that, in consequence of the unsettled state of many countries, and repeated changes of the ruling authority in each, there being at the same time several competitors, and each party bearing his appropriate flag, the President thought it proper, some time past, to give orders to the collectors not to make the flag of any vessel a criterion or condition of its admission into the ports of the United States.” And he added: “What will he the final result of the civil war which prevails between Spain and the Spanish provinces in America is beyond the reach of human foresight. It has already existed many years, and with various success, sometimes one party prevailing and then the other. In some of the provinces the success of the revolutionists appears to have given to their cause more stability than in others. All that your government had a right to claim of the United States was that they should not interfere in the contest, or promote, by any active service, the success of the revolution, admitting that they continued to overlook the injuries received from Spain, and remained at peace. This right was common to the colonists. With equal justice might they claim that we would not interfere to their disadvantage; that our ports should remain open to both parties, as they were before the commencement of the struggle; that our laws regulating commerce with foreign nations should not be changed to their injury. On these principles the United States have acted.” (Mr. Monroe to the Chevalier de Onis, January 19, 1816.)American State Papers, vol. iv, p. 426. British State Papers, vol. iii, p. 119.

On the 10th of June, 1816, Mr. Monroe forwarded to the Chevalier de Onis a copy of a report from Mr. Dick, attorney of the United States for the district of Louisiana, dated March 1, 1816, denying the chevalier’s allegations of the open enlistment of men and equipment of expeditions to serve against Spain. “A regard to truth makes it necessary to say that what is alleged respecting the arming and fitting out of vessels within the waters of Louisiana, to be employed in the service of the revolutionary governments against the subjects or property of the King of Spain, is unfounded. At no period since the commencement of the struggle between the Spanish colonies and the mother country have vessels, to be employed in the service, of the colonies, been permitted to fit out and arm or to augment their force at New Orleans or elsewhere within the State of Louisiana.American State Papers, vol. iv, p. 431.

“On the contrary, it is notorious that at no one point of duty have the civil and military authorities of the United States directed more strenuously, or it is believed, more successfully, their attention than to the discovering and suppression of all attempts to violate the laws in these respects. Attempts to violate them by fitting out and arming and by augmenting the force of vessels have no doubt been frequent, but certainly in no instance successful, except where conducted under circumstances of concealment that eluded discovery and almost suspicion, or where carried on at some remote point of the coast beyond the reach of detection or discovery. In every instance where it was known that these illegal acts were attempting, or where it was afterwards discovered that they had been committed, the persons engaged, as far as they were known, have been prosecuted, while the vessels fitted out, or attempted to be fitted out, have been seized and libeled under the act of the 5th of June, 1794; and when captures have been made by vessels thus fitted out and armed, or in which their force was augmented or increased within our waters, where the property taken was brought within our jurisdiction, or even found upon the high seas by our cruisers and brought in, it has been restored to the original Spanish owners, and, in some instances, damages awarded against the captors.”

Mr. Dick appended a list, showing that during the year 1815 seven persons had been prosecuted and six vessels libeled under the act of 1796, (of which three were condemned,) and prizes restored to the Spanish claimants in nine cases.

It does not appear, however, that the measures adopted by the officers of the United States government, referred to by Mr. Dick, were efficacious in preventing violations of the foreign enlistment act to the satisfaction of the Spanish minister, for on the 2d of January, 1817, he addressed a farther representation to the Secretary of State: “The mischiefs resulting from the toleration of the armament of privateers in the ports of this Union, and of bringing into them, with impunity, the plunder made by these privateers on the Spanish trade, for the purpose of distributing it amongst those merchants who have no scruple in engaging in these piracies, have arisen to such a height that I should be wanting in my duty if I omitted to call your attention again to this very important subject. It is notorious, that although the speculative system of fitting out privateers, and putting them under a foreign flag, one disavowed by all nations, for the purpose of destroying the Spanish commerce, has been more or less pursued in all the ports of the Union, it is more especially in those of New Orleans and Baltimore, where the greatest violations of the respect due to a friendly nation, and, if I may say so, of that due to themselves, have been committed; whole squadrons of pirates having been sent out from thence, in violation of the solemn treaty existing between the two nations, and bringing back to them the fruits of their piracies, without being yet checked in these courses, either by the reclamations I have made, those of his Majesty’s consuls, or the decisive and judicious orders issued by the President for that purpose.” M. de Onis complains in this note of the proceedings of several privateers at Baltimore, New York, Norfolk, and New Orleans.British State Papers, vol. v, p. 365.

No answer seems to have been returned to M. de Onis’s note.

In January, February, and March, M. de Onis sent in 12 other notes in the same strain, and on the 28th of March the acting Secretary of State informed him that inquiry would be made and “adequate redress and punishment enforced, should it appear that the laws have been infringed by any of the acts complained of.”British State Papers, vol. v, pp. 368–379.

Five more notes from M. de Onis followed, principally complaining of the captures effected by the Independencia del Sud and Altravida, (see case of Santissima Trinidad,) and the asylum afforded to those vessels as well as to the Congress, Mongore, and other privateers in American ports.State Papers, vol. v, pp. 380-397.

On the 22d of April the acting Secretary of State inquired whether M. de Onis had power to conclude a treaty, as, if not, it was “deemed improper to entertain discussions of the kind invited by” his late notes.Ibid., p. 398.

M. de Onis continued his representations in eight more notes, in one of which, addressed to Mr. J. Q. Adams, dated the 2d of November, 1817, he says: “It is very disagreeable to me to have to repeat to you, sir, what unfortunately I have been several times under the necessity of submitting to the President through the medium of your predecessors; namely, that the act of Congress of the 3d of March, 1817, has in nowise lessened the abuses by which the laws are evaded, and render entirely illusory the laudable purposes for which they were enacted. From the greater part of the ports of these States there frequently sail a considerable number of vessels, with the premeditated intention of attacking the Spanish commerce, which carry their armament concealed in the hold. It rarely happens that they can be arrested, inasmuch as the collectors of customs say that they have not at their disposition the naval force necessary to effect it; on the other hand, armed vessels, under the flag of the insurgents, enter into the ports of the Union, and not only supply themselves with all necessaries, but also considerably increase the means they already have of destroying the trade of Spain, as has recently been the case at New York, whereby the (so-called) privateers of his Majesty’s revolted provinces, which are in reality nothing more than pirates, manned by the scum of all countries, enjoy greater privileges than the vessels of independent powers.” In May, 1818, M. de Onis, referring to a French expedition prepared at Philadelphia under General Lallemand, and which was supposed to be intended to operate against Mexico, stated to Mr. Adams, “I would have considered myself dispensed from the necessity of again pressing this subject on your attention if it had appeared possible for me to restrain these armaments by the employment of judicial means; but unfortunately the act of Congress of the 20th of April last, for preserving neutrality with foreign nations, and others already in force, although highly judicious, are easily eluded; and although these practices are public and notorious throughout the whole Union, his Majesty’s consuls advise me that through a deficiency of evidence they cannot be restrained by a regular application of the law.” (The Chevalier de Onis to Mr. Adams, May 7, 1818.)Ibid., pp.398–415American State Papers, vol. iv, p. 199.British State Papers, vol. vi, p. 225.

On the 9th of June, 1818, M. de Onis represented that there were then at Baltimore four privateers—the Independencia del Sud, the Mongore, the Republicano, and the Alerta, three of which were notoriously fitted out there, and the fourth was a schooner captured from Spanish owners. All these vessels were commanded by Americans, and manned, with scarcely an exception, by American crews; that, however clear the facts might be to everybody, it was in vain to seek evidence to prove them, “as a great portion of the commercial people of Baltimore being interested in the cases which produce my present reclamations, no one is willing to come forward and offer testimony against what is termed the general interest.”British State Papers, vol. vi, p. 226.

M. de Onis continued his complaints during the summer of 1818, and called attention particularly to the purchase and equipment of two privateers at New York.

Mr. Adams at length replied as follows:Ibid., vol. vi, p. 262.

“I have received your letters of the 27th ultimo and 5th instant with their respective inclosures, all of which have been laid before the President. With regard to the two vessels alleged to have been equipped at New York for the purpose of cruising under the flag of Buenos Ayres against Spanish subjects, the result of the examination which has taken place before a judge of the Supreme Court of the United States has doubtless convinced you that no prosecution commenced by the government of the United States against the persons charged with a violation of their laws and their neutrality could have been necessary or useful to you, no transgression of the law having been proved against them.

* * * * * * * * * *

“I am further instructed by the President to assure you of the satisfaction with which he has seen, in the last paragraph of your letter, your expectation of being speedily enabled to make proposals containing the bases of a treaty which may adjust, to mutual satisfaction, all the existing differences between our two nations, and his earnest hope that this expectation, in the fulfillment of which this government have confided, and adopted measures corresponding with it, may be realized at an early day.”

Negotiations were shortly afterwards set on foot for the conclusion of a treaty between the two countries, for the settlement of the differences which had so long existed between them, and among the proposals put forward by the Spanish government were a mutual renunciation of “all claims for damages or injuries which they themselves, or their respective subjects or citizens, may have suffered,” and the adoption of such laws or measures as might be required “to remedy and cut up by the roots the abuses which, contrary to the law of nations, and contrary to what is expressly stipulated in the treaty of 1795, above cited, daily occur in some ports of this Union, in consequence of the vague and arbitrary interpretation which it seems the measures until now adopted are susceptible of, and by which means the law is eluded.” (Mr. Adams to the Chevalier de Onis, October 24, 1818.)M. de Onis to Mr. Adams, October 24, 1818.State Papers, vol. v, p. 265.Ibid., pp. 267-277.

The United States government assented to the mutual renunciation of claims, but refused the other proposal, as they considered there was no occasion for any new laws or declarations. “Of the many complaints which you have addressed to this government in relation to alleged transactions in our ports, the deficiency has been, not in the meaning or interpretation of the treaty, but in the proof of the facts which you have stated, or which have been reported to you, to bring the cases of complaint within the scope of the stipulations of the treaty.” (Mr. Adams to M. de Onis, October 31, 1818.)British State Papers, vol. vi, p. 281.

To this the Spanish minister rejoined:

“Whatever may be the forecast, wisdom, and justice conspicuous in the laws of the United States, it is universally notorious that a system of pillage and aggression has been organized in several ports of the Union against the vessels and property of the Spanish nation; and it is equally so, that all the legal suits hitherto instituted by his Catholic Majesty’s consuls in the courts of their respective districts, for its prevention, or the recovery of the property when brought into this country, have been, and still are, completely unavailing. The artifices and evasions by means of which the letter of the law has on these occasions been constantly eluded are sufficiently known, and even the combination of interests in persons who are well known, among whom are some holding public offices. With a view to afford you and the President more complete demonstration of the abuses, aggressions, and piracies alluded to, I inclose you correct lists, extracted from authentic documents deposited in the archives of this legation, exhibiting the number of privateers or pirates fitted out in the United States against Spain, and of the prizes brought by them into the Union, as well as of those sent to other ports, together with the result of the claims made by the Spanish consuls in the courts of this country. Among them you will find the case of two armed ships, the Horatio and Curiazo, built at New York, and detained by his Majesty’s consul there on the ground of their having on board 30 pieces of cannon concealed, with their carriages, and a crew of 160 men. On which occasion it was pretended that it could not be proved that these guns were not an article of commerce, and they finally put to sea without them, the extraordinary number of officers and crew passing for passengers. The number of privateers or pirates fitted out or protected in the ports of this republic, as well as of the Spanish prizes made by them, far exceeds that contained in the within lists; but I only lay before your government those of which I have certain and satisfactory proofs. The right of Spain to an adequate indemnity for all the spoliations committed by these privateers or pirates on the Crown and subjects of his Catholic Majesty, is undeniable; but I now submit it to your government, only to point out the extreme necessity of putting an end to these continued acts of hostility and depredation, and of cutting short these enormous and flagrant abuses and evils, by the adoption of such effectual precautions and remedies as will put it out of the power of cupidity or ingenuity to defeat or elude them. In vain should we endeavor amicably to settle and accommodate all existing differences, and thus establish peace and good understanding between the two nations, if the practice of these abuses and the course of these hostilities and piracies on the commerce and navigation of Spain should, as heretofore, continue uninterrupted in the United States.” (The Chevalier de Onis to Mr. Adams, November 16, 1818.)British State Papers, vol. vi, p. 285.

The Secretary of State, in reply, expressed the readiness of his government to continue the negotiations, provided the Spanish minister would consent to waive a certain portion of his proposition, (relating to the transactions in Florida and the western boundary,) but added, that if he did not feel at liberty to proceed with the negotiations on those terms, he (Mr. Adams) was ready to exchange with him the ratifications of the convention of 1802. (Mr. Adams to M. de Onis, November 30, 1818.)State Papers, vol. vi, p. 291.

On the 22d of February, 1819, a treaty of amity, settlement, and limits was concluded at Washington between the United States of America and his Catholic Majesty, and the following is a statement of the claims which each party consented to renounce:

Article IX. “The two high contracting parties, animated with the most earnest desire of conciliation, and with the object of putting an end to all the differences which have existed between them, and of confirming the good understanding which they wish to be forever maintained between them reciprocally, renounce all claim for damages or injuries which they themselves, as with as their respective citizens and subjects, may have suffered until the time of signing this treaty.State Papers, vol. viii, p. 530.

“The renunciation of the United States will extend—

“1. To all the injuries mentioned in the convention of 11th August, 1802.

“2. To all claims on account of prizes made by French privateers and condemned by French consuls within the territory and jurisdiction of Spain.

“3. To all claims and indemnities on account of the suspension of the right of deposit at New Orleans in 1802.

“4. To all claims of citizens of the United States upon the Spanish government, statements of which, soliciting the interposition of the government of the United States, have been presented to the Department of State, or to the minister of the United States in Spain, since the date of the convention of 1802, and until the signature of this treaty.

“The renunciation of his Catholic Majesty extends—

“1. To all the injuries mentioned in the convention of 11th August, 1802.

“2. To the sums which his Catholic Majesty advanced for the return of Captain Pike from the Provincias Internas.

“3. To all injuries caused by the expedition of Miranda, which was fitted out and equipped at New York.

“To all claims of Spanish subjects upon the government of the United States arising from unlawful seizures at sea or within the ports and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

“Finally, to all the claims of subjects of his Catholic Majesty upon the government of the United States, in which the interposition of his Catholic Majesty has been solicited before the date of this treaty, and since the date of the convention of 1802, or which may have been made to the department of foreign affairs of his Majesty or to his minister in the United States.

“And the high contracting parties respectively renounce all claim to indemnities for any of the recent events or transactions of their respective commanders and officers in the Floridas.

“The United States will cause satisfaction to he made for the injuries, if any, which by process of law shall be established to have been suffered by the Spanish officers and individual Spanish inhabitants by the late operations of the American army in Florida.”

This treaty concludes the published correspondence respecting the Spanish claims.

The correspondence between Portugal and the United States will be found in a convenient shape for reference in the appendix to the “Alabama” papers, republished by Messrs. Longmans, Green & Co., in 1867.

It was laid before Congress on the 4th of February, 1852, together with the correspondence relating to the claims of United States citizens in Portugal arising out of the case of the General Armstrong.Executive Documents, House of Representatives, No. 53, 32d Congress, 1st session.

See also British State Papers, vol. 222. The following is the succinct account of this correspondence, given in Lord Russell’s note to Mr. Adams of the 30th of August, 1865, (Parliamentary paper, North America, No. 1, 1866, p. 26.)

“The correspondence to which I refer began in December, 1816, and closed with a letter of the Portuguese minister in November, 1850. It cannot be pretended that the reclamations of a friendly power extending over 34 years did not receive the gravest attention of the American government.

“In his first letter, the Portuguese envoy at Washington complains that Mr. Taylor, of Baltimore, an American citizen, had directed Captain Fish, of the Romp, an American ship, to cruise as a privateer under the insurgent colors of Buenos Ayres against the subjects of Portugal.

“He adds, ‘The 18th of last month (November) the frigate Clifton, Captain Davis, armed with 32 guns of various calibers, and a crew of 200 men, sailed from Baltimore for Buenos Ayres. This ship anchored below that port, where it has remained for about a fortnight or more waiting for the American ship Independence of the South, armed with 16 guns, and for the ships Romp, Tachahoe, Montezuma, and Spanker, and two others newly constructed, which were fitting with great activity and which had not yet got names. All were to sail together, to cruise in the eastern and western seas of South America, under the insurgent colors of Buenos Ayres. No doubt can be entertained of their instructions being the same as those of Captain Fish, and that they will act hostilely against Portuguese ships.’

“The Portuguese envoy, Joseph Correa de Serra, prays for an amendment of the law of the United States with a view to render it more efficient in such cases. A law having been passed by Congress for this purpose, the Portuguese envoy, in May, 1817, requests that the President will desire the United States officers on the outposts to use greater vigilance.

“In March, 1818, he eomplains that three Portuguese ships have been captured ‘by privateers fitted in the United States, manned by American crews, and commanded by American captains, though under insurgent colors.’

“In October of the same year the Portuguese envoy complains that a Portuguese prize is fitting in the Patuxent, to cruise against Portuguese commerce.

“In November of the same year the Portuguese minister states to Mr. Adams that, obliged by his duty to inquire into the nature of the armed ships that had of late insulted the flag of his sovereign and committed incalculable depredations on the property of his subjects, he had found, to his sorrow, multiplied proofs that many of them were owned by citizens of the United States, and had been fitted in the ports of the Union. He goes on to complain of the difficulties in the way of prosecution, but compliments the President on his ‘honorable earnestness.’

“In December of the same year the Portuguese minister complains of the armed vessel Irresistible, which had been committing ‘depredations and unwarrantable outrages on the coast of Brazil.’ He says, it is proved by depositions that John Daniels, the commander of the ship, is an American, and all the crew are Americans. He prays that, if the ship should come into an American port, means may be taken to bring the said captain and crew within reach of the laws made to punish such scandalous proceedings.

“In March, 1819, M. Correa de Serra states, as minister of his sovereign, that Artigas, whose flag is frequently waving in the port of Baltimore, and which is carried by Portuguese prizes in the ports of the Union, has been expelled far from the countries which could afford him the power of navigating, and has not a foot length of sea-shore in South America where he can show himself. He prays that the Artigan flag may be declared illegal.

“In November, 1819, after expressing his gratitude for the proceedings of the Executive, the same minister complains that the evil is rather increasing. He is in possession of a ‘list of fifty Portuguese ships, almost all richly laden, some of them East Indiamen, which had been captured during a period of profound peace, One city alone on the coast of the United States had 26 armed ships which preyed on Portuguese commerce, and a week ago three armed ships of this kind were in that port waiting for a favorable occasion for sailing on a cruise.’

“In June, 1820, the Portuguese minister complains that a Portuguese prize had been sold by auction at Baltimore to Captain Chase, (a notorious privateersman,) and was to be immediately fitted out as a privateer to cruise against the Portuguese Indiamen.

“In July of the same year, the Portuguese minister sends a list of ‘the names and value of 19 Portuguese ships and their cargoes, taken by private armed ships, fitted in the ports of the Union, by citizens of those States.’ His Sovereign wishes the affair to be treated with that candor and conciliating dignified spirit which becomes two powers who feel a mutual esteem and have a proper sense of their moral integrity. ‘In this spirit I have the honor to propose to this government to appoint commissioners on their side, with full powers to confer and agree with his Majesty’s ministers on what reason and justice demand.’

“In December, 1820, the Chevalier Amado Grehon transmitted to Mr. Adams a copy of 12 claims, with the value of the ships, desiring him to add them to the list furnished by the Chevalier Correa de Serra.

“In April, 1822, the same minister repeats the proposal made in July, 1820, ‘of having recourse to commissaries chosen by both governments for the purpose of arranging the indemnities justly due to Portuguese citizens for the damage which they have sustained by reason of piracies supported by the capital and the means of citizens of the United States; an essential condition which, in this way repairing the past, secures also the future.’

“On the 25th of May, 1850, the chargé d’affaires of Portugal, writing to the Secretary of State of the United States, declares, ‘The undersigned is authorized to come to an understanding with the new Secretary of State upon the subject, and to submit the voluminous documents and papers in his possession to the joint examination and decision of the commissioners or arbitrators appointed by the American government on the one part, and the undersigned on behalf of her Majesty’s government on the other,’ &c.

“Having thus related the complaints of the Portuguese government during the years which elapsed from 1816 to 1822, and from 1822 to 1850, I will now give from the organs of the United States the answers which that government gave to these solemn and reiterated complaints.

“In March, 1817, the Secretary of State transmitted to the Portuguese minister at Washington an act of Congress, passed on the 3d of that month, to preserve more effectually the neutral relations of the United States. On the 14th of March, 1818, in answer to a letter complaining of the capture of three Portuguese ships by privateers, Mr. Adams says:

“‘The government of the United States having used all the means in its power to prevent the fitting out and arming of vessels in their ports to cruise against any nation with whom they are at peace, and having faithfully carried into execution the laws enacted to preserve inviolate the neutral and pacific obligations of this Union, cannot consider itself bound to indemnify individual foreigners for losses lay captures, over which the United States have neither control nor jurisdiction. For such events no nation can in principle, nor does in practice, hold itself responsible. A decisive reason for this, if there were no other, is the inability to provide a tribunal before which the facts can be proved.

“The documents to which you refer must of course be ex parte statements, which in Portugal or in Brazil, as well as in this country, could only serve as a foundation for actions in damages, or for the prosecution and trial of the persons supposed to have committed the depredations and outrages alleged in them. Should the parties come within the jurisdiction of the United States, there are courts of admiralty competent to ascertain the facts upon litigation between them, to punish the outrages which may be duly proved, and to restore the property to its rightful owners should it also be brought within our jurisdiction, and found, upon judicial inquiry, to have been taken in the manner represented by your letter. By the universal law of nations the obligations of the American government extend no further.’

“The Secretary of State in subsequent letters promises to prosecute in the United States courts persons chargeable with a violation of the laws of the United States in fitting out and arming a vessel within the United States for the purpose of cruising against the subjects of the Queen of Portugal,

“To the proposal to appoint commissioners, made in July, 1820, the United States Secretary of State, on the 30th of September of the same year, replies as follows:

“‘The proposal contained in your note of the 16th of July last has been considered by the President of the United States with all the deliberation due to the friendly relations subsisting between the United States and Portugal, and with the disposition to manifest the undeviating principle of justice by which this government is animated in its intercourse with all foreign governments, and particularly with yours. I am directed by him to inform you that the appointment of commissioners to confer and agree with the ministers of his most faithful Majesty upon the subject to which your letter relates, would not he consistent either with the Constitution of the United States nor with any practice usual among civilized nations.’

“He proceeds to say:

“‘If any Portuguese subject has suffered wrong by the act of any citizen of the United States within their jurisdiction, it is before those tribunals that the remedy is to be sought and obtained. For any acts of citizens of the United States committed out of their jurisdiction and beyond their control, the government of the United States is not responsible.

“‘To the war in South America, to which Portugal has for several years been a party, the duty and the policy of the United States has been to observe a perfect and impartial neutrality.’

“The same reply is again given to Chevalier Amado Grehon in a letter dated the 30th of April, 1822:

“‘I am at the same time directed to state that the proposition of the Chevalier Correa de Serra, in his note of the 16th of July, 1820, for the appointment of commissaries chosen by both governments to arrange indemnities claimed by Portuguese citizens for damages stated by them to have been sustained by reason of piracies supported by the capital and means of citizens of the United States, cannot be acceded to. It is a principle well known and well understood that no nation is responsible to another for the acts of its citizens, committed without its jurisdiction and out of the reach of its control.’

“The policy of the United States is further explained in a dispatch of Mr. Secretary Adams to General Dearborn, dated the 25th of June, 1822. It is there set forth that in the critical state of the relations of the two countries it is necessary to employ the agency of a person fully qualified to represent the interests of the United States. It is affirmed that whenever Portuguese captured vessels have been brought within the jurisdiction of the United States, decrees of restitution have been pronounced.

“In referring, however, to the list of captures, and the demand of a joint commission to determine and assess the damages to be paid by the United States, the former refusal was thus repeated: ‘As there was no precedent for the appointment of such a commission under such circumstances, and as not a single capture had been alleged for which the United States were justly responsible, this proposal was of course denied; and nothing further was heard upon the subject until the 1st of April last, when a note was received from the present chargé d’affaires of Portugal, leading to a correspondence, copies of which are now furnished you.’

“The correspondence seems not to have been resumed till 1850, when, as has been shown, the demand for a commission was repeated.

The Secretary of State of the United States thereupon gave this summary and final answer, dated May 30, 1850:

“‘The undersigned is surprised at the reappearance of these absolute reclamations, accompanied by the renewal of the ancient proposition to appoint a joint commission to determine and assess damages, a proposition which was rejected at the time upon substantial grounds; and without the minister’s assurance to that effect, the undersigned would not have supposed it credible that Portugal seriously cherished any intention to revive them. In reply, therefore, to the note which the minister of her most faithful Majesty has presented in the name of his government, the undersigned must mow, by the President’s order, inform him that he declines reopening the proffered discussion.’

“This dispatch is signed ‘John M. Clayton.’

“A long and able dispatch of the Portuguese minister at Washington, recapitulating all the grievances of Portugal, dated November 7, 1850, does not appear to have received an answer.”

After the close of the war between Spain and Portugal, Brazil and the South American provinces, the foreign enlistment act seems not to have been called into requisition in any prominent case until 1848, when the United States prohibited a ship of war, purchased for the German fleet during the war with Denmark, from sailing from New York except under the bond required by the act of 1818.

In 1850 a remarkable instance was afforded of the manner in which the foreign enlistment act could openly be defied, when the sympathies of the American people were in favor of the offenders, in the expedition against Cuba under Lopez.

Lopez had been for some time preparing an expedition for the invasion of Cuba, and on the 7th of May, 1850, left New Orleans in a steamer with about 500 men, accompanied by two other vessels, and on the 17th landed at Cardenas, a small town on the northwest side of the island. Lopez occupied the town; but shortly afterwards troops arrived from Havana, and he was compelled to re-embark, and escaped to Savannah.Annual Register, 1850.

On the 27th of May Lopez was arrested, (see Judge Betts’s charge in the Times of the 13th of June, 1850,) but “no delay being granted by the district judge to procure evidence against him, he was discharged, amid the cheers of a large crowd. On the 15th of July, 42 of the country prisoners (passengers) were liberated by the Spanish authorities, and were taken to Pensacola by the United States ship Albany. Ten of them were retained for trial. On the 21st of July the grand jury of the United States district court at New Orleans found a true bill against Lopez and 15 others for violating the act of 1818. The government failed in making out its case against one or two of the parties, and finally abandoned the prosecution.”Memoir of Lopez in the New York Herald, quoted in the Chronicle of the 23d of September, 1851.

Undeterred by the failure of the first expedition, Lopez at once set to work to organize another, in which he was “countenanced, aided, and joined by citizens of the United States.” * * * “Very early in the morning of the 3d of August, 1851, a steamer called the Pampero departed from New Orleans for Cuba, having on board upwards of 400 armed men, with evident intentions to make war upon the authorities of that island.” The United States government having received intelligence that such designs were entertained, had issued a proclamation warning American citizens of their unlawful character, and had also given instructions to the proper officers of the United States. However, in spite of these measures, the steamer in which the fillibusters were embarked “left New Orleans stealthily and without a clearance, and, after touching at Key West, proceeded to the coast of Cuba.”President’s message, December 1, 1851.Annual Register, 1851.

The expedition landed in Cuba on the 12th of August, and proved an entire failure. The Spanish troops defeated the invaders without difficulty, and either took prisoner or dispersed the whole body. Fifty of the prisoners were shot, and Lopez publicly executed at Havana. The intelligence of the execution of Lopez and the prisoners, 40 of whom are stated to have been Americans, produced a great excitement in the United States. A riot took place at New Orleans, in which the Spanish consulate was sacked; mass meetings were held at the principal cities for the purpose of denouncing the conduct of the Cuban authorities, and further expeditions projected. The Spanish government, however, released and sent back to the United States a number of prisoners, who complained bitterly of having been deceived by Lopez by exaggerated accounts of the condition of affairs in Cuba; and the public feeling in the United States gradually cooled down, without any more attempts being made against the island.

In 1855 the Maury was detained at New York on the information of her Majesty’s consul that she was intended for a Eussian privateer. The evidence, however, failed, and Sir Joseph Crampton, her Majesty’s minister, withdrawing the charge against her, the Maury sailed, and nothing more was heard of the matter. It was supposed that she really was intended for a privateer to act in the China seas, but that the peace of 1856 prevented her from being thus used.

The expeditions of Miranda in 1806, and of Lopez in 1850 and 1851, were rivaled in flagrant violation of the foreign enlistment act by the proceedings of Walker and the Central American fillibusters in 1857, 1858, 1859.

The disturbed state of the Central American republics, especially Nicaragua, rendered them a tempting prey to such adventurers, and in November, 1857, it was notorious that Walker was fitting out a fiilibustering expedition.

On the 10th of that month he was arrested at New Orleans and held to bail in $2,000 (about £400) to appear on the 11th for examination, on a charge of infringing the act of 1818. On the morning of the 11th, however, he embarked with 300 unarmed followers for Mobile, where the party were met by a steamer called the Fashion, with 50 recruits on board, and set sail, as was supposed, for Central America. The United States government gave orders for them to be pursued, and Commodore Paulding succeeded in arresting Walker.

In reporting these occurrences, Lord Napier, then her Majesty’s minister at Washington, states, “I believe that the President and General Cass sincerely deprecate and regret the present attempt to invade the peace of Central America.” (Lord Napier to the Earl of Clarendon, November 16, 1857.)Parliamentary Paper correspondence respecting Central America, 1856–60. Presented 1860, page 67.

It does not appear whether Walker was brought to trial for this offense, but if so the proceedings could not have been very efficacious, as in the following year he renewed his preparations for an expedition on a larger scale, and on the 30th of October, 1858, President Buchanan issued a proclamation: “Whereas information has reached me, from sources which I cannot disregard, that certain persons, in violation of the neutrality laws of the United States, are making a third attempt to set on foot a military expedition within their territory against Nicaragua, a foreign state with which they are at peace.” * * * “From these circumstances the inference is irresistible that persons engaged in this expedition will leave the United States with hostile purposes against Nicaragua. They cannot, under the guise which they have assumed that they are peaceful emigrants, conceal their real intentions, and especially when they know, in advance, that their landing will be resisted, and can only be accomplished by an overpowering force. This expedient was successfully resorted to previous to the last expedition, and the vessel in which those composing it were conveyed to Nicaragua obtained a clearance from the collector of the port of Mobile. Although, after a careful examination, no arms or munitions of war were discovered, yet, when they arrived in Nicaragua, they were found to be armed and equipped, and immediately commenced hostilities.Ibid., p. 136.

“The leaders of former illegal expeditions of the same character have openly expressed their intention to renew hostilities against Nicaragua One of them, who has already been twice expelled from Nicaragua, has invited, through the public newspapers, American citizens to emigrate to that republic, and has designated Mobile as the place of rendezvous and departure, and San Juan del Norte as the port to which they are bound. This person, who has renounced his allegiance to the United States, and claims to be President of Nicaragua, has given notice to the master of the port of Mobile that 200 or 300 of these emigrants will be prepared to embark from that port about the middle of November,” &c., &c.

Notwithstanding this proclamation, the fillibusters succeeded in sailing from Mobile on the 7th of December, 1858, in the “Susan,” without a clearance. A revenue cutter attempted to stop her, but was forcibly resisted. Two other vessels, the “Fashion” and the “Washington,” with military stores, afterwards joined the “Susan,” but the expedition broke down in consequence of the “Susan” being wrecked. Walker and his followers then proceeded to California by the Isthmus of Panama, whence they intended to make a descent on Punta Arenas.Ibid., p. 163.

This attempt was not carried into execution, and Walker returned to Louisiana and organized a further expedition. The United States government gave directions to stop it, and concerted measures with the British and French governments to prevent any such expeditions landing on the coasts of Central America. Moreover, 150 of the men concerned in the last attempt were arrested at New Orleans.

Nevertheless, Walker eluded the vigilance of the authorities, and again escaped without a clearance in the “Fashion” from Mobile, in November, 1859, having deceived the collector of customs by applying for a clearance, which the collector refused, for another steamer called the “Philadelphia.” At the same time a large force of fillibusters are stated to have got away from Charleston, Mobile, and other ports, by means of false papers and other similar devices.Ibid., pp. 296, 297.

In June, 1860, Walker, with a party of American fillibusters, is reported to have arrived at the Bay islands in the “John A. Taylor.” Walker’s career was eventually brought to a close by his being shot at Truxillo, September, 1860.Ibid., p. 328.

On the 6th of June, 1866, the President published a proclamation warning United States citizens against engaging in an apprehended expedition against Canada, (the Fenian raid,) and on the 5th of June the Attorney General instructed the district attorneys and marshals to arrest “all prominent, leading, or conspicuous persons called ‘Fenians’ whom they had probable cause to believe have been or may be guilty of violations of the neutrality laws.” Some prosecutions were subsequently instituted against certain of the Fenian leaders, but abandoned.

In 1866 a resolution was adopted by the House of Representatives which resulted in an inquiry by the Committee of Foreign Affairs into the operation of the foreign enlistment act of 1818; and in July, General Banks presented the report of the committee, with a draft of a bill by which it was proposed to alter the provisions of that act. The principal alterations proposed were the omission of section 4, (the clause forbidding the fitting out of privateers in foreign ports to cruise against American commerce,) sections 6, and part of 8, (giving the President power to stop military expeditions,) and sections 10 and 11, the bonding clauses.Mr. Bemis’s pamphlet “American Neutrality,” 1866.

The intention of this draft bill was to make the American act correspond with the British act, or, as was said at the time, to “scale down” the one to the proportions of the other. The report of the committee called forth a pamphlet by Mr. Bemis, in which he shows how inexpedient and impolitic the proposed alterations would have been, and compares the amended act with the British statute.

Copies of this pamphlet have been circulated among the commissioners.

Congress adjourned shortly after this report was presented and had been referred to the Senate, and in March, 1867, the Senate Committee of Foreign Affairs were “discharged from further consideration” of the bill.

In the mean while, a case had been brought before the district court at New York, in which the act of 1818 was enforced against a vessel alleged to be intended for the Chilian service in the war between Chili and Spain.New York Herald, March 1, 1867.

This vessel, the Meteor, had been built as a ship of war for sale to the United States government, but the civil war having terminated, the sale was not effected. She was acknowledged to have been built to carry 11 or 12 guns, and the negotiations of the agent of the owners for her sale to the Chilian government were shown by conclusive evidence.

The vessel was libeled in the district court in February, 1866, but Judge Betts’s decision in the case was not formally given until November.“The world,” New York, November 30, 1866.

In the elaborate judgment then delivered, the standard decisions of the Supreme Court are reviewed at length. The following are some of the more important passages:

“The crime denounced is fitting-out or arming.

“It was strenuously urged by the counsel for the claimant, on the hearing, that the only crime created by the third section of the act of 1818 is the crime of fitting-out and arming a vessel with the intent named in the statute; and that, although the attempt to commit that crime, or the procuring that crime to be committed, or the being knowingly concerned in committing that crime, is punishable under the statute, yet the body of the crime is the fitting-out and arming, and nothing short of that is punishable under the statute, either against the wrong doer personally, or against the offending res; and the interpretation sought to be put by the counsel upon these words of the statute, ‘or shall knowingly be concerned in the furnishing, fitting-out, or arming of any ship or vessel, with intent,’ &c., is that it is not necessary to the criminality of the individual that he should have performed every part of the crime, but it is enough if he was knowingly concerned in any one step in the chain of conduct which completed the criminality, or would have completed it if carried out, but still the crime must be the crime of fitting-out and arming, either completed or attempted. But the court cannot adopt this interpretation of the statute. The mischief against which the statute intended to guard was not merely preventing the departure from the United States of an armed vessel, but the departure of any vessel intended to be employed in the service of any foreign power, to cruise or commit hostilities against any other foreign power with whom the United States are at peace. The neutrality of the government of the United States, in a war between two foreign powers, would be violated quite as much by allowing the departure from its ports of an unarmed vessel with the clear intent to cruise or commit hostilities against one of the belligerents, as it would be by permitting the departure from its ports of an armed vessel with such intent. If the intent to cruise or commit hostilities exists when the vessel departs, and the vessel is one adapted to the purpose, the subsequent arming is a very easy matter. The facility with which this can be done was made manifest in the case of the Shenandoah and other vessels, which, during the late rebellion, left England unarmed, but with the full intent on the part of those who sent them forth that they should be used to cruise and commit hostilities against the United States, and were subsequently armed in neutral waters. It would be a very forced interpretation of the statute to say that it was not an offense against it to knowingly fit out a vessel with everything necessary to make her an effective cruiser, except her arms, and with the intent that she should become such a cruiser, because it should not be shown that there was any intent that she should be armed within the United States. The evil consequences which would flow from interpreting the statute to mean that the crime must include the arming of the vessel within the United States, become especially apparent in reference to that part of the third section which forbids the issuing or delivering a commission, within the territory or jurisdiction of the United States, for any ship or vessel, to the intent that she may be employed for the purpose named in the section. Under such an interpretation of the statute it would be no offense to issue or deliver a commission within the United States for any vessel, unless such vessel were actually armed at the time, or perhaps were intended to be armed prior to her departure from the United States; and it would be no offense to issue a commission within the United United States for a vessel fitted and equipped to cruise or commit hostilities, and intended to cruise and commit hostilities, so long as such vessel was not armed at the time, and was not intended to be armed within the United States, although it could be shown that a clear intent existed on the part of the person issuing or delivering the commission, that the vessel should receive her armament the moment she should be beyond the jurisdiction of the United States.” * * *

“THE SANTISSIMA TRINIDAD CASE.

“Much reliance was placed by the counsel for the claim, in his summing up, upon the doctrine supposed by him to have been laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of the Santissima Trinidad. That doctrine was stated by the counsel in various forms, but the principle contended for was, that freedom of commerce is allowed to a neutral to furnish to a belligerent warlike materials or warlike vessels as articles of merchandise or traffic; that, while the principle of the law of nations is recognized which prohibits neutral territory from being used by either belligerent as a vantage ground from which he may sally forth to commit hostilities upon the other belligerent, yet the right of citizens of the neutral country to sell all that their industry produces for purposes of war, as fair matter of trade, to any belligerent, cannot be interfered with; that it is no offense and no violation of neutrality to sell a vessel of war, armed or not armed, in our ports, to a belligerent power; and that there is the same right, under the law of nations, to sell in our ports an armed vessel, under such circumstances, that there is to sell guns or ammunition or any other raw material. At another stage of his argument the counsel maintained the proposition that unless it appeared affirmatively that the vessel was to sail out from the port of New York as an enlisted hostile ship of one belligerent, there was no criminality, although it should be made to appear by indisputable proof that she had been built, fitted, armed, and equipped as a ship of war, complete and ready for action.

“The views thus pressed upon the court have, in its judgment, no foundation in public law, or in any decision that has been made by the highest judicial tribunal of the United States. The case of the Santissima Trinidad was decided by the Supreme Court at the February term, 1822.”

Judge Betts then gives an account of the facts of the case, (vide ante,) and continues: “In the course of his opinion, Mr. Justice Story discusses the point taken, that the Independencia was originally armed and fitted out in the United States contrary to law, and says: ‘It is apparent that, though equipped as a vessel of war, she was sent to Buenos Ayres on a commercial adventure,’” &c., &c. These views of Mr. Justice Story were, as is apparent from the statement which has been made of the case, obiter dicta, and not necessary to the decision of the cause, restitution of the property being decreed upon the ground of the illegal augmentation of the force of the capturing vessel in our ports prior to the capture. The facts in regard to the commercial adventure of the Independencia, referred to by Mr. Justice Story, as they appear in the report of the case, were that that vessel, having been a privateer during the war between the United States and Great Britain, was, after the peace, sold by her original owners, and loaded by her new ones, at Baltimore, in January, 1816, with a cargo of munitions of war; that she sailed from Baltimore with them, and, armed with 12 guns, part of her original armament, to Buenos Ayres, under written instructions from her owners to her supercargo, authorizing him to sell the vessel to the government of Buenos Ayres if he could obtain a suitable price; and that she was sold at Buenos Ayres to parties who again sold her, so that she became a public commissioned vessel of the government of Buenos Ayres. It was on these facts that Judge Story remarked that the vessel, though equipped as a vessel of war, was sent to Buenos Ayres on a commercial adventure in no shape violating our laws or our national neutrality, and that there is nothing in our laws or in the law of nations that forbids our citizens from sending armed vessels to foreign ports for sale. If the Messrs. Forbes, or any of the owners of the Meteor, or Mr. Cary their agent, or any of the parties concerned in the transactions in regard to the Meteor, had testified before the court on this trial that the Meteor was going out to Panama on a purely commercial adventure, to be sold there if a suitable price could be obtained, and if it appeared that there was no intent on the part of the owners or any other person that the vessel should be used to violate the neutrality of the United States, there might be some pretense that this case was within the principle thus laid down by Mr. Justice Story. But the whole testimony points in a different direction. The transactions with the agents of Chili at New York in regard to the Meteor was, it is true, a commercial adventure, in so far that the vessel was sold, and that such sale was a matter of trade or commerce at New York between her owners and the agents of the government of Chili. But in the sense in which Mr. Justice Story speaks of the sending of the Independencia to Buenos Ayres on a commercial adventure, there was no commercial adventure in the case of the Meteor.”

* * * * * * * * *

The doctrines laid down in this case are the result of the legislative, executive, and judicial action of the United States.

The importance of this case, not merely in view of the pecuniary value of the vessel proceeded against, but also in respect to the principles of public law involved in it, have led the court to a more extended discussion of those principles than would otherwise have been necessary. The court, however, entertains no doubt as to the correctness of the doctrines of public law which it has applied to the present case. Those doctrines are the result of the legislative, executive, and judicial action of the public authorities and courts of the United States in a great variety of cases, and the court has nowhere found a more excellent summary of them than in Wheaton’s International Law, (eighth edition, with notes by Dana, pages 562, 563, note 215:) “As to the preparing of vessels within our jurisdiction for subsequent hostile operations, the test we have applied has not been the extent and character of the preparations, but the intent with which the particular acts are done. If any person does any act, or attempts to do any act, towards such preparation, with the intent that the vessel shall be employed in hostile operations, he is guilty, without reference to the completion of the preparations or the extent to which they may have gone, and although his attempt may have resulted in no definite progress towards the completion of the preparations. The procuring of materials to be used knowingly and with the intent, &c., is an offense; accordingly, it is not necessary to show that the vessel was armed, or was in any way or at any time, before or after the act charged, in a condition to commit acts of hostility.” “Our rules do not interfere with bona fide commercial dealings in contraband of war. An American merchant may build and fully arm a vessel, and provide her with stores, and offer her for sale in our own market. If he does any acts as an agent or servant of a belligerent, or in pursuance of an arrangement or understanding with a belligerent that she shall be employed in hostilities when sold, he is guilty. He may, without violating our law, send out such a vessel, so equipped, under the flag and papers of his own country, with no more force of crew than is suitable for navigation, with no right to resist search or seizure, and to take the chances of capture as contraband merchandise, of blockade, and of a market in a belligerent port. In such case the extent and character of the equipments is as immaterial as in the other class of cases. The intent is all. The act is open to great suspicions and abuse, and the line may often be scarcely traceable, yet the principle is clear enough. Is the intent one to prepare an article of contraband merchandise, to be sent to the market of a belligerent, subject to the chances of capture and of the market; or, on the other hand, is it to fit out a vessel which shall have our port to cruise, immediately or ultimately, against the commerce of a friendly nation? The latter we are bound to prevent; the former the belligerent must prevent.”

The judgment was given against the vessel, but she was eventually restored to her owners under bond, and what became of her afterwards does not appear.

It must be remembered that this opinion of Judge Betts was not reviewed by the Supreme Court, and is therefore of inferior authority.

It has been much criticised, both in this country and in the United States.

This brings the history of the American foreign enlistment act down to the present time.

In 1838, on the outbreak of the rebellion in Canada, the United States government issued a proclamation cautioning United States citizens from assisting in it.

A strong military force was also sent to the frontier, and the President delivered a message to Congress recommending the enactment of some special measure to meet the occasion. In the meanwhile, an expedition was openly organized at Detroit. This expedition seized the arsenal, and the steamboats and ships lying off the Detroit wharves, and succeeded in getting off to Canada without hinderance. A military force was then ordered to the frontier, and sent to Plattsburg, where another expedition was said to be fitting out. A bill for the prevention of such expeditions was introduced into Congress, but not passed until the 10th of March, by which time the rebellion was nearly subdued.British and Foreign State Papers, vol. xxv, page —.Correspondence with Mr. Fox, her Majesty’s minister at Washington.Mr. Fox, No. 5, January 29, 1838.

This act, which was limited to two years, provided for the seizure and detention of any vessel, vehicle, or arms or munitions of war “provided or prepared for any military expedition or enterprise against the territory or dominions of any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district, or people, conterminous with the United States.”Mr. Fox, No. 7, February 5, 1838.United States Statutes at Largo, vol. v, page 212.

THE BRITISH FOREIGN ENLISTMENT ACT.

The United States foreign enlistment act, as will have been seen, arose from the construction put on the terms of the treaty with France of 1778; the British foreign enlistment act may also be said to have arisen from the provision of a treaty—that with Spain of the 28th of August, 1814.

This treaty, or, as it is called, “Additional Articles to the Treaty of July 5, 1814,” contains the following article:British and Foreign State Papers, vol. i, page 292.

“Article III. His Britannic Majesty, being anxious that the troubles and disturbances which unfortunately prevail in the dominions of his Catholic Majesty in America should entirely cease, and the subjects, of those provinces should return to their obedience to their lawful sovereign, engages to take the most effectual measures for preventing his subjects from furnishing arms, ammunition, or any other article to the revolted in America.”

In 1818 the reactionary policy of King Ferdinand, the prohibitory duties imposed by him on British commerce, and the ingratitude with which he treated British officers and others who had served his cause in Spain, had provoked a great deal of irritation in England; and there was a considerable party in the House of Commons, headed by Sir James Macintosh, who were prepared to support the claims of the Spanish-American colonies to independence.

Expeditions were said to be in preparation for rendering active assistance both to the malcontents in Spain and to the rebels in America, in spite of a proclamation forbidding such expeditions, which had been published in 1817; and the government consequently found that it was necessary, in order to keep good faith with Spain, and to prevent infractions of British neutrality, to bring in an act of Parliament to provide for the case which now for the first time arose in modern history, of Great Britain being neutral at the time of a great maritime war.

The history of the British neutrality law at that period is thus stated by Sir R. Phillimore:

“The statute of the third of James I, chapter four, made it felony for any person whatever to go out of the realm to serve any foreign prince, without having first taken the oath of allegiance before his departure. It was felony also for any gentleman, or person of higher degree, or for one who had borne any office in the army, to go out of the realm to serve such foreign prince or state, without previously entering into a bond with two sureties, not to be reconciled to the See of Rome, or enter into any conspiracy against his natural sovereign. And further it was enacted by statute 9 Geo. II, c. 30, enforced by statute 29 Geo. II, c. 17, if any subject of Great Britain shall enlist himself, or if any person shall procure him to be enlisted, in any foreign service, or detain or embark him for that purpose, without license under the King’s sign-manual, he shall be guilty of felony without benefit of clergy; but if the person so enlisted or enticed shall discover his seducer within 15 days, so as he may be apprehended and convicted of the same, he shall be indemnified. It was moreover, by statute 29 Geo. II, c. 17, enacted that to serve under the French King as a military officer, shall be felony without benefit of clergy; and to enter into the Scotch brigade, in the Dutch service, without previously taking the oaths of allegiance and abjuration, shall be a forfeiture of £500.”Phillimore’s International Law, vol. iii, ed. 1857, page 212.

The act for the amendment of the neutrality laws was introduced by Mr. Canning on the 10th of June, 1819, in an eloquent speech, in the course of which he said: “It surely could not be forgotten that in 1793 this country complained of various breaches of neutrality (though much inferior in degree to those now under consideration) committed on the part of subjects of the United States of America. What was the conduct of that nation in consequence? Did it resent the complaint as an infringement of its independence? Did it refuse to take such steps as would insure the immediate observance of neutrality? Neither. In 1794, immediately after the application from the British government, the legislature of the United States passed an act prohibiting, under heavy penalties, the engagement of American citizens in the armies of any belligerent power. Was that the only instance of the kind? It was but last year that the United States passed an act by which the act of 1794 was confirmed in every respect, again prohibiting the engagement of their citizens in the service of any foreign power, and pointing distinctly to the service of Spain or the South American provinces.”Cobbett’s Parliamentary Debates, vol. xi, page 1103.

On the other hand, Sir James Macintosh inveighed against the act as a left-handed neutrality, and as aimed at the struggling independence of South America. Sir W. Scott spoke in favor of the bill on the third reading on the 21st of June, and it was passed by a majority of 61.

Many amendments had, however, been introduced into it, and among others the insertion of the words “as a transport or store-ship” in the seventh clause. This was intended to prevent British ships being hired to take troops from Spain to America; but the result has been to create the greatest confusion of meaning in the act.

The passing of this act seems to have put a stop, for the time at least, to the dispatch of expeditions against Spain; and in April, 1823, Lord Althorp moved for the repeal of the act. Mr. Canning, in reply, entered into the question of the neutrality of England, and pointed out that, far from being aimed exclusively at South America, this act was in reality in favor of the colonies, as it extended to Spain the prohibition to export arms, &c., which had been already provided for against them by the treaty of 1814. Referring to the United States law, he said: “If I wished for a guide in a system of neutrality, I should take that laid down by America in the days of the Presidency in Washington, and the secretaryship of Jefferson. In 1793, complaints were made to the American government that French ships were allowed to fit out and arm in American ports, for the purpose of attacking British vessels, in direct opposition to the laws of neutrality. Immediately upon this representation the American government held that such a fitting out was contrary to the laws of neutrality; and orders were issued prohibiting the arming of any French vessel in American ports. At New York a French vessel fitting out was seized and delivered over to the tribunals and condemned. Upon that occasion the American government held that such fitting out of French ships in American ports for the purpose of cruising against English vessels was incompatible with the sovereignty of the United States, and tended to interrupt the peace and good understanding which subsisted between that country and Great Britain. Here, I contend, is the principle of neutrality upon which we ought to act. It was upon this principle that the bill in question was enacted.”Cobbett’s “Parliamentary Debates,” New Series, vol. viii, page 1019.

The motion was rejected by a majority of 106.

The neutrality law of the United States having formed the foundation of the neutrality law of this country, and the decisions of the judges of that country having been, as it were, incorporated in the law of nations, the application of the United States foreign enlistment act has been treated of at some length; but as it would be useless to attempt within the compass of a memorandum to go into the intricate questions of “intent,” “equipping, fitting out or arming,” &c., &c., which have at various times been raised under the British act, it is only proposed to mention some of the leading instances in which it has been put into operation or suspended.

In 1827 an expedition of four vessels, under the command of Count Saldanha, sailed from Plymouth, ostensibly for Brazil, but in reality, as was supposed, to operate against the party of Don Miguel in Terceira. Her Majesty’s ship Walpole, with some gunboats, was sent to Terceira to intercept this expedition. This was done off Port Praya, and the Walpole escorted the expedition back to the channel. It eventually went to Brest. The Walpole subsequently stopped another expedition off Port Praya which had sailed from London.Phillimore, vol. iii, page 229.

In 1835 an order in council was passed exempting British subjects engaging in the service of Isabella of Spain from the penalties of the foreign enlistment act. This enabled the Spanish Legion, under Sir De Lacy Evans, to be formed. A debate took place on the question in June, 1835, but the competency of the Crown to make such a relaxation was not disputed.Phillimore, vol. iii, pages 218 and 219.

In 1846 certain British merchants complained that an expedition was being prepared to sail under General Florez against Ecuador. Their representation was supported by several of the South American ministers. It appeared that three vessels, the Glenelg, Monarch, and Neptune, were ready to set sail with a large number of emigrants, or, as it was said, troops on board, and that men had been openly enlisted for General Florez’s service. The vessels were seized and condemned.*Correspondence with home office and treasury, October and November, 1846.

In 1847 the Portuguese minister complained that the Black Cat was being fitted out to proceed with volunteers for the Portuguese rebel service. The vessel was seized, but released.Correspondence with Baron Moncorvo, April and May, 1847.

Shortly afterwards he made another complaint of a number of British subjects having taken service at Oporto under the revolutionary leaders. He was told in reply that the English law did not extend to such acts committed in a foreign country.

A Mr. Hislop, however, who had returned from Portugal after serving in the rebel army, was denounced by the Portuguese minister, and would have been proceeded against had the law officers considered the evidence sufficient.

On the 30th of August, 1862, an order in council was issued, suspending the foreign enlistment act so far as to enable Captain Osborn and Mr. Lay to enter the service of the Emperor of China “to fit out, equip, purchase, and acquire ships or vessels of war for the use of the said Emperor, and to engage and enlist British subjects to enter the military and naval service of the said Emperor.” This permission to remain in force until the 1st of September, 1864.

The license granted by this order in council was extended to “all military officers in her Majesty’s service,” by the order in council of the 9th of January, 1863, with a similar limitation to the 1st of September, 1864. (Hertslet’s Commercial Treaties, vol. xi, pp. 665–683.)

It will be observed that in all, or nearly all, the cases up to the time of the American civil war, the foreign enlistment act had been invoked to prevent the enlistment and dispatch of recruits and soldiers rather than the equipment of vessels.

The American civil war introduced a new series of cases, in which the foreign enlistment act was called into operation. These are so well known that it will be sufficient merely to name them in the order as they occurred:

“Creto,” tried at Nassau; released August, 1862.

“Alexandra,” tried in England.

This was the celebrated cause in which all the issues as to the meaning of the equipment clauses of the foreign enlistment act were raised. The vessel was acquitted, the four judges in the exchequer court being equally divided in opinion; the junior withdrew. The costs and damages were compromised by the government for £3,700, and the vessel sailed for Nassau. Here she was again seized, and remained under seizure until the end of the war.

The iron-clads El Toussoon and Mounassir at Liverpool, said to have been ordered for the Egyptian government. The ships were seized, but eventually purchased by government, and are now her Majesty’s ships Wivern and Scorpion.

The Canton or Pampero. This vessel was seized in the Clyde, and the builder allowed judgment to be taken against him. She remained under seizure until the close of the war, and has now become notorious under the name of the Tornado.

There were five prosecutions for enlisting men to serve in confederate vessels:

Mr. Rumball, the officer of Sheerness dockyard who took part in the equipment of the Rappahannock. He was acquitted February 4, 1865, although the case against him was a very strong one.

Messrs. Jones and Highat, for enlisting men for the confederate service. They were convicted and sentenced, November 23, 1864, to pay a fine of £50 each.

Campbell, enlisting for Georgia, pleaded guilty, and released on recognizance of £150 to appear when called upon.

Seymour, Cunningham, and Buchanan, convicted of enlisting for Rappahannock, and discharged on recognizances.

Captain Corbett, who commanded the vessel that took out the armament and crew to the Shenandoah at the Desertas off Funchal. A very strong case, but the evidence for the prosecution as to the actual enlistment of men broke down, and Captain Corbett was acquitted.

The cases of the Alabama, Shenandoah, and Georgia are fully explained in the parliamentary papers, of which copies have been furnished to the commissioners.

For an epitome of the representations addressed to her Majesty’s government by Mr. Adams, during the civil war, see the memorandum annexed to Lord Russell’s letter to Mr. Adams of November 3, 1865, (Parl. paper, North America, No. 1, 1866, p. 139.)

CHAS. S. A. ABBOTT.

Appendix No. IV.

REPORTS FROM FOREIGN STATES, DECLARATIONS OF NEUTRALITY, &c.

The accompanying circular was sent by the foreign office to her Majesty’s representatives at the courts of the following countries: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Prussia, Spain, Sweden, United States.

Foreign Office, February 14, 1867.

The commission which has been appointed by the Queen to consider the neutrality laws of this country, being desirous of obtaining information respecting similar laws in other maritime countries, I have to instruct you to ascertain and report, with as little delay as possible, what laws, regulations, or other means the government to which you are accredited possess for preventing acts within their territories of which belligerents might complain as a violation of the duties of neutrality.

And the following papers were received in reply:

AUSTRIA.

(Received from her Majesty’s embassy at Vienna.)

Note from the minister of foreign affairs to her Majesty’s ambassador.

Mr. Bonar, her Britannic Majesty’s chargé d’affaires, was pleased to make inquiry of the imperial minister of foreign affairs as to what laws, regulations, or measures are laid down by the government of his imperial Majesty in order to prevent transactions in their territory of which belligerent powers might complain as being an infringement of the neutrality laws. After consulting the competent authorities, the minister of foreign affairs has now the honor to communicate to Lord Bloomfield, &c., &c., &c., with reference to the above question, as follows:

The declaration signed in Paris by the representatives of Austria, France, Great Britain, Prussia, Russia, Italy, and Turkey, on the 18th of April, 1856, concerning the rights of neutrals in naval warfare, has been published in legal course in Austria, and constitutes, therefore, a law generally in force.

Apart from the principles which lie at the foundation of this declaration, there exists, however, no law in Austria, nor any other order generally binding, which could be made to apply to violations of neutrality by Austrian subjects.

The imperial government have endeavored to supply this want in cases of war between other states, by promulgating in legal forms special regulations for the preservation of neutrality applicable only to the war in question. Thus in the year 1854, in consequence of the war then existing, the ministerial ordonnance of May 25, 1854, was promulgated, of which copy is inclosed herewith.

In such special declarations the generally acknowledged principles of international law, as well as the known views of the belligerent powers on certain points, have been taken into consideration, in order as much as possible to obviate any complaints of infringement of neutrality.

There does not exist, however, a law of this kind applicable to all future occasions, and more particularly there are no general laws in Austria prohibiting the construction, equipment, or manning of ships (in Austrian harbors) which are destined for belligerent powers, or are suspected of being so.

The undersigned, &c., &c.

MEYSENBUG.

Vienna, May 16, 1867.

[Untitled]

Published on the 28th of May, 1854.

Decree of the ministries of the interior, of the exterior, of justice and of trade, as well as of the commander-in-chief of the army of 25th May, 1854, by which are published the principles to be observed during the war that has broken out between England, France, and the Ottoman empire on the one side, and Russia on the other side, by the imperial authorities and subjects with reference to trade and navigation.

In consequence of the war which has broken out between England, France, and the Ottoman empire on the one side, and Russia on the other side, the following regulations are published with the consent of his Imperial Apostolic Majesty, given on the 23d May, 1854, according to which all imperial, civil, and military authorities, as well as all Austrian subjects, will have to regulate their conduct.

1. The acceptation or employment of lettres de marque under whatever form or flag, as well as every kind, share in the command, manning of, or fitting out of privateers, is prohibited to Austrian subjects. Whoever acts otherwise, has not only to expect no protection on the part of the imperial government, if he is subjected to punishment in other states, but he shall also be treated according to the existing laws for robbery, as the acceptance of lettres de marque is to be considered as an attempt at robbery.

2. Should foreign privateers provided with lettres de marque from one of the belligerent powers present themselves, the entrance into our harbors is to be refused, except in case of imminent danger from storms, and then their earliest possible departure must be insisted on.

3. It is forbidden to ships under Austrian colors to carry troops of the belligerent states, or to import into those countries commodities which, according to the law of nations, or other universally known regulations, are considered as contraband of war.

Of such commodities an Austrian ship in intercourse with these states may only carry so much as is strictly necessary for its own use or defense.

Whoever infringes on this prohibition has no protection to expect from the Austrian government in case of legitimate seizure and confiscation on the part of the belligerent states, but will be punished besides.

4. Austrian ships are forbidden to enter into such places and harbors as are besieged by one of the belligerent powers, or blockaded by a sufficient force, as otherwise they would neither have to expect to enjoy the freedom of a neutral flag, nor assistance or interference on the part of the imperial government.

5. Except in this case, Austrian merchant ships are not hindered, in spite of the existing war, in carrying on their trade and intercourse with the harbors of the powers engaged in the war, and in like manner the merchant-ships of the belligerent states may as before enter without hindrance into all Austrian harbors, remain as long as they please, get repairs, &c., &c., in so far as they observe the existing laws and regulations, and so long as their conduct is in accordance with the rules of neutrality.

With respect to the admission of foreign ships of war into Austrian harbors, the conditions of the decree of the ministry of war of the 29th of January, 1850, remain in force.

6. On the expectation that the neutral Austrian trade will be properly respected by the belligerent powers, and that the customary privileges of belligerents will be exercised with a proper observance of the laws of nations, or of any modifications of them consonant with treaties, it is herewith decreed that Austrian navigators shall not oppose themselves to visitation on the open sea on the part of foreign ships of war, but on the contrary shall, without difficulty, show the papers and documents by which their neutral capacity is proved, throw none of them into the sea, or otherwise destroy them, nor keep on board false or duplicate and secret papers.

The belligerent powers have besides officially expressed the satisfactory declaration that the property of the enemy in neutral ships, and neutral property in the enemy’s ships, with the exception of contraband of war and the enemy’s dispatches, shall be respected and not taken.

7. The captures which the belligerent powers make from the enemy may only be admitted into the harbor of Trieste, (with exception of every other Austrian harbor,) where the effects may be disembarked, deposited, administered, (in case they do not contain goods the import of which into the imperial states is forbidden,) bought, or sold, or be exported anew in the course of trade, but all under the condition that the judicial decision shall have been given by the competent authority of the power which has taken the prize as to their legitimacy. Should some goods be exposed in the mean time to injury, these may be sold beforehand, but only on sufficient security for their value being given, in case the decision should declare the liberation of the ship.

8. Should an Austrian ship, in spite of its obedience to the above regulations, be treated in an improper manner, information is to be given without delay to the nearest Austrian consular or other imperial authority, in order that the imperial government may take steps to obtain compensation and satisfaction from the foreign state, and when steps have already been taken by the injured party to support them.

9. These regulations will be put in force from the day of their publication.

BELGUIM.

(Received from her Majesty’s legation at Brussels.)

[Translation.]

1. Article 14 section IX of the Navy Regillations for 1861.

No vessel taken by captains who have a foreign commission can remain more than 24 hours in our ports and harbors, unless compelled by storms, (or unless the prize is from our enemies.

2. Article 84 of the Penal Code.

Whoever exposes the state to a declaration of war, by hostile acts not approved by the government, shall be punished by banishment, and if war ensues, by deportation.

2. Article 85 of the Penal Code.

Whoever exposes Belgians to reprisals, through acts not approved by the government, shall suffer banishment.

4. The Crimean war declaration, of the 25th of April, 1854.

Merchants are notified that instructions have been issued to the judicial, naval, and army officials, to let them know that privateers of any flag, or with any letters of marque, or any commission, shall not enter our ports with prizes, except in stress of weather; and the officials are instructed to keep watch over them, and to send them to sea as soon as possible. They are also charged not to acknowledge any commission or letter of marque from the belligerents, without the King’s permission.

Every person subject to the laws of the kingdom who arms privateers, or takes any part in such act, is liable to be treated abroad as pirates, and are amenable to the laws of Belgium.

5. The Italian war declaration, of the 8th of May, 1859.

Belgium adheres to the principles laid down in the declaration of the Paris Congress of the 16th of April, 1856.

Merchants are notified that instructions on this subject have been issued to the judicial, naval, and army officials.

Every person subject to the laws of the kingdom who arms privateers, or takes part in such act, or who violates neutrality, is liable to be treated as a pirate abroad, and to be prosecuted at home.

6. The American war declaration of the 22d June, 1861, was similar to that of 1859.

7. The Brazil-Paraguay war declaration of the 11th June, 1865, is the same.

8. The Spanish-Chili-Peru declarations of the 18th February, 1866, and the 14th March, 1866, are similar to the above.

DENMARK.

Copenhagen, April 30, 1867.

My Lord: In pursuance of the instructions contained in your lordship’s circular dispatch of the 14th of February, addressed to Sir Charles Murray, I have the honor to transmit herewith to your lordship copy of a note that has been addressed to me by Count Frys Frysenborg, transmitting copies of the Danish laws and regulations in vigor for the prevention of acts within Danish territories of which belligerents might complain as a violation of the duties of neutrality.

Inclosure No. 2 to this dispatch is a set of laws, with translation, dated May, 4, 1803, for the guidance of merchants and shipmasters in time of war between maratime powers. In the 13th article are enumerated the goods that are to be considered as contraband of war.

Very important special regulations are laid down in article 14, with a view to controlling the shipment of articles contraband of war, and to insuring their due delivery at neutral ports.

According to the 18th article, Danish owners and masters of merchant vessels who infringe the law not only forfeit their right to Danish citizenship and the protection of their government, in case of seizure by the enemy, but likewise expose themselves to prosecution by the tribunals of their country.

Various articles of the law of May 4, 1803, will be annuled by the provisions of a new law bearing date March 13, 1867, (copy of which, together with a translation, was transmitted to your lordship’s office by Mr. Consul Bridges Taylor, in his despatch of the 27th instant,) and which is to come into force in the month of October of the present year.

In it are denned the character of the ship’s papers which all Danish merchant ships will in future be required to possess in order to prove their nationality.

They will consist of a certificate of registry, the articles of agreement, custom-house clearance, charter-party, and bills of lading.

The ancient Latin passports are abolished.

By a set of regulations embodied in an ancient circular of the Royal Danish Chancellerie, dated May 20, 1823, (enclosure No. 4 in this despatch, with translation,) privateers are forbidden to enter Danish ports, except on account of stress of weather or pursuit by an enemy. They are bound, however, to quit their place of refuge so soon as the danger be past.

An injunction is likewise laid on foreign vessels of war, as well as privateers, from sending their prizes to or selling them or their cargoes in Danish ports, and Danish subjects are strictly forbidden to purchase any prize brought into Danish ports.

The 6th inclosure to this dispatch is a copy of circular, together with translation, which was addressed, during the Crimean war, to the commanders of vessels stationed in Danish waters, and points out the course they were directed to pursue in order to maintain the neutrality of Danish territory, and to prevent the commission of any act that might give umbrage to either of the belligerents at that time engaged in hostilities.

I have likewise the honor to inclose herewith to your lordship copy of the 76th article of the Danish Penal Code of February 10, 1866, fixing the penalties to be inflicted on persons who, without royal authorization, should enlist soldiers in Denmark to serve in a foreign war.

I have the honor to be, with the highest respect, my lord, your lordship’s most obedient humble servant,

FRANCIS CLARE FORD.

The Lord Stanley, P. M., &c., &c., &c.

[Translation.]

Copenhagen, April 26, 1867.

Sir: After consulting the proper ministers about Sir Charles Murray’s note of the 19th of February last in regard to the provisions of the law intended to prevent violations of neutrality towards foreign belligerent nations on Danish soil, I inclose to you—1. One copy of the ordinance of the 4th of May, 1803, containing instructions to captains and owners of vessels in regard to their conduct during a naval war in which Denmark takes no part. 2. The copy of a circular from the royal Danish cabinet, dated 20th May, 1823, specifying the conditions under which foreign war vessels and privateers of belligerent nations may enter Danish ports, during a war in which Denmark is not interested. 3. A circular addressed to commanders of the royal navy in Danish waters during the Crimean war, prescribing neutrality according to laws in force, and prohibiting acts offensive to either belligerent power. 4. A French translation of article 76 of the penal code of 10th of February, 1866, specifying penalties incurred by persons recruiting soldiers on Danish soil, for the military service of a foreign power, without the King’s consent.

In calling your attention to these ordinances and circulars, I deem it my duty to give you a brief analysis of the provisions of the ordinance of 4th May, 1803.

The articles from 1 to 13 contain forms of the papers necessary to prove the nationality of a Danish trading vessel, in a naval war between foreign powers. In reference to these provisions I must inform you that, as Latin passports are no longer required on trading vessels, in accordance with existing treaties between Denmark and Great Britain, (see Lord Russell’s note of 29th June, 1861, to our minister in London,) the government has repealed the ordinance of 4th May, 1803, in relation to such passports; and, by a new law of the 13th March past, many other articles have been rescinded or modified. Article 2 of the said law only requires, as proof of the nationality of a trading vessel, the paper called “a certificate of nationality or registry,” showing that the ship is on the list of those vessels having a right to carry the Danish flag. According to the same article, every registered vessel is only required to carry a crew-list, the cargo papers, and a custom-house clearance, in times of war or peace.

To prevent a misuse of the Danish flag in covering articles contraband of war, intended for belligerent powers or their subjects, article 13 of the ordinance of 4th May, 1803, gives a list of articles considered as contraband.

Article 14 forbids captains of trading vessels to carry those articles, unless he gives security that they are to be delivered at a neutral port. In such case, the master and freighters are obliged to observe certain formalities to prove that the goods were actually delivered at the neutral port.

Article 15 commands masters of trading vessels to observe the royal proclamations in relation to a blockaded port of either belligerent power. If masters are ignorant of such blockade, and near the blockaded port, they are required by this same article to heed a notice given by the blockading squadron at the port.

By article 18 of the same ordinance, freighters and masters who violate this law forfeit the protection of the government, and make themselves liable to prosecution in the courts.

Hoping these remarks may prove satisfactory in answer to your questions, I take the opportunity to express my esteem and consideration.

FRYS FRYSENBORG.

To Mr. Ford, Her Britannic Majesty’s Chargé d’affaires.

Rules for the guidance of merchants and ship-masters in time of hostilities between maritime powers.

We, Christian VII, by grace of God, King of Denmark and Norway, the Goths and Vandals, Duke of Sleswig Holstein, Stormarn, Ditmarch, and Oldenburg:

Make known—Although we, by several previous resolutions, fixed the rules according to which our traders and seafaring subjects should be guided when war broke out between foreign maritime powers, we have, nevertheless, found it necessary under the present circumstances to make one condensed enactment, imbodying those parts of these former resolutions, that they may hereafter serve as a rule of guidance for these our subjects, and become publicly known; and also so that no Danish subject shall plead ignorance of his duties in these respects, it is our gracious will that the following enactments hereafter shall alone be followed and accurately conformed to by all and every one who wishes to share in the advantages which our neutral flag in time of war will give to their lawful trading and maritime speculations; and to this end we hereby annul and declare void all our former enactments. We order and command as follows:

Article I. Those our trading and seafaring subjects who wish to send any of their ships to sea to any foreign places to which the effects of the war have or may reach, shall be bound (always in conformity with the rules and regulations laid down in the following law) to acquire a royal Latin sea-pass or permit, as well as the other ship’s documents and papers exacted by law. To this end, on the breaking out of hostilities between foreign powers, it will be necessary to decide and make known for what places it is considered necessary that ships should be provided with our Latin sea-pass.

Art. II. The pass cannot be obtained before the owner of the ship for which it is required has provided himself with the necessary ship’s certificate in proof of his lawful right of ownership.

Art. III. No man can obtain a ship’s certificate who is not our subject either by birth in our kingdoms and countries, or who before the breaking out of hostilities between any of the maritime powers of Europe was in full possession of the rights of citizenship, either in our or other neutral states. In all cases the owner of a ship for which a certificate is demanded shall be domiciled in some place in our kingdoms and countries.

Art. IV. He who, according to the foregoing articles, is entitled to obtain or claim a ship’s certificate, shall, in order to receive the same, present himself to the magistrate or authorities of the city or place to which the ship belongs, or where the principal number of its owners are domiciled, where either they, or at least the chief owner, has, in person or by means of a written and signed oath, declared that the ship belongs to him, or to one or more of our subjects, and that the ship for which the certificate is demanded has no contraband of war on board destined for the use of the belligerent powers or their subjects.

Art. V. No one, on the breaking out of hostilities, shall be permitted to command a ship provided with our royal sea-pass who may have been born in any of the countries of the belligerent powers, unless he, before the breaking out of hostilities, shall have acquired rights of citizenship in our kingdoms and countries.

Art. VI. Every ship master who will command a ship furnished with our royal Latin sea-pass must have acquired citizenship at some place in our kingdoms and countries.

He is bound constantly to have his letter of citizenship with him on board. As a security that he undertakes nothing that may be in contradiction with the provisions of this our enactment, he shall be bound, before departure from the harbor where he receives the pass, to take an oath that nothing with his will shall be undertaken whereby the pass and certificate given to him shall be misapplied.

Such oath made by the master shall accompany the owner’s application for the delivery of the permit. But when, on account of the absence of the ship’s master, this cannot be accomplished, the owner shall state the fact, and then our consul or commercial agent in the district where the master happens to be shall be answerable that when the master receives the permit he shall take the required oath.

Art. VII. On ships which are to be furnished with the royal Latin sea-pass no super-cargo, factors, clerks, or other ship’s officials who are subjects of the belligerents shall be permitted on board.

Art. VIII. Half the crew, including the mate, shall consist of the subjects of our kingdoms and countries. Should it happen that a crew in a foreign country, through desertion, death, or sickness, become incomplete, so that it is impossible for the master to comply with this enactment, he shall be permitted to engage as many foreigners (especially subjects of neutrals) as may be required to continue the voyage; however, in no case shall the number of subjects of the belligerents who may be on board the ship exceed a third part of the crew.

Every change connected with such alterations in the crew, together with the reasons calling for them, shall be carefully entered by the captain on the ship’s articles, which shall be attested each time and signed by our consul or commercial agent, or their deputies resident in the ports the ship may put into, and such indorsement shall serve as a justification for the master in all subsequent contingencies.

Art. IX. Besides the ship’s certificate mentioned in article II, the following ship’s documents shall always be found on board the ship:

The shipbuilder’s certificate, and, inasmuch as he who built the ship may later have sold it to another, then also the bill of sale or title deed shall be present.

The documents, on application, for the delivery of the pass, shall be sent by the owner to the proper authorities, accompanied by the certificate, in proof of the ship’s lawful right to claim the certificate.

The royal Latin sea-pass, with the accompanying translation.

Measure bill, or certificate of measurement.

Articles of agreement and list of the crew, which must be properly attested by the competent authorities.

Charter-parties and bills of lading of the cargo; and, lastly,

Custom-house clearance from the place where the cargo was taken in.

Art. X. The measure bill shall be delivered by the authorities of our kingdoms and countries properly authorized to measure ships. In case any of our subjects purchase a ship in a foreign port, our consul or commercial agent at the place shall be authorized to have the ship measured, and thereafter deliver to the master of the ship a provisional measure bill, which shall be considered valid until the ship arrives in one of our harbors where the ship can be properly measured and branded, and a permanent measure bill be made out, which shall remain with the ship.

Art. XI. It is forbidden to all and every one, owners as well as shipmasters, to procure for themselves and to have on board duplicate ship’s papers, or to carry a foreign flag, as long as they are sailing with papers and documents graciously given by us.

Art. XII. Our royal Latin sea-pass is only valid for one journey, i. e., from the time the ship after receiving it quits its home port and until the time it returns to it; unless the ship in the mean time, by lawful sale, has been transferred to another party, in which case the new owner must obtain the necessary passes and documents in his own name.

Art. XIII. According to ordinary received principles, the subjects of neutral powers cannot be permitted to have goods on board which can be considered as contraband of war when they are destined for the belligerent powers, or their subjects, or already belong to them; so have we, the King, in order to prevent our flag being misused to cover or protect such carrying of contraband articles, and in order that no one in this respect shall, excuse himself on the ground of ignorance, hereby and expressly decided what should be classed under the denomination of contraband of war. Hereafter the following articles and goods of all and every one our subject shall be considered as contraband of war: cannons, mortars, all kinds of weapons, pistols, bombs, grenades, cannon balls, and bullet guns, flint stones, fusees and tinder, gunpowder, saltpetre, sulphur, cutlasses, pikes, swords, fittings, cartouche boxes, saddles, and bridles; however, with the exception of such quantities of these articles as may be requisite for the protection of the ship or of its crew.

Besides, one must in every respect conform to all special stipulations or positive contracts which we, the King, have agreed to with foreign powers in relation to the carrying of prohibited goods and properties in our subjects’ ships, in which case the owner on receiving the pass will be furnished with special instructions for his guidance.

Art. XIV. Should a ship bound for a foreign port take in such goods which, if they were destined for any of the harbors or ports of the belligerent powers, would be considered as contraband of war, in addition to the oath which the owner and shipmaster would have to take before the proper magistrate or authority, the persons who load such ships and the master shall also be bound, in conformity with the invoice of the cargo or bills of lading, to draw up, besides the ordinarily required custom clearance, a special declaration which shall contain a classification of the merchandise in question, with their qualities of value, which declaration, signed by the shipper and master, shall be certified by the custom-house authorities at the place where the clearance is given. The declaration thus attested shall, without delay, after the clearance of the ship, be sent by our custom officials to the chief commissioners of customs, and shall serve to control the correct arrival of the specified goods at their specified destination, provided they have not been lost by accident at sea or by capture. The control shall be carried out in the following manner: The shipper of the goods in question shall procure a certificate from our consul or commercial agent at the place to which the ship is bound, or when we have no consul or commercial agent there, a certificate from the lawfully authorized local authorities certifying the due arrival and discharge of the merchandise in conformity with the declaration. This certificate shall be procured and sent in to the home office as soon as the ship arrives at its destination or reaches some home port. Should the certificate not be forthcoming in a reasonable time proportionate to the length of the journey, our home office shall demand a declaration from the shipper to the effect that he declares on oath that he has received no information about the goods or the ship. Should the arrival of the ship and the discharge of the goods in question in a neutral port not be clearly proved, and no accident or violent capture have taken place to prevent the arrival and discharge, the shipper shall pay to the treasury a fine of 20 rix dollars for every commercial last of the ship’s burden; besides both owner and master shall be liable to an action at law.

Art. XV. No shipmaster shall sail to any port blockaded from the sea-side by one of the belligerent powers, and he shall in every respect carefully pay attention and conform to the warnings communicated to him by the authorities relative to the blockade of ports. In case he, on sailing into any port, (the blockade of which has not previously been brought to his knowledge,) meets any ship carrying a flag of war of any of the belligerent powers, and it is notified to him by the commanders that the port is really blockaded, he shall immediately retire from it without in any way seeking clandestinely to break the blockade.

Art. XVI. None of our subjects shall take service on board privateers, much less themselves arm or be interested in the arming of such ships; neither shall any owner or shipmaster allow his ship to be used for the transport of troops, weapons, or contraband of war, of whatsoever description. Should any shipmaster be unable to prevent his ship (through irresistible force) being misused as above mentioned, it shall, notwithstanding, be his duty to protest, and with all his power and by a formal act, against such violent proceeding which he has been unable to obviate.

Art. XVII. When a merchantman, not sailing under convoy, is spoken with at sea by any armed vessel belonging to the belligerent powers who have the right of visitation, the shipmaster shall not oppose such visitation, if effected by the commander of such above-mentioned armed ship, but is bound on the contrary faithfully and without reserve to show all the documents appertaining to ship and cargo. Both the shipmaster, his officers and crew, are strictly forbidden to throw overboard or in any other way to destroy or conceal any documents or papers on board belonging to the ship or cargo, either before the visitation or whilst it takes place. When the protection of our flag of war is granted to merchandise, every shipmaster, before he is taken under convoy, shall exhibit his ship’s papers to the chief of the convoy, and in every case most carefully conform to his orders.

Art. XVIII. Should any one, be he owner or master, act in contravention to these enactments, he shall lose his citizenship, and the right to own or command ships; moreover, he shall be prosecuted according to law, and according to circumstances be punished either for perjury or for having infringed our royal mandates. On the other hand, we will cause to be respected and protect the lawful enterprises by land and sea of our faithful subjects, so long as they conform to the foregoing rules and regulations, to which end we have enjoined and ordered all our ministers and consuls, and other authorities in foreign parts to endeavor to their utmost to ward off and prevent any inconvenience or violence being suffered by our subjects, and in case such should have occurred, then to aid the injured parties and endeavor to assist them to obtain justice and compensation. Likewise we, the King, will at all times graciously give our support to every just complaint which our subjects in the above respects may feel themselves called upon to lay before us.

Given at our royal palace at Copenhagen, May 4, 1803, under our royal hand and seal,

CHRISTIAN R.

Royal Danish Chancellerie’s resolutions of May 20, 1823.

The royal department of foreign affairs has announced to this chancery that, under date of the 30th of last month, it has pleased his Majesty the King graciously to resolve that it shall not be allowed to any privateer, of whatever nation, to remain in any Danish harbors or waters.

Only in case that such privateers, forced by pressing danger of storms, bad weather, or that pursuit by the enemy occasion dangers, seek refuge in a Danish port, then they shall be received and receive such help as humanity may dictate, but they shall be bound, immediately the danger is over, to put to sea again. Neither shall any privateer be permitted to send his prizes to Denmark, or to sell them there; and in the last-mentioned case, when privateers, forced by necessity, seek refuge in Danish ports, they shall neither unload nor load prizes they may bring with them, neither shall they sell these or their cargoes or any part of them in Danish harbors.

To this end it shall by public notice be stringently forbidden to all his Majesty’s subjects to buy foreign privateers’ prizes. When foreign men-of-war run into Danish harbors they may be obliged to bring the prizes they may have taken with them, and shall neither unload nor load them, or sell them, wholly or partly, them or their cargoes.

In communicating this royal resolution, we will beg you kindly to communicate its contents to all the officials within your jurisdiction, that they may take cognizance of the same, and make known to all and every one that they are stringently forbidden to purchase prizes brought in by foreign privateers.

Certified by the expediting secretary in the ministry of justice, March 26, 1867.

Instructions for the guidance of commanders of Danish ships of war during the Crimean war.

1. At the station at which you are placed it is your duty, with the ship under your command, in the best manner to preserve good order on the coast and in the roads and harbors, to take measures that trade and navigation is carried on in its usual uninterrupted manner, without suffering molestations from the men-of-war who may be on the spot.

It is desirable that foreign men-of-war should always find Danish men-of-war in their neighborhood, whenever they appear in our waters, and you will therefore, as soon as you ascertain that foreign ships of war are in the waters of your station, approach them and follow their movements. The ship under your command should properly be considered as a guard-ship in the station, for which reason you will also, when at anchor, fire off watch signals, &c.

2. You must show foreign men-of-war, of whatever nation they may be, with which you may come in contact, all possible attention and politeness, but you must abstain in every manner from giving them assistance, except such as humanity may call for, especially you must not assist them in their navigation, by procuring for them local pilots or by other nautical assistance.

3. In case where foreign men-of-war have communication with land, you will give over the keeping of order on shore to the proper police authorities or harbor officials, but you shall in word and deed render assistance everywhere where it may be required, and where conflicts may arise either by reason of misunderstandings, want of knowledge of the language on the part of the one side or the other, or on account of possibly exaggerated claims on the part of the foreign ships. You shall in these cases come forward as mediator to clear up matters, and indeed act as a reconciliator, but be at the same time decided and serious everywhere where the question is to keep up or make good the right of the King’s subjects and the neutrality of the Danish territory.

4. The Danish territory extends one Danish mile from the terra firma of the King’s country, (see the circular from the ministry of August 18, 1810;) excepted herefrom, however, is the sound at Kronborg and the Elbe at Glückstadt, where Danish territory only stretches a cannon shot from land, or 3,000 ells.

Danish mile =5 English miles.

2,000 yards.

5. It is the will of his Majesty the King that the ships of all nations shall be under the protection of Denmark when in Danish territory and within its territorial limits, within which the Danish neutral rights must be maintained, so that the bringing up or visiting of ships, be they belligerent, neutral, or national, shall not be permitted within these territorial limits.

6. The bringing of prizes into Danish ports is forbidden. When prizes are anchored in open roads or off the coast of the Danish territory, it must be supposed that this occurs only from the force of circumstances; but you shall then request the bringer up or prize-master to take away the prize as soon as possible, and you must watch with care that nothing is sold or brought on shore or landed from the prize whilst it remains in Danish waters or territories.

The necessary warning in this respect shall be given in these cases as soon as possible to the proper authorities on shore.

7. If a ship of war or merchantman flying before an enemy seeks refuge in Danish territory, it is your duty to take it under your protection. It is to be hoped that a warning to the pursuing man-of-war (preferably by sending a boat with an officer on board, or, if necessary, by a warning signal) will be sufficient to ward off such a breach of neutrality; but should, contrary to expectation, a seizure or bringing up take place in Danish territory, you have then only, by a protest framed in a decided but serious and polite tone, to make known to the commander of the foreign man-of-war that he has committed a breach of Danish neutrality and territorial rights.

You will thereupon, as soon as possible, report to your government what has taken place, and send a copy of the protest, together with a statement of the name of the ship and its commander, &c., &c.

8. When foreign ships of war wish to run into harbors within the limits of your station, you will watch that the ship conforms to the rules of the harbor, both as regards the local or general regulations, such, for instance, as discharging of gunpowder, putting out fires, &c., &c.

9. Privateers shall not be suffered within Danish territories, and still less shall they be permitted to run into any Danish harbor except in case of distress. It must then be stringently looked to that they deliver up gunpowder and weapons, and in every case conform to the police regulations of the harbor. Their stay in harbor shall not be suffered longer than absolutely necessary for their repairs.

If privateers should bring prizes into Danish territory they shall be immediately sent back.

Privateers on refusing to comply with these orders in Danish territory, necessary force shall be applied to enforce compliance; but you must, before you have recourse to force, carefully convince yourself that the vessel in question is really a privateer and not a man-of-war, and if you consider it necessary you may, for this purpose, demand to see the commander’s commission or patent.

10. Outside of the Danish territory the sea must be considered as open water, on which account you will look upon every act of belligerent ships taking place outside of our territories as not concerning you.

Should, however, foreign men-of-war, in open waters, but within sight of you, overhaul Danish merchantmen, you must try and obtain permission for such vessels to proceed on their course, but in these cases you can only come forward as mediator. If the foreign inspecting man-of-war declares it to be his duty to bring up such vessels, and that this takes place on account of the ship being loaded with contraband of war bound for one of the belligerent’s harbors, you cannot oppose it, but can only, as soon as possible, report the case to the proper government department. Should, contrary to expectation, a foreign man-of-war in your vicinity attempt to molest a Danish merchantman, for instance, by taking his crew, merchandise, provisions, or ship’s space, or by attempting forcibly to take possession of the ship for his own purposes, such as the transport of sick or of booty, you must declare that, as you consider yourself bound to protect your countrymen’s liberty and right to unhindered sailing on the sea, (a right which can only be limited by those general hindrances applying to all nations’ ships in time of war,) it is your duty, on behalf of Danish vessels, seriously and earnestly to protest against every act which exceeds these limits.

Should this remonstrance not be attended to, you will at once make a formal protest against the proceedings of such foreign man-of-war, in which protest you will, besides giving notice that you consider that his mode of procedure is unauthorized, and a breach of Denmark’s recognized neutrality, hold him responsible for the consequences of such an act. In every case the master or owner of the merchantman shall receive full compensation and indemnity for the loss of property or time occasioned thereby. You will protect Danish trade everywhere, and in every case against privateers, and, if necessary, use force.

The object of these present instructions is to give you decided rules for your guidance in certain cases; but the department has likewise hereby intended to give you a clue for action in all possible unforeseen contingencies, in which it will be your duty to act with tact and care, together with gravity and decision. As a rule for such unforeseen cases, the department advise you the strictest neutrality, by abstaining from any sign of partiality for either the one or the other belligerent, be it either by word or deed. You must take care to have respected the Danish neutrality rights and the keeping of good order within the territories, showing every external sign of politeness and consideration in conformity with what the usages of ships of war require or call for.

Translation of section 76 of the penal code of the 10th February, 1866.

Whoever recruits men for foreign service, without the King’s permission, while the country is at war, shall suffer the punishment of hard labor six years or less: if in time of peace, the penalty shall be two months’ imprisonment, or two years of hard labor.

Any subject who enlists in time of war, without royal permission, in the service of a foreign power not at war with Denmark, is liable to imprisonment or hard labor for one year or less, according to the nature of the case.

The act of recruiting is consummated by the person’s accepting foreign service.

France.—No. I.

(Received from her Majesty’s embassy at Paris.)

Report from Mr. Treitt, counsel to the embassy.

[Translation.]

Paris, February 20, 1867.

Mr. Minister: In your letter of the 16th February, 1867, you ask about the laws, regulations, and other means used by the French government to prevent violations of neutrality by its subjects, on French territory.

Articles 84 and 85 of the penal code are the only regulations on the subject. They are as follows:

“Article 84. Whoever exposes the state to a declaration of war, by hostile acts not approved by the government, shall be punished by banishment, and, if war ensues, by deportation.

“Art. 85. Whoever exposes Frenchmen to reprisals, through acts not approved by the government, shall suffer banishment.”

You will observe the generality of the expressions whoever and hostile acts; the words are not defined; their interpretation is left to courts of justice.

Articles 84 and 85 of the penal code do not refer to machinations and maneuvers for the benefit of a foreign power, with the intention to provoke hostilities. Such machinations, practiced with a criminal intention and purpose, come within the province of treason, and are to be corrected by articles 76 to 83 of the same code. Articles 84 and 85 apply only to cases of imprudence, rashness, or negligence; it is less the intention than the material fact that is punished. The law looks only to the result; thus:

“Was France exposed to a declaration of war, and was war declared? Were Frenchmen exposed to reprisals?” The affirmative of these questions calls for the severest penalty of the law, as well as the payment of damages claimed.

Even death was proposed as a penalty in severe cases; but legislators agreed that transportation would be severe enough to restrain subjects from violation of neutrality toward belligerents. (See report of State Council, 9th January, 1810.)

In the application of articles 84 and 85 of the penal code three conditions are required: 1st. The act must be hostile; 2d. It must be without the consent of the government; 3d. France must have been exposed to a declaration of war, or Frenchmen exposed to reprisals.

I merely mention these three circumstances which are to be decided by courts of justice. If the judges decide that a certain act is not hostile, and does not violate neutrality, the government must respect that decision, and make it known to the complaining belligerent. If the accused alleges a tacit or express approbation of the government, he cannot be punished for his act.

In fine, if the hostile act does not cause reprisals or war, it is not considered criminal.

These articles relieve government greatly from the responsibility towards belligerents; but they serve, as an illustrious judge has said, to protect the morality and dignity of the nation.

In ancient times the guilty, or even the suspected, were given up to the vengeance of the complaining party; this is not done now, yet the complaints are satisfied. Such is the principle of articles 84 and 85; for without them satisfaction could not be easily given, and war would be inevitable, as a final argument.

There are but three noted prosecutions in court reports, under articles 84 and 85 of the penal code:

In 1824 a French captain, commanding a Colombian vessel, captured a Sardinian ship and exposed Frenchmen to reprisals.

In 1831 border residents attacked a Sardinian custom-house.

In 1834 some bankers effected a loan and furnished munitions of war to Don Carlos, who was fighting against the Spanish government.

We must not be surprised at the scarcity of these cases, for acts in violation of neutrality generally consist in the delivery of war implements and munitions. Now, as arms and munitions are not articles of trade in France, and are carefully watched by the government, it is hard to arm vessels or trade in munitions of war without the knowledge or consent of the government.

Articles 84 and 85 are the only laws against violations of neutrality that I can find in French legislation. I have examined the laws on maritime prizes, piracy, and the slave trade, and have found nothing else in relation to violation of neutrality. We must not confound this question with general rules in France, and with the law of nations on neutrality.

It has been rightly said that a serious hostile act may not bring on war between two countries at peace, when often a simple act may cause difficulties, if the two nations have hostile feelings towards each other.

The result of penal suits, therefore, must fix the meaning of articles 84 and 85, contrary to the received opinions that the intention makes the crime.

Other nations have like provisions in their penal laws: article 136 of the Prussian code punishes subjects who expose their fellows to reprisals; and article 37 of the Brazilian code punishes, with imprisonment of 1 to 12 years, whomsoever endangers the peace of the country and exposes Brazilians to reprisals. Treason there, as in France, meets the severest penalty.

Yours, &c.,

TREITT.

Hon. Julian Fane, Her Britannic Majesty’s Minister at Paris.

[Translation.]

Mr. Minister: In compliance with the request in your letter of yesterday, I send you the laws of the French government on neutrality, enacted the 10th of June, 1861.

I did not give them in my letter of the 20th February, because at that time no law, except the marine ordinance of 1681, related to neutrality, and I had to be brief to be intelligible. Those are the reasons why I only cited articles 84 and 85 of the penal code, that include all cases of violation of neutrality. Neither did I mention the declaration of neutrality of the 10th June, 1861, because it was officially announced to your government.

The facts about the Olinde, the Bappahannock, and other southern privateers, have come to light in Lord Cowper’s correspondence; they were noticed in the public papers, and I supposed them well known in the foreign office.

I will hunt up the history of the privateers that are charged to France, whether they were finished, were in course of construction, or had gone out to cruise.

I will let you know as soon as I find out about them; I must say to you, however, that they made no noise, and are now nearly forgotten.

The neutral declaration of the 10th June, 1861, allows privateers to remain 24 hours in French ports. Several powers declared, during the Crimean war in 1854, that no belligerent privateers would be admitted into their ports, unless in cases of absolute necessity.^*

That shows the progress of civilization till privateering is totally abolished. Yours, &c.,

TREITT.

Hon. Julian Fane, British Minister.

France.—No. II.

(Received from her Majesty’s embassy at Paris.)

[Translation.]

Mr. de Moustier, minister of foreign affairs, to Mr. Fane.

Paris, February 26, 1867.

Sir: In your letter of the 16th instant, you ask for the French laws and regulations about acts that might be regarded as violations of neutrality by belligerents, for the instruction of the Queen’s commission, appointed to collect information on the subject. Properly speaking, there is no French law or regulation defining neutrality between foreign belligerent powers; questions of that nature being mixed, are to be determined by the general principles of international law. Articles 84 and 85 of the penal code punish individual acts that provoke a declaration of war, or expose Frenchmen to reprisals; and article 21 of the Code Napoleon forbids Frenchmen from taking foreign service without permission.

We may quote article 3 of the law of the 10th of April, 1825, which treats as a pirate every Frenchman who accepts a commission as commander of a privateer from a foreign power.

We also cite article 67 of the commercial regulations of the 24th March, 1852, interdicting all French seamen from accepting foreign service, without permission; and certain paragraphs of articles 313, 314, and 315 of the code of military justice for the navy, about desertion abroad.

The ordinance of the 12th July, 1847, and the law of the 14th July, 1860, about war materials, is pertinent; and article 2 of the law of the 16th May, 1863, prohibiting the export of such articles.

I inclose you the texts of these laws.

Yours, &c,.

MOUSTIER.

Mr. Julian Fane.

No. 13715.—Royal ordinance in relation to the manufacture of arms and ammunition for trading vessels.

Neuilly, July 12, 1847.

Louis Philippe, King of the French, to all present and to come, greeting:

In view of the laws of the 22d August, 1791; 4 Germinal, year II; 19 Thermidor, year IV; 24th May, 1834, and 6th May, 1841; on the report of our minister of marine and colonies, and our state council consulted, we have decreed, and do decree, as follows:

Article 1. According to article 3 of the law of the 24th May, 1834, every person who desires to make fire-arms for trading ships must get permission from our minister of war for light arms, and from our minister of marine and colonies for cannon and ammunition. The petition must specify the quantity, kind and caliber of the arms, and the kind of ammunition to be made. Masters of founderies shall annex the drawings of the cannon they propose to cast, a model of the mould, and a sample of the material, to their petition.

Art. 2. After permission is obtained notice of it shall be given to the prefect of the department where the foundery or workshop is situated, in which the arms are to be made.

Art. 3. Arms and munitions of war intended for trading vessels shall not go out of the shop, nor be exported, without a permit from the prefect of the department; and carriers shall show this permit when-required to do so.

Art. 4. On the arrival of such arms at their port of destination, they shall be stored in a public warehouse, in charge of a proper officer.

Art. 5. Before sold they shall be tested, according to instructions from the secretary of war, or secretary of the navy and colonies, according to the kind of arm.

Art. 6. The officer testing them shall decide whether they are to be accepted or not. If rejected, a certificate to that effect shall be given to the maker, who may appeal to the minister for a final decision.

Art. 7. The makers shall pay all cost in these proceedings. The expenses of artillery officers who make the test shall be paid by the government.

Art. 8. No arm shall be taken from the storehouse except by a permit from a naval officer; and the maker or his agent shall state the names of the freighters of the vessels that are to take them. A copy of this permit shall be sent by the officer to the collector of the port where the vessels are loaded.

Art. 9. Cartridges and other munitions of war shall be stored as mentioned in article 4, and must be put on board when the vessel is ready to start, under conditions to be mentioned hereafter.

Art. 10. An officer of the navy at the freighting port shall issue the permit to load trading vessels with arms; and the permit shall specify the quantity of arms and the probable length of the voyage.

Art. 11. The presiding officer shall see that the arms are not too many for the size of the vessel and number of the crew; and shall see that the cannons be mounted.

Art. 12. The freighters shall sign a bond before the collector of the port, to give a true account of arms and munitions that pass through their hands, by exhibiting all the papers in relation to them; and this obligation may be canceled by the collector on the return of the vessel from the voyage; and the number, kind, caliber, and value of the arms and munitions embarked, must be set down on the crew-list of the vessel.

Art. 13. When the ship is disarmed its armament shall return to the stores mentioned in article 4; yet the naval officer may allow the freighter to keep the cannon on board.

Art. 14. Every violation of article 12 shall be punished by laws against the export of arms and munitions of war. The custom-house collector is ordered to bring the suit.

Art. 15. Violations of the other articles of this decree shall be punished by the law of the 24th May, 1834.

Art. 16. Our ministers of war, navy, and finance are charged with the respective enforcement of this ordinance.

Done at Neuilly the 12th July, 1847.

LOUIS PHILIPPE.

By the King:

Montebello, Duke, Peer of France, and Minister of Marine and Colonies.

No. 7853.—Law in relation to the making and vending of fire-arms, of the 14th July, 1860.

Napoleon, by the grace of God and the national will Emperor of the French, to all present and to come, greeting: We hereby sanction and promulgate as follows:

[From the report of the Legislative Assembly.]

Title I.—The making and vending of fire-arms.

Article 1. Any person can make arms or trade in them, by permission of the secretary of war, under conditions specified in the laws and department regulations.

The arms or pieces of arms made in licensed establishments are intended solely for export, except those ordered by the secretary of war for state use.

Art. 2. War arms are those used by French or foreign soldiers; and every arm, large or small, that may be used in war, is called a war arm.

Boarding arms and trade arms are considered as war arms, and are subject to the same regulations.

Art. 3. The permit mentioned in article 1 cannot be recalled by the secretary, unless the maker or vender has violated articles 13, 14, and 15 of the present law, or the law of the 24th May, 1834, or has committed certain crimes and offenses, as in articles 86, 101, 209, 210, 211, 215, and 216 of the penal code; or against the law of the 7th June, 1848, concerning riots; or against articles 1 and 2 of the law of the 27th July, 1849; or against articles 1, 2, and 3 of the law of the 27th February, 1858.

Art. 4. Every licensed maker or vender must have a register, each leaf to be signed by the magistrate, containing daily accounts of the arms made, bought, or sold, where they are sent and to whom sold.

The mayor shall examine and certify this registry once a month, or in his default, the police commissary may do it.

Art. 5. The minister of war, or in case of necessity, generals of divisions, may dictate measures for the public interest or safety in relation to arms stored in their district.

Art. 6. All barrels of war guns, or those intended for export, must be tested, and stamped in proof of it. They shall also have an export stamp on them.

Title II.—Import, export, or transit of fire-arms.

Art. 7. No arms or parts of arms can be imported without a permit from the minister of war.

Art. 8. Especial provisions shall say where imported arms or parts of arms may be stored. These arms or parts of arms may be regulated by article 5, for public safety.

Art. 9. War arms, or parts of arms, may be exported on conditions specified by law or regulations. An imperial decree may forbid their export, for a certain time, over a particular frontier. Decrees shall say through what custom-house they may pass abroad. When the export to a certain place is forbidden, the exporters, under penalties specified in article 4, title III, of the law of 22d August, 1791, must show that the arms were sent to a lawful destination, by giving bonds, to be canceled at the customhouse whither they are sent, by French consular agents there.

Art. 10. A permit from the war department must be obtained for moving, sending from one place of storage to another, or re-exporting, all arms or pieces of arms. If their export to a certain place is prohibited, permits for that place, given before the prohibition, are of course void.

Art. 11. Lawful importation, exportation, or transit of arms, and their circulation on the frontier, are regulated by the custom-house laws.

Title III.—Penalties.

Art. 12. Whoever makes arms unlawfully, or trades in them without license, may be fined as much as 1,000 francs, and be imprisoned for one year or less.

Arms, or parts of arms, made or sold without license, are subject to confiscation, and the guilty may be put under guard for two years or less. In case of repetition, the penalty may be doubled.

Art. 13. The maker or trader who does not conform to article 4 of the present law may be fined 300 francs or less, and imprisoned three months. In case of repetition, this penalty may be doubled.

Art. 14. Every maker or trader who violates article 6 may be fined 300 francs, and his arms confiscated. In case of repetition, the penalty may be doubled.

Art. 15. Counterfeiting the proof or export stamp, or the use of such punches, may be punished by a fine of 3,000 francs or less, and imprisonment of five years.

Art. 16. Whoever takes and uses the true punches illegally, shall be fined as much as 500 francs, and imprisoned for two years.

Art. 17. Article 463 of the penal code applies to all the provisions of the present law.

Title IV.—General provisions.

Art. 18. The forms of petitions for license to make arms and trade in them are fixed by department regulations: the fees for testing and stamping; the transport inland; and the superintendence of the manufacture and sale of them.

Art. 19. The law of the 24th May, 1834, is not repealed, nor the laws and regulations concerning hunting, fancy, and prohibited arms.

Art. 20. All laws contrary to the present are hereby repealed. Done in public session, at Paris, on the 20th June, 1860.

COUNT MORNY, President.

Count Louis de Cambacérès,

Count Leopold Letton,

Count Joachim Murat, Secretaries.

Extract of the verbal process of the Senate.

The Senate is not opposed to the promulgation of the law concerning the manufacture and trade of fire-arms.

Discussed and voted upon in the session, the 30th of June, 1860, in the Palace of the Senate.

TROPLONG, President.

A. Laity,

Count de Grossolles,

Flamarens,

Baron T. de Lacrosse, Secretaries.

Seen and sealed with the seal of the Senate.

Baron T. de LACROSSE, Senator and Secretary.

Whereby we command and order that the present, authenticated with the seal of the state and inserted in the records of laws, be addressed to the courts, tribunals, and executive authorities, in order that they may be registered on their records, be observed, and caused to be observed; and our minister secretary of state of justice is charged to superintend the publication thereof.

Done in the Palace of St. Cloud the 14th July, 1860.

NAPOLEON.

By the Emperor:

Achille Fould, Minister of State.

Seen and sealed with the great seal.

DELANGLE, The Keeper of the Seals, Minister Secretary of State of Justice.

France.—No. III. (Received from her Majesty’s embassy at Paris.)

Report from Mr. Treitt, counsel to the embassy.

[Translation.]

Paris, March 3, 1867.

Sir: In compliance with the request in your letter of the 25th February, I sent you the French laws on neutrality; I now send you the particulars of six confederate privateers built in France.

On the 15th of April, 1863, a contract was made by James D. Bullock, confederate agent, with Mr. Arman, a ship-builder at Bordeaux and a member of the legislative assembly. It was not known that Mr. Bullock was acting for the confederate government at the time. The contract was to start a line of steamers between San Francisco and Shanghai, touching at Japan. Mr. Arman was to build four fast steamers, to carry 12 or 14 guns and 12 days’ coal. The guns were said to be to defend them against pirates, and the ships were to be exactly like the French sloops of war. Two of the steamers, of 1,550 tons and 400 horse-power each, were to be built at Bordeaux by Mr. Arman himself. Mr. Voruz, also a member of the national legislature, was to build the other two in his yards at Nantes. All four were to be ready in 10 months. One million eight hundred thousand francs were to be paid for each of the vessels in five installments. Mr. Bullock was to furnish artillery, arms, projectiles, and powder.

On the 16th of July, 1863, another contract was made by the same parties for two ironclad steam rams, with two turrets each, to be constructed on the same terms, at 2,000,000 of francs each. Their destination was not specified. Erlanger was Bullock’s banker.

Jollet and Babin, in Bordeaux, and Dubigeot & Son, in Nantes, began the construction of the vessels at the same time, and immediately. Mazeline & Co., of Havre, were to make the machinery. I name these persons because they will soon appear as defendants in a suit by the United States.

The vessels were soon finished, and Arman applied to the secretary of the navy, in accordance with the ordinance of the 12th July, 1847, for a permit to arm them with 14 cannons, to serve in the Pacific. The permit was given on the 6th of June, 1864; the ships at Nantes were launched in April. Now Mr. Dayton, the American minister, informs the cabinet that these vessels were intended for privateers. Inquiry was made, and on the 22d October Mr. Arman and Voruz were prohibited from arming the vessels.

The friends of the north justly apprehended that the vessels would get out somehow and hoist the confederate flag, just as the Alabama, the Georgia, the Florida, and the Rappahannock had done in England.

Here is what became of those six vessels: the Yeddo and Osaka, built at Bordeaux, were sold to Prussia; the Shanghai and San Francisco were sold to Peru; one of the rams, the Cheops, was sold to Prussia, and the other, the Sphinx, was sold to Denmark and taken to Copenhagen. I don’t know why the Danish government refused to receive it. It was then called the Olynde, furnished with Danish papers and crew, and taken back to Bordeaux. On the way, it stopped at the little island of Houat, not far from Quiberon, and took in coal, arms, and a confederate crew. The vessel then went to Corogne, Lisbon, the Azores, and Havana, where it fell into the hands of the Americans. Such is the story of those vessels. The Americans kept a constant eye on them, and France was not implicated, so there was no national quarrel about them. The Rappahannock got to Calais, and was there watched by the government; its damages are now charged to England.

Though the President of the United States did not complain of France, he brought suit against Arman, Voruz, Jollet, Babin, Dubigeot, Mazeline, Erlanger, and all who had a hand in the proposed privateers. He claims the sum of 2,880,000 francs, received on account of the vessels ordered. The suit is based on these articles of the Code Napoleon:

“Article 1376. He who receives by mistake or knowingly that which is not due to him, is bound to restore it to the party from whom he has unduly received it.

“Article 1382. Every action of man whatsoever, which occasions injury to another, binds him through whose fault it happened to reparation therefor.

“Article 1383. Every one is responsible for the damage of which he is the cause, not only by his own acts, but also by his negligence or by his imprudence.”

The first of these three articles treats of the right to reclaim what has been paid unduly. Now, as the contract between Arman and Bullock is null, by French law there was nothing due by it, and what was paid ought to be restored. The two other articles establish the principle of the right to damages with interest, by plaintiffs against defendants, for acts or neglects. Such will be the argument of the prosecution, not yet begun.

The French law allows defendants to require security for costs of suit of foreign plaintiffs, if they fail in obtaining judgment; and Arman & Co. have asked for a cost bond of 150,000 francs in this suit. The President offers only 5,000. The court insists on 150,000. The President appeals; the appeal court confirms the original sum demanded, and the President must deposit that sum before the suit can begin.

Yours, &c.,

TREITT.

Hon. Julian Fane, British Minister.

France.—No. IV.

Paris, December 4, 1867.

My Lord: I have the honor to transmit to your lordship a further report from M. Treitt on the subject of the action brought by the government of the United States in the French courts against persons concerned in equipping armed vessels for the so-called Confederate States.

I have the honor to be, &c.,

LYONS.

The Lord Stanley, M. P.

[Translation.]

Paris, December 3, 1867.

My Lord: On the 20th February and 13th March, 1867, I sent the French laws on the violation of neutrality to the foreign office, together with the account of the privateers which the southern States had armed, or tried to arm, during the secession war in America.

I announced at the same time that the United States were about suing several French ship-builders for the money they had received from southern agents, asking also damages and interest. The suit has already been instituted in the lower court of Paris, and will probably be tried next year.

Here is the substance of the argument for the United States:

When the war broke out between the north and the south, the French government proclaimed its neutrality by a publication in the Moniteur of the 10th June, 1861, forbidding Frenchmen to receive commissions or letters of marque for privateers from either party, or to take any part in equipping and arming a vessel of war or privateer for either belligerent.

Such violations were to be punished by articles 84 and 85 of the French penal code.

A similar declaration of neutrality had already been made by England.

Yet the Confederate States found men, both in England and France, ready to violate the laws of their country. The south sent Maury and Bullock to England, where they brought out the Alabama and Florida. Urged by the United States, the English government seized the Alexandra at Liverpool and the Pampero at Glasgow, and promised not to let two iron-clad rams, building in Liverpool, go out of their yards, thus shutting off the confederates from Great Britain. They then turned to France, and sought the aid of Mr. Lucien Arman, a wealthy ship-builder of Bordeaux, and a member of the legislative assembly.

The United States reproached this member for persuading the French government not to recognize the blockade of the southern ports, (see Moniteur, 13th February, 1863,) thus protecting his own interests with a veil pretending to be for the political and commercial interests of France.

In fact, Mr. Arman was at that time president of a, company to build war vessels for the southern States. The ships were reported to be for a line of steamers between San Francisco and Shanghai. Bullock made his contract with Arman on the 15th April, 1863. Arman was to build two vessels in 10 months, and have two others built by Voruz, also a member of the legislature, in the same space of time. The two first were to be made at Bordeaux; the other two at Nantes, or rather at St. Nazaire.

Bullock’s banker, Erlanger, signed as surety for the payments stipulated in the contract.

Arman is also accused of writing to the minister of marine on the 1st of June, 1863, for a permit to arm the vessels, telling him they were for a Pacific line, thus defrauding the government. The permit was obtained on the 6th June, 1863.

All this is proved by the United States through written evidence, amply corroborated. In a letter dated 12th June, 1863, Mr. Arman, moreover, offered to build six iron-clad floating batteries for the south, and to get a government permit to arm them in French waters.

The above facts were made known to Mr. Dayton, the American minister to France, by Mr. Bigelow, the consul, in September, 1863. Mr. Dayton communicated them to the government, and formally demanded a recall of the permit granted to Arman.

The effect of these communications on the French government may be seen in Mr. Dayton’s dispatches of the 11th and 12th September, 1863, to Mr. Seward.

In a correspondence between the minister of foreign affairs and the minister of the marine, the latter says “he can only refer to the declarations of Mr. Arman and Voruz, and cannot be responsible for any illegal acts they may commit.”

The French government instituted an inquiry, and Arman and his colleagues denied the facts, which were evident. On the 22d October, 1863, Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys wrote to Mr. Seward that Arman and Voruz were indignant at the charges made against them. The minister of marine withdrew the permit to arm the vessels building at Bordeaux and Nantes; yet Arman & Co. continued their operations.

In February, 1864, Arman introduced a resolution into the assembly to rescind the declaration of neutrality by the French government, but it was not adopted.

In a dispatch from Mr. Dayton to Mr. Seward, dated 14th February, 1864, the former says he regrets that Annan’s proposed resolution was not discussed, as it might have brought out all the circumstances connected with the construction of those privateers at Bordeaux and Nantes.

To avoid responsibility, Arman & Co. reported to the French government that two of the iron-clads had been sold to the Danish government, and Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys so informed Mr. Dayton on the 4th February, 1864. Mr. Dayton wrote to Copenhagen, and found this was not the fact.

In April, 1864, Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys told Mr. Dayton the same ships were sold to Sweden on the 15th April, 1864; but the Swedish minister of foreign affairs denied it in a letter to the United States minister in Stockholm.

On the 12th May, 1864, the Crown orator assured, in the assembly, that Annan’s vessels should not quit France “till proof was given that they were not to interfere with the belligerents in the United States,”

After this, the Yeddo and Osaka were sold and delivered to Prussia in June and July, 1864. The San Francisco and Shanghai at Nantes gave almost as much trouble as the others, but finally they were sold to Peru in 1865.

Voruz says he returned to Bullock all the advances he made after the vessels were sold to Peru.

Now, there were yet two iron-clad rams to be built by Arman, by his contract of 16th July, 1863. These were the two said to have been sold to Denmark and Sweden. Here is their brief history:

One was called the Sphynx. On the 31st March, 1864, Arnous Rivière, Arman’s agent, sold the Sphynx to the Danish government. The vessel was to be delivered on the 10th June, 1864, but it was not ready till the 20th October, when the Danish government refused to take it.

Arman, depending on the generosity of the Danish government, as he said, sent the Sphynx to Copenhagen under French colors. It changed its name there to the Stoer Kodder.

The Danish government, however, did not receive it, and it was taken back to France under Danish colors and papers, which were to be given up to the Danish consul in Bordeaux.

Mr. Arnous Rivière then took the vessel to the island of Houat, near the Quiberon peninsula. There the Stoer Kodder took the name of the Olinde, as a confederate war steamer. Mr. Dubigeon, of Nantes, sent coal out to it from Saint Nazaire, and an English steamer furnished it with arms and a crew. Captain Page took command. The crew was the same that belonged to the Florida.

After this the ram again changed names and took that of the Stonewall, and then went to Ferrol, in Spain.

All this took place in the month of January, 1865, without the knowledge of the French government.

France put the blame on Denmark for letting the vessel go out with Danish flag and papers.

The representative of the United States government tried to induce Spain to retain the Stonewall. It was suffered to go to Lisbon, but was soon sent away by that government. Two American gunboats, the Niagara and Sacramento, were on the lookout, and followed the Stonewall to Havana, where the Spanish authorities gave it over to the American agents. A correspondence on this subject took place between Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys and Mr. Bigelow. In a letter of the 10th February, 1855, Mr. Bigelow shows that the French minister of justice was cognizant of these facts, and Mr. Arnous Rivière did not deny them. He declared publicly that he was not guilty, and that he was ready for a suit at any time. He was not indicted.

The second ram, called the Cheops, was sold to Prussia. The French government undertook to inquire into the reality of this sale; for Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys “was unwilling to be caught again as in the case of the Stonewall,” as Mr. Bigelow remarked in a letter to Mr. Seward, on the 17th March, 1865. Such are the representations of the United States against French justice, and upon them is founded the suit against Arman, Voruz, Dubigeon, Erlanger, and others. The suit has two objects: 1. A claim of property. 2. A claim for damages.

The first claim is for the money paid by the so-called confederate agents to Arman & Co., and which they retain illegally. The second is for damages, by article 1382 of the Code Napoleon, caused in 1863, 1864, and 1865, by violation of the laws of neutrality, the law of nations, and special statutes of France. To justify its claim for the money paid to Arman & Co., the government at Washington says it is money taken from the treasury of the United States by rebels, in States where the federal authority has never ceased; that their acknowledgment as belligerents by France does not affect the federal right; that France made that acknowledgment only to sustain its dignity and neutrality. The money in Arman’s hands was paid by illegal contract, and consequently ought to be restored as the lawful property of the United States. This argument is sustained by quotations from the Constitution of the United States, from the Code Napoleon, from writings on the law of nations, from treaties, and many commentaries on the neutrality laws of different nations in former times. The United States contend that they have always observed neutrality, and mention the indemnity paid to English subjects in 1794 to substantiate the assertion. These subjects had suffered from French privateers that had been fitted out in the United States without the knowledge of the American government.

Other cases are cited by the counsel for the United States, to show how they have always respected neutrality. In 1853 they stopped the construction of vessels for Russia, before the war had begun; and in 1855 the Maury was detained on simple suspicion of fitting out for privateering.

The United States then show that the acts of Arman & Co. were illegal, contrary to the law of nations, and against the laws of France. So there is no doubt that the money paid to Arman on illegal contracts is wrongfully detained, and ought to be given up to the United States, particularly as Mr. Arman and his colleagues must know that, by articles 549 and 550 of the Code Napoleon, the holder of property in bad faith is bound to restore it to the lawful owner. It is for these reasons that the United States claim of Arman & Co. not only the sums paid, but interest from the time the money was deposited in France.

In the second place, the United States claim 2,800,000 francs damage from Arman & Co. This demand is founded on article 1383 of the Code Napoleon, which says: “Every action of man whatsoever which occasions injury to another, binds him through whose fault it happened to reparation thereof.”

Here is the statement of the damage to the United States: Arman & Co., enjoying an official position in the political world, pretended to act with the secret consent of the French government, thus giving hope of French intervention to the rebels of the southern States.

The armaments prepared in France paralyzed American commerce to such an extent that northern shippers had to denationalize their vessels to save them from privateers fitted out in England and France; 715 vessels thus changed flags during the rebellion. (See letter of Mr. Seward to Mr. Bigelow, dated March 15, 1865.)

Arman & Co. were partly the cause of these apprehensions, causing a real decrease and consequent injury to American commerce, and of course they owe reparation for it.

The United States allege that 2,800,000 francs is but a small sum compared to the claims against England.

Such is the substance of the suit of the government at Washington against French ship-builders and freighters. I get them from the papers of the lawyers for the United States.

I do not know what defense Arman & Co. will make; it is thought they will except to the competency of French courts in a matter so entirely political. It is also supposed they will allege that if they have violated French laws the French government alone can call them to account for it.

That is all that is known about the defense. In the mean time I have thought proper to give you this synopsis of the prosecution, because there is a similar dispute about it between Great Britain and America.

This is a sequel to my former notes to the foreign office. I hope they will be found satisfactory.

TREITT.

His Excellency Lord Lyons, Ambassador of Her Britannic Majesty, Paris.

France.—No. V.

Extract from the Moniteur of April 5, 1868.

[Translation.]

Neutrals in the eastern war; a memorial read before the Academy of Sciences, by Drouyn de Lhuys, on the 4th April, 1868.

All of you remember the circumstances that brought about the war of 1854, in the east. The proud Prince Menchikoff’s mission to Constantinople, with its haughty demands, unmasked the Czar’s designs, and united the western powers against the imminent peril. France, already engaged in the discussion of the affairs of the Holy places, did not hesitate to declare the part that the powers of western Europe would take in them against the unexpected claims of the court of Russia. England bravely took position by our side; Austria, Prussia, and most of the European nations were interested in this threatened balance of power, and openly sympathized with the defenders of the common interest.

Soon the situation, at first shaded by diplomatic negotiations, became apparent. Russia passed from words to deeds, and seized a portion of the Ottoman territory, thus giving the alarm to all her friends.

Austria, seeing her frontier menaced, gathered together her troops, determined to sustain her protest by force of arms. The moderation of France and England in advising the Sultan not to consider the invasion of his territory as an act of war, might have averted the catastrophe had not the glimmer from the conflagration of the Turkish fleet, bombarded before Sinope, proclaimed the necessity of war. The allied powers then thought of their duty to save Europe. The dismemberment of Turkey would have been a menace to France and England.

We all remember the anxiety and excitement of those times. Petty national disputes were laid aside, and we all joined for the benefit of civilization and humanity. One of the first considerations was the conduct of the allies towards neutrals. Opinions on this subject were divergent, yet the importance of the cause demanded a previous settlement of the question.

The history of late times shows, by sanguinary testimony, how Great Britain and France differed in their conception of rights and duties of maritime powers in time of war. The dissentions of the two nations on that subject were exhibited in continual contests for the supremacy of rival legislation.

When the Crimean war was about to open the laws on neutrality were, in substance, as follows: Supported by the acknowledged right to cut off an enemy’s resources by the destruction of his sea-trade, but respecting a neutral flag, France considered it lawful to capture vessels of the enemy, with all the goods aboard, even those belonging to neutrals, while the property of enemies was not to be taken if found on vessels of friendly powers.

England, on the other hand, paid no attention to legal fictions, but assumed the right to search every vessel on the high seas, and confiscate the enemy’s goods found thereon, no matter what flag waved over them.

It was also the custom of Great Britain to prohibit neutrals, in time of war, from a trade that the belligerents reserved for their own subjects in times of peace, as the coast trade and colonial commerce.

This principle was established, first, at the commencement of the seven years’ war, and has been since continued by the English under the name of the rule of 1756. The English also had usages in blockade, against which we had always protested in our foreign wars. While proscribing paper blockades in theory, they declared blockades by a single ship. We remember that the continental blockade, the great trick at the beginning of this century, was provoked by outrages for which the British government had set the example.

Such were the discordant usages we were trying to reconcile. On the first of January, 1854, the French minister of foreign affairs mentioned to the British minister in Paris the importance of settling a question of such moment to neutrals.

To do that, he said, no absolute principles could be determined, for the principles of each nation were so strenuously maintained that a positive agreement could never be effected. Theories were to be kept, but a common practice must be established. Now this could only be done on the condition that neither nation would make use of practices condemned by the other, while the war lasted. Each party could abstain from enforcing rights arrogated to themselves, without harm; whereas, neither could exercise privileges deemed illegal by the other party, without contention.

Such a compromise left doctrines whole, principles intact, and gave no umbrage. Gratefully accepted by neutrals, it suited the interests and liberal intentions of the allies.

This language, while it implied a relinquishment on our part of some privileges claimed by our navy, still harmonized with our national traditions that favored neutral rights and freedom of the seas. We were prompted to do this by the peculiar situation of affairs. The greater part of Europe lauded the fact of France and England marching to the aid of an oppressed ally, and this sentiment was a help to the two nations, giving hopes of more substantial aid in future. One of the happy consequences of this attitude was, it allowed them to declare the alliance open to other nations, who might feel a general interest in the common welfare, on the same terms they had accepted.

We all know what weight the opinion of neutral powers had in that war, and how much general sympathy of some, and adhesion of others, placed France and England foremost, and secured the success of their arms. The German courts especially did much good by their resolutions on the progress of events. When the crisis began, Germany was too submissive to our mighty adversary to declare against him openly. We had to temporize with her as well as with all the Scandinavian nations, whose geographical positions were of the utmost importance to us. Stockholm and Copenhagen were still attracted towards Petersburg by the recollection of the armed neutrality in 1780 and 1800. Those acts had been suggested by Russian policy, and if we again provoked them, might we not arouse the same resistance and force them to side with our enemy?

The United States of America gave us the same cause of uneasiness. Russia courted their favor, and agreed with them in the interpretation of maritime laws. The great power of the New World had always sustained the rights of neutral flags; so we could not oppose this, and give her an excuse for turning against us.

England was not insensible to these considerations; but she insisted that she could not give up the observance of the inviolable rules of her old maritime law.

In the mean time Denmark and Sweden had given official notice of their intention to remain neutral in case of war. The minister of foreign affairs, writing to London about that communication, used it to induce the British cabinet to solve the questions it contained. On the 4th of January, 1854, he wrote to our ambassador as follows: “Try to find out what the English government is going to do about neutrals. We have always differed from England on that subject; and I have reason to think, from what I have seen in the papers, that merchants would not like to see the old English law applied in all its rigor. Without open discussion, I beg you will collect what information you can on the subject, and find out what England expects of Denmark and Sweden in regard to neutrality. Lord Clarendon knows that Russia is much displeased with those two powers, particularly with Sweden, for her declaration of neutrality. This is another reason to believe in the sincerity of the cabinets at Copenhagen and Stockholm, and a good reason why we should not increase the embarrassment of their position by too great exactions.”

On the 12th of January again wrote to London, inclosing a copy of the dispatch which he proposed to send to Stockholm and Copenhagen: “I hope Lord Clarendon’s answer will satisfy Sweden and Denmark in regard to their neutrality. I know England will adhere to her old maritime laws; but I hope she will try to agree with us in practice, if war breaks out. It will be the best method to secure the sympathy of those two courts, particularly as they have no very good feeling for Russia. Though this independence is a power to St. Petersburg, the court there does not consider it such. We must not watch too closely the trade from Sweden and Denmark to Russia, lest we disturb relations that are now entirely satisfactory. I know that Sweden confidently expects free trade under a neutral flag.”

What particularly disturbed England was to see America incline to our enemy, with a prospect of aid with hardy volunteers. The seafaring people of the United States, with their strong navy, might furnish Russia with privateers, to cover the sea and disturb our commerce in its most distant corners. To avoid this, London had to flatter the federal government. It determined to propose to all maritime nations the abolition of privateering, and to treat every vessel cruising with letters of marque in time of war as a pirate.

This project, though afterwards abandoned, shows how concerned the English were about it. We agreed with them in holding that privateering was a barbarous practice for gain, masked by the pretext of patriotism. In former times it gave some heroic names to history; but we want no such materials for history now. It is no longer compatible with the uses of civilized nations that do not allow rights of war to individuals, but reserve them alone for regularly constituted nations.

If we had less to lose than England in this contract, it was not from ambition, but from necessity. To reconcile two different practices, extreme indulgence was necessary. It was not simply a question of interest and convenience, but a logical law. England could not ask us to adopt a law we had always condemned. We might have replied: If we must agree, you must consent to seize neutral goods under hostile flags, as we do. Then they would have answered: But we hold that neutral goods are inviolable everywhere, and under all circumstances; we have proclaimed this a thousand times; and now, just to agree with you, we cannot assume a right which we have always condemned.

The friendly relations with our allies, increasing daily, authorized usto press our propositions. While this subject was in discussion, the two governments showed their mutual friendship by instructing their diplomatic and consular agents, their colonial governors and their naval officers, to extend reciprocal protection alike to English and French in every part of the world. Thus, to the world, the English and French flags were united, and this only rendered concerted action more urgent. The anxiety of private interests, the pressure of public opinion, the needs of commerce, required an end to uncertainty. The matter was discussed in the British Parliament the latter part of February. One of the Crown ministers stated that the Queen would publish her intentions towards neutrals before war was declared, and the French minister wrote to our ambassador, on the 1st of March, as follows:

“I hope England will not decide on this matter without consulting us. It would look bad for two countries, united in one war, to differ in theory and agree in practice. Please call Lord Clarendon’s attention to this. I think it would be well to instruct our naval commanders how to act towards neutrals in the Black and Baltic seas, without declaring any specific law on the subject, to frighten those who did not understand it. In this way France and England would reserve their particular doctrines, and agree in practice, that might be altered according to circumstances.”

To the above dispatch, containing the conversation between the minister of foreign affairs and the English ambassador in Paris, the British government replied that Crown lawyers had been consulted, and a decision would soon be rendered, but certainly not before consulting the government of the Emperor. It was hoped some general principles could be agreed upon, and similar instructions given to the naval officers of each nation.

Several days after, on the 4th of March, Lord Cowley told the minister of foreign affairs in Paris that his government would confine search on the high seas to ascertaining the nationality of the vessel and seeing that there were no contraband goods nor hostile correspondence on board. He admitted that neutral flags protected hostile goods, and that neutral goods were safe under hostile flags. He also declared that no letters of marque should be issued, and that all subjects caught with them should be treated as pirates.

This document, considerably modified before it was sent to Paris, contained important concessions. It was new for England to agree to respect hostile goods under neutral flags. This was to conciliate neutral powers, whose flags had been so often insulted by its privateers in late wars, and to smooth over the vexatious right of search, that had been the terror of non-belligerents of all nations. Still we wished to close the door that was left open to too much abuse, and we demanded greater security for neutrals.

After a discussion of the subject by the French minister and British ambassador, the modified declaration was sent back to London on the 20th of March.

“This project (wrote the minister) has been carefully prepared by Lord Cowley and myself. I have sent it to the minister of marine for his opinion on it. I think we will have to agree upon a declaration applicable only to this war, agreeing in action but differing in doctrine, and one that will not compromise neutrals.”

On the 24th of March the minister of foreign affairs wrote to Count Walewski, our ambassador in London, as follows: “Lord Cowley’s observations on a declaration in relation to neutrality, sent to you on the 20th, merits a criticism, which I will now make.

“If the English government wants its declaration to say ‘that it reserves the application of such or such principle,’ or ‘that it renounces for the present the exercise of such and such a right,’ thus showing the principle to be recognized and the right claimed, two declarations will be necessary, similar in doctrine but differing in form. The French government cannot say ‘it renounces the exercise of a right’ it never claimed; nor ‘that it reserves the application of a principle’ it has always refused to recognize. This is a mere question of form; what is of real importance is the agreement on some practical rule for our conduct in this war.

“I now pass to two important points, to which I beg you to call Lord Clarendon’s attention.

“The first relates to neutral goods seized on board hostile ships. The project I sent you declares they shall not be confiscated. That is a serious question for the French government. In fact, it is feared that hostile goods or hostile vessels may be transported without risk by means of forged neutral papers; and as French laws confiscate hostile vessels and their neutral goods, a new law would be necessary to deprive seamen of their prize-money coming chiefly from that source. I shall have to consult the minister of the marine about it, and this I cannot do until I learn the definite intentions of the British cabinet.

“The English government seems to insist that the proposed declaration shall forbid neutrals, in war time, from engaging in colonial or coast trade, if they are reserved during peace.

“It is hardly necessary to remind you how persistent the French government has always been in sustaining the remonstrances of neutral nations against the adoption of that rule. France is therefore bound by historic precedents, as well as by treaties with other nations, in which she promised to allow all ships to trade freely in time of war, even between hostile ports. How could we now agree to a provision refusing neutrals a right we have always claimed for them, and which we have solemnly proclaimed in our treaties?

“I only mention cursorily the interest that this question has for France, and the consequences of the adoption of the proposed regulation. England, that always admits foreign flags to participate in colonial and coast trade, has nothing to dread from the application of this principle; but France, that reserves such trade for her national vessels, may eventually suffer from its application.

“I question if the insertion of such a principle in the declaration would be of benefit in this war. In peace times, Russia reserves colonial and coast trade; but in the Baltic the coast trade has so few ports that they could be completely closed by blockade. The same may be said of the Black Sea ports, now controlled by the combined fleet. As to trade in Russian America, now monopolized by a company, if it should be held by vessels of the United States it might arouse serious disputes with France; for, in her treaty of 1778, with the United States, she allows neutrals to trade at reserved ports in war time.

“I am pleased to see that England has done much to accord with the French doctrines, and you may assure Lord Clarendon that we are willing for a mutual compromise. We have given a proof of it in the question of neutral goods on hostile vessels; but I am sure Lord Clarendon will not expect us to allow neutrals to trade at reserved ports. The English government, considering the proposition as founded upon the law of nations, may readily renounce it without injury to its system, while France cannot make a rule which she cannot apply without violation of her principles.

“I beg you will place these remarks before Lord Clarendon. I hope they will induce him to leave out of the English declaration a rule that France cannot put in hers. Both nations, up to this time, have endeavored to agree, and it is to be hoped that minor questions will not now disturb their unanimity. If the two countries cannot adopt the same principles on certain points, they should avoid proclaiming different ones.

“Please let me know, as soon as convenient, the result of your conference with Lord Clarendon on this subject.”

The tender points touched upon in this dispatch made England hesitate.

On the 26th of March, the minister of foreign affairs telegraphed to Count Walewski thus: “Insist upon the serious inconsistency of discordant declarations that would spread doubt of a good understanding between the two countries; would alarm neutrals, and would cause inevitable conflicts between commanders. If Lord Clarendon accepts the principle of a joint declaration with separate minute instructions, ask him to communicate the fact to me immediately, so that I may come to an understanding with the minister of marine.”

Here is what the minister wrote on the 27th: “My late interviews with Lord Cowley have been confined to the important and delicate question of the rights of neutrals. Lord Clarendon must have been informed of the subject of these discussions, and I know the English embassador has already sent him the substance of the declaration we have agreed upon; and so he must have been prepared for the dispatch of the 24th of this month, intended to effect a definite settlement of opinions. My telegram of yesterday showed you the interest the government of the Emperor takes in the settlement of such an important question, now that the war has begun. I hope you will persuade the secretary of state to relinquish his project of publishing two distinct declarations. We would regret to see England adopt measures, at the very beginning of the war, that would indicate a misunderstanding between the two countries, and thus weaken the effect of our supposed unity.

“If we come down from important principles to minor details, the danger is not less perceptible. Neutrals may choose between the declarations of France and England; and they will certainly select those that are the most consistent with antecedents and most favorable to them. Would it not be better to insure them safety in the unity of the two navies, and not force them off by reviving old quarrels?

“On the other hand—and this is not one of the least objections to Lord Clarendon’s system—how could naval commanders agree in practice, of principles so discordant in theory? Disputes would be constantly arising between them, to the danger of the success of their operations.

“The United States are ready to take the part we refuse, and make themselves protectors of all neutrals that ask their aid. The Washington cabinet has already proposed to us a treaty of friendship, navigation, and commerce, containing a series of articles affirming principles it has always sustained, and which do not differ from ours. Her Britannic Majesty’s chief secretary of state knows we cannot refuse this, even if France and England adopt opposing principles in this joint war. But if the two nations agree upon a common declaration, then we may postpone the consideration of the American proposal. This reasoning must strike Lord Clarendon, and I hope he will accept a project to be applied only in this war, and that will not affect the doctrines of either nation. Instructions to the commanders of the war vessels of both nations would make up deficiencies in the declarations; but these instructions should be drawn up in concert; and you may assure Lord Clarendon that the minister of marine will do all he can to agree with the English admiral in the instructions he gives to our admirals.”

On the same day the minister sent a new draught of a declaration to London. It contained a brief preamble, bringing together, as nearly as possible, inform and substance, all the English ideas. He wrote about it as follows:

“This declaration, which I have agreed upon with the minister of marine, does not pretend to consecrate the essential principles upon which the accord of the two governments is based; separate instructions will regulate the application of them by law, and thus settle the discrepancy of doctrines that cannot be arranged at present.”

On the 28th March, Lord Cowley wrote that his government determined to insist on prohibiting neutrals to trade “in transit, between two ports belonging to the enemy.”

We could not accept that. The minister of foreign affairs said: “I regret that the English government forces us, by this, to make a separate declaration, the same in substance as that proposed yesterday, with the exception of a preamble which I have submitted to the Emperor. As you will see, I have obtained the marine minister’s consent to exempt the seizure of neutral goods on hostile vessels.

“Lord Cowley has sent me the proposed instructions for commanders of English vessels, which were ready to be signed. Now it is useless to broach questions opposed to our principles in that declaration; all we can do is to make out instructions for our own vessels. I have ordered the minister of marine to do this, and I will send them to you as soon as they are made out. I hope there will be no serious difficulty in the execution of these instructions, as we agree upon the most essential points in them. I acknowledge the liberality of the English government in accepting our principles in matters of blockade.”

Both governments regretted this disagreement upon small matters; but France was bound to other nations and could not break her treaties with them. In affairs where her latitude of action was not restricted, she showed her willingness to meet her ally half-way in liberalising old laws. Thus, in every proposal sent to London proposing to abolish privateering and other ancient customs of our navy, we always allowed neutral goods under hostile flags.

The British cabinet considered the dilemma of the situation. He was conscious of the absurdity of issuing two different declarations to be applied to neutrals under the same circumstances. A new conference was had at the last moment, and after a warm discussion it was decided that the objectionable article should be expunged from the English declaration.

Now the understanding was complete. In a few hours, thanks to the telegraph, the two cabinets agreed, and announced the immediate publication of a joint declaration. The French copy appeared in the Monitor of the 30th March, 1854, dated the day previous. So you see there was no time lost. Here are the two documents; the first is preceded by a report to the Emperor:

Report to the Emperor.

“Paris,29th March, 1854.

“Sire: At a time when maritime relations and commercial interests hold such an important place in the existence of nations, it is the duty of a nation at war to make its effects felt as little as possible, by allowing neutrals all freedom of trade not incompatible with the state of hostility, in which they desire to take no part.

“But it is not enough for belligerents to have the secret intention of always respecting the rights of neutrals; they must also endeavor to calm the suspicions of commerce, by leaving no uncertainty in the principles which they mean to apply.

“A regulation of the duties or rights of neutrals might seem an insult to the sovereignty of nations that wish to remain neutral; yet the spontaneous declaration of the principles which a belligerent promises to observe is the most formal pledge he can give of his respect for the rights of other nations.

“In this conviction, I have the honor to submit the following declaration, agreed upon with the government of her Britannic Majesty, to your Majesty’s high approbation.

“I am, with respect, sire, your Majesty’s very obedient servant and faithful subject,

“DROUYN DE LHUYS.

“Approved:

“NAPOLEON.”

Declaration relative to neutrals, letters of marque, &c.

“His Majesty, the Emperor of the French, being forced to take up arms to sustain an ally, desires to render the war as little onerous as possible to the powers with which he is at peace.

“In order to avoid all unnecessary restrictions upon the commerce of neutrals, his Majesty at present consents to renounce a portion of the rights which belong to him, as a belligerent power, by virtue of the law of nations.

“His Majesty cannot renounce the exercise of his right to seize articles contraband of war, and to prevent neutrals from carrying dispatches from the enemy. He also insists upon his right, as a belligerent power, to hinder neutrals from breaking a blockade, formed by a sufficient force, before the forts, harbors, or coasts of the enemy.

“But his Majesty’s vessels will not seize property of the enemy on board a neutral vessel, unless that property be contraband of war.

“His Majesty will not claim the right to confiscate the property of neutrals found on vessels of the enemy, unless it be contraband of war.

“His Majesty also declares that, moved by the desire to mitigate the ills of war as much as possible, and to restrict its operations to regularly organized national troops’ he does not intend, at present, to deliver letters of marque to authorize the arming of privateers.”

The day on which this declaration was published on both sides of the channel the minister of foreign affairs wrote to London as follows:

“I am much pleased with this proof of accord between England and France, on a question of such importance to the reserved rights of neutrals in this present war. This harmony will make a good impression abroad, and will win the sympathy of all the commercial nations of the world. Please say to Lord Clarendon that the Emperor’s government is pleased with the action of the government of Queen Victoria on a matter he had much at heart, and that he considers its settlement on the present terms as one of the best results of the intimate reliance of the two countries.”

The confidence expressed in this letter was realized. The new agreement on France and England on rules of maritime law was hailed by neutrals as the dawn of a day of justice and reparation. Protected from the harm of war, they had no fear of being dragged into another’s quarrel, and could peaceably carry on trade in the midst of battles, provided no fraud brought down upon them the vengeance of the belligerents.

On communicating these dispositions to different governments, they were told that a strict compliance with the duties of neutrality was the condition of the advantages they accorded to neutrals. Such was the purpose of the following circular, sent by the minister of foreign affairs to all the agents of his departments accredited to powers not engaged in the contest. It bears date the 20th March:

“Sir: The declaration of the French government on the subject of neutrality, together with my report of it to the Emperor, on submitting it to his high approbation, was published in the Monitor of this day.

“The British government has also promulgated the same declaration.

“At a time when the two nations take up arms in joint defense of an ally, they cannot give a better proof of their unity of sentiment than by adopting similar resolutions on a subject about which they had hitherto differed.

“The government of the Emperor, knowing the care of France for neutrals, had studied the questions of neutrality, to decide them in favor of nations with whom we are at peace. The British government was also animated by the same desire, to leave neutrals in possession of all advantages that were not necessary to be restricted by absolute military necessity.

“This community of views dictated the declaration adopted by the two governments; and I do not hesitate to say that a document of such favorable terms was never before made up.

“The intention not to issue letters of marque is there officially announced.

“The necessity of an efficient blockade is admitted.

“Neutral flags will protect goods, and neutral goods will be safe under hostile flags.

“Such are the advantages that will be secured to trade during the war; and even after it is over, this joint declaration will remain as a precedent in the history of neutrality.

“But, as the union of France and England grants advantages to neutral nations, those nations must implicitly respect the rights of the belligerents. We have reason to hope that neutral governments will commit no hostile acts, and will force their subjects to observe a strict neutrality.

“I will soon send you a form of notice of this declaration, made out in consultation with her Britannic Majesty’s government, for the government near which you are accredited.”

A few days after, these documents were addressed to the same agents:

“Paris, April 5, 1854.

“Sir: I have the honor to transmit to you the project of a note which you will address immediately to the government hear which you are accredited, to inform it of the principles that France and Great Britain intend to apply towards neutrals during the present war, together with the resolution of the two governments not to issue letters of marque for the present.

“Her Britannic Majesty’s representative will receive orders to address a similar communication to the government of * * *

“You will send me the answer of the government of * * * as soon as you get it, and will see that it answers the expectations of the two governments.”

Substance of the note.

“The undersigned is instructed by his government to address to your excellency the following communication:

“His Majesty the Emperor of the French, and her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, find themselves obliged to resort to force of arms to repel the aggressions of the government of his Majesty the Emperor of Russia upon the Ottoman empire. Desiring to make the disastrous effects of war as light as possible on commerce, their majesties have resolved not to authorize privateering for the present, by the issue of letters of marque, and at the same time to make known the principles to be applied to navigation and the trade of neutrals during this war. With this design, his Majesty the Emperor of the French publishes the annexed declaration, identical with that published by her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

“By confining their rights as belligerents to strict limits, the allied governments will depend upon the honest efforts of neutral powers in this war to make their subjects observe the strictest neutrality.

“Therefore, the government of his Majesty the Emperor of the French trusts that the government of * * * will accept these joint resolutions of the two allied governments, and in return will order that no privateer under Russian colors be armed, supplied, or admitted with prizes into the ports of * * *, and that its subjects rigorously abstain from taking part in armaments of this kind, or any other, contrary to the duties of a strict neutrality.”

Thus, even in the details of their joint notice, France and England; exhibited their perfect accord; and it was not disturbed by subsequent events.

Instructions were sent by the two governments to their respective naval commanders to reconcile any minor divergencies in their regulations, without appeal to the cabinets of Paris and London.

Neutrals took advantage of all the favors granted them, but did not abuse them; and during the whole war France and England had no cause to regret their generous resolutions. These new regulations, after trial by two great maritime powers, were universally accepted by other nations as a blessing.

In England, as well as in France, the commercial classes, far from feeling jealous at the security which this liberal principle gave to rival interests, rejoiced at the general development of trade produced thereby, and felt that it would finally redound to their interests. You will remember that the Universal Exposition of 1855, which took place in Paris while our land and sea armies were fighting in the Crimea and in the Baltic, furnished ample evidence of the vigor and success with which the labors of peace were prosecuted, even in the midst of a sanguinary war. The sight was glorious for the century that first produced it, and it was calculated to inspire a just confidence in the progress of the ideas which its triumph signalized. The cruel needs of war were confined to a specific circle, outside of which peaceful and laborious humanity preserved its rights.

The system inaugurated by the war of 1854 answered the common wants of all people so well that it readily assumed the nature of a definite reform of international law.

At the Paris peace congress of 1856, the members who had to discuss the results of the war naturally adopted the regulations therein practiced by the belligerent powers towards neutrals. This was expressed in the Paris declaration of the 16th April, 1856, which says:

1. Privateering is abolished and shall remain so.

2. Neutral flags protect hostile goods, unles contraband of war.

3. Neutral goods, not contraband of war, cannot be seized under hostile flags.

4. Blockades, to be binding, must be effective; that is, maintained by a force sufficient to prevent approach to the hostile coast.

All nations adopted this declaration except Spain, Mexico, and the United States of North America. The two first reserved the right to arm privateers, and agreed to the other articles. The United States would have accepted them all, provided an article to respect private property at sea had been added.

With the exception of these restrictions, the arrangements concluded in 1854 between England and France have fallen into the public domain, and are now placed under the authority of the law of nations.

This result was easy to be foreseen. When we began treating with England, at the beginning of the war, to soften its resistance and remove scruples, we insisted upon the transitory nature of the concessions we asked; but we knew they would become permanent by force of circumstances and unanimous consent. In fact, when common interests are developed for a certain time they soon become, under the protection of a more liberal system, the supports and defenses of the principles which first protected them.

DROUYN DE LHUYS.

Italy.

Florence, March 2, 1867.

My Lord: With reference to your lordship’s dispatch marked circular of February 14, directing me to obtain official information respecting the neutrality laws of Italy, I have the honor to transmit herewith to your lordship copies, accompanied by translations, of the laws in force upon this subject, as well as the code of regulations for the Italian mercantile marine, containing certain rules to be observed by the superintendent of harbors respecting the sojourn in them of belligerent vessels of war, which have been transmitted to me by the Italian minister for foreign affairs.

I have, &c,

HENRY ELLIOT.

Circular of the minister of marine.

Turin, April 6, 1864.

In transmitting to your excellency the royal decree of to-day’s date, on the neutrality of the ports of the kingdom, the undersigned thinks it opportune to accompany it with the present circular, which is intended to serve as a rule for the practical application of the regulations contained in the same.

The report to his Majesty, which precedes the decree itself, will make known to your excellency the fundamental principles of the international maritime law on which it is founded, as also the general rules which guide it.

Such rules and such principles, having been recognized by the publicists of all nations and of all epochs, are, moreover, borne evidence to by recent and analogous regulations which have emanated from the principal maritime powers during the last few years.

The state of neutrality which the government of the King intend to observe with respect to powers which find themselves in declared hostility to each other, imposes certain obligations on the belligerent parties, obligations which cannot be separated from the analogous rights which accompany them; and, therefore, in declaring the duties imposed by the most strict neutrality, it is necessary to mention, at the same time, the prerogatives which arise from such conditions. Thus, in forbidding Italian subjects from taking part in any way whatsoever to the advantage or disadvantage of the belligerent states; in preventing that in places on the sea shore any commercial operations should be carried out which could produce harm to the powers which are at war against each other; in forbidding, under pains and penalties, that any citizens of the kingdom should take service on board the belligerent ships, refusing them also in such a case any protection on the part of his Majesty’s government, and, on the contrary, leaving them under the jurisdiction of the laws of the other parties; it was necessary, on the other hand, to avoid the seas within the territorial jurisdiction of the kingdom serving as a field for hostile operations between the belligerent powers, or the ports and places of anchorage along the extensive Italian coasts serving to afford means of armaments, or being used as secure bases for hostile operations.

It having been agreed, recognized, and stipulated by international treaties that foreign subjects ought to submit to all the laws and regulations which relate to public security, and to the police of the country in which they sojourn or are domiciled, it follows as a logical and natural consequence that the laws and prohibitions contained in article 4 ought to be considered to extend to foreign subjects who happen to be in the kingdom.

The law of humanity, which suggests that in cases of danger even an enemy who was harmless should be assisted, finds its application in the 7th article of the accompanying decrees. To those ships or privateers of the belligerents who should be driven by stress of weather into the ports of the kingdom, or who should there seek refuge to repair damages or to procure provisions or commodities, to such ships it is impossible to refuse shelter and assistance. Nevertheless, the duties of humanity are confined to requirements necessary for safety of navigation, and do not extend to any request for means which could in any shape or manner increase the offensive or defensive force of the said ships.

Consequently, if in any port, roadstead, or coast belonging to your excellency there should come any ships of war, or belligerent privateers, for refuge against bad weather, or to repair damages it had suffered, or to procure provisions or materials indispensable for pursuing its voyage with safety, your excellency, in virtue of article 10, could not refuse such request, but would decline, according to the terms of article 9, to accede to any demand which could in any way increase the means of military offense or defense of the said ships.

The power of landing at or arrival in the harbors or coasts of the kingdom cannot, however, be granted to belligerent ships accompanied by prizes, except in the sole case of stress of weather. In the event of their being in need of repairs or provisions, they must first agree to set their prizes at liberty, and then their requests will be granted, but otherwise every assistance must be refused, the presence of a prize constituting a continuance of hostile operations within the waters under the territorial jurisdiction of a neutral country.

The second paragraph of article 10 provides that a supply of coal can only be granted 24 hours after the arrival of the belligerent ship which has made the demand. In this regulation your excellency will perceive that the undersigned has in view to prevent these sort of supplies serving for immediate offensive purposes against ships of the other belligerent party which might be followed by the one which made the demand for fuel, even though it might have been requested for security of its navigation. The period of 24 hours specified in the said article may, in special cases, be extended by the authority of your excellency, but may never be reduced.

The regulation of article 11 of the subjoined royal decree requires, besides its exact observance, that the marine authorities should use all possible care to avoid, in the way they carry it out, any opportunity for immediate hostilities between the ships of the two belligerent parties. In interpreting the article 11 above mentioned, the state of the weather must be taken into consideration in determining the interval allowed to elapse between the departure from port of the first ship and that of the second. The reciprocal conditions of sailing and steamships must be kept in view, the sailing ship, in such a case, being first required to depart rather than that one possessed of mechanical motion, except in the event of the former being a mercantile steamer and the latter a public armed ship or a privateer.

On the arrival at anchorage of a ship of war of whatsoever nation, or in whatsoever locality of the kingdom, a copy of the accompanying royal decree shall be conveyed to it. If the said ship belong to a belligerent power, there shall be also given to it a copy of the inclosed schedule, with the request that the various columns may be filled up in the manner indicated. The same system will be followed towards privateers.

A copy of the said schedule will, as soon as it be filled up, be immediately forwarded to the undersigned in the proper way, the captains and officers of the port not omitting individually to inform the proper authorities under whom they are placed in order of departmental seniority.

The presence of considerable maritime forces in certain ports of the kingdom, as indicated by article 12 and specified in article 13, might in some cases hinder the free action of the government, and the undersigned, following the example of the measures prescribed by other powers on this head, proposes that his Majesty should give his assent to the rules laid down in the accompanying articles.

While the rules contained in article 12 should be scrupulously observed, the naval commandants of the ports, specified in article 13, must use every precaution in applying them, in order to avoid misunderstandings, and to prevent the general maritime regulations from being viewed as bearing a character of mistrust.

Nevertheless, the captains of ports, of which mention is made above, upon seeing the approach of a squadron comprising more than three vessels of war, shall be careful not to await their entrance into harbor before communicating to them the disposition aforesaid, but shall meet them outside the harbor as soon as it shall be manifest that they intend to anchor, and thus inform them in good time of the rules which obtain in that port with respect to the presence of foreign naval armaments.

Should the squadron comprise three ships or less, then the captains of the ports, following the directions of article 14, shall go on board of the senior officer’s ship, or the man-of-war should she be alone, and communicate to him the provisions of article 12 with respect to the stay of the squadron in the harbor.

From the second paragraph of article 12 your excellency will perceive that, with the permission of the government, ships of war, three or less in number, may be allowed to sojourn for a longer period than eight days in the ports mentioned in article 13.

Therefore, should the commander of the squadron express a wish to prolong his stay beyond the period prescribed by the rules, your excellency will inform the undersigned of the same as soon as possible, and await a reply, before requesting the commander to take his departure, even though the period of eight days were thereby exceeded.

Your excellency will gather from article 8 that the government are desirous of making an exception to the rules laid down by the royal decree in favor of those vessels of war whose mission is exclusively scientific; and this exception, made some years ago, is to be extended also to vessels belonging to a belligerent state.

This exception refers, however, solely to those vessels whose mission is altogether beyond suspicion, and already recognized by the government by diplomatic means, and has been assented to by them.

In such cases the respective captains of ports will be advised in time by the ministry of marine itself.

Whenever any doubt shall be entertained by the naval authorities as to the interpretation or application of the various cases contemplated in the articles of the said decree, they must refer at once to the ministry in writing, and ask for instructions and explanations.

CUGIA.

Report addressed to the King by the minister of marine.

Turin, April 6, 1864.

Sir: The Paris convention of April 16, 1856, has established new bases of public laws in naval war with respect to neutrals and to belligerent powers.

Property belonging to the subjects of a state which remains neutral in war, even if embarked upon hostile ships, is now respected; nor does it constitute, any longer, in most cases, prize of either belligerent.

The obligations undertaken by the powers signitary to the above convention, and by the countries adhering to it, not to issue letters of marque to merchant ships, have also modified those principles of maritime law which refer to privateers and their prizes.

These principles, however, intended to diminish the losses sustained by private individuals during a maritime war, were not accepted by all naval powers indiscriminately, and for that reason the laws regarding privateering and its prizes contained in the various codes and regulations of maritime law could not be abrogated, being kept in reserve for such cases as those of a war with one of the countries which had refused its adherence to the principles laid down in the Paris convention.

This explains the motives why the maritime powers who framed these new bases of law should now also issue regulations regarding the armaments of privateers.

The conditions of the portions of North America at war induced, at the commencement of that struggle, the French government to declare in a note dated 10th June, 1861, and also the British government in a letter of 12th January, 1862, from the foreign office to the lords of the admiralty, what principles were to serve as a basis of neutrality to those governments during the disastrous war in America.

Recently, however, and in spite of this declaration, hostile enterprise was carried into the waters of the neutral European powers by certain vessels pertaining to these belligerents, which also sought to repair damages and obtain provisions in neutral ports.

Although the position of this kingdom may exclude the supposition that any of the armed vessels or privateers of the belligerent states of America might ever have occasion to approach the Italian coast under circumstances calculated to cause trouble to a neutral power, this supposition assumes another aspect when the movements of the ships of war belonging to the northern powers of Europe are considered now even in a state of armed warfare.

These facts will doubtless compel the attention of your Majesty’s government to the consequences which may ensue to a neutral state, and also to provide that while the duties of neutrality are observed, the rights which such a state insures to the neutral powers be equally respected.

While compiling the project of law which I have now the honour to submit to your Majesty, besides detailing the principles which should regulate the conduct of the maritime authorities, the seafaring population, and your Majesty’s subjects, to preserve the strict limits of neutrality now to be the guide of the Italian government towards the powers at present at declared war, I think it right to declare what regulations are already in force in many harbors of the kingdom, sanctioned by previous law, and common to all maritime nations, whether as a special right obtaining on certain parts of the coast, (Quale perogativa propria su certi punti speciali delle coste,) or as being recognized by all those who have ever treated of international maritime law.

Whenever your Majesty will approve of the considerations which are the basis of the scheme of the following decree, I would humbly hope that your Majesty will deign to confer upon it your royal sanction.

E. CUGIA, Minister of Marine.

Victor Emanuel II, elect King of Italy.

With reference to the royal patents of 24th November, 1827, which determine port regulations;

With reference to the penal law for the mercantile marine, dated January 15, 1827;

With reference to the royal decree of December 22, 1861, which extends the laws and regulations of the mercantile marine in force in the ancient provinces to all new provinces of the kingdom;

Considering the state of the existing relations between Italy and other maritime states which are in open hostilities;

Considering the rights reserved by international maritime law respecting certain special parts of the seaboard of any maritime state, tending to maintain and guarantee the state of neutrality of that kingdom towards belligerent powers; and to render valid, under all circumstances, those rights which might spring from or be derived from such a state, (of neutrality,) and also to preserve intact its liberty of action;

On the proposal of our minister of marine, in concert with our minister for foreign affairs, we have and do decree:

Article I. It shall not be allowed for any ship of war or privateer belonging to a belligerent state to enter into or remain with prize in any port or harbor of the kingdom, except in case of necessity.

Article II. In such exceptional cases, and under the conditions contained in the preceding article, ships of war and privateers must leave the coast of the kingdom as soon as the cause which forced them to seek shelter shall have been removed, and according to the dispositions of article XI.

Article III. No sale, exchange, transfer, or gift of objects of plunder shall be made under any pretext in the ports, harbors, or coasts of the kingdom.

Article IV. No Italian subject shall take commission from either belligerent power to arm ships for war, or to accept letters of marque to cruise, or assist in any way in fitting out, arming, or preparing for war a vessel or privateer of the said belligerents.

Article V. According to the 35th article of the penal code for the mercantile marine, no Italian subject shall be enrolled or take service on any ship of war or privateer belonging to either belligerent.

Article VI. No Italian subjects guilty of contravention of the rules laid down in the preceding articles 4 and 5, or who shall commit any act against one of the belligerent powers, contrary to the duties attendant upon the neutrality maintained by the Italian government towards the said parties, can claim protection against the acts or measures of whatever nature which the belligerents may deem right to enforce against them, and besides, they incur the penalties mentioned in article 5 of the present decree, according to the dispositions of the 80th article of the penal code for the mercantile marine, dated January 13, 1827.

Article VII. No belligerent vessel of war or privateer shall remain more than 24 hours in any port, harbor, or anchorage in the kingdom or adjacent waters, even though alone, except in cases of necessity caused by stress of weather, for repairs, or for want of necessary provisions for the safety of navigation.

Article VIII. Vessels of war belonging to a friendly power, even though belligerent, can anchor and remain in the ports and harbors of the kingdom, when their mission is purely scientific.

Article IX. In no case shall a belligerent vessel of war make use of an Italian port for warlike purposes, or for providing itself with arms and ammunition. Neither shall it, under pretext of repairs, do anything to increase its force in action.

Article X. There shall not be furnished to belligerent vessels of war or privateers other than provisions in portions for the subsistence of the crew, and the mere means for making those repairs actually necessary for the safety of the vessel. Belligerent vessels of war and privateers wishing to coal can only do so 24 hours after their arrival.

Article XI. When vessels of war, privateers, or merchant vessels of both belligerent powers shall meet in the same port or harbor of the kingdom, there shall be an interval of 24 hours between the departure of any vessel belonging to one power and that of any vessel of the other power. The local maritime authority has power to prolong this interval according to circumstances.

Article XII. In ports considered as naval fortresses or military fortresses, in anchorages where military or naval arsenals, dockyards, or other similar buildings, only three vessels of war belonging to the same power shall be there at once, and then for no period exceeding eight days.

This period can only be extended in cases of necessity or for the sake of repairs, under formal permission of his Majesty’s government, to whom application must be made by the local maritime authorities through the minister of marine.

Article XIII. The ports and places of anchorage treated of in the preceding article are: Genoa, and adjacent waters towards the shore of Foce; the gulf of Spezia, Leghorn; Portoferraj; Naples; Baja; Castlelamare; Gaeta; Messina, (with the anchorages of Faro and Reggio in Calabria;) Milazzo; Syracuse; Augusta; Palermo; Frapani; Taranto; Brindisi; Ancona; Cagliari; Island of Maddalena.

Article XIV. The local maritime authorities of the plans mentioned in the preceding article shall, on the arrival of foreign vessels of war, present to their commanders, or commander of the squadron, a copy of the present regulations for their information, and request them to conform to them.

Article XV. All maritime authorities in the kingdom are expected to adopt strictly all the measures prescribed in the present decree, which shall take effect from the day of its publication in the various parts of the kingdom.

Article XVI. All dispositions at present in force, and which are contrary to those contained in the present decree, are hereby abrogated.

We command that this present decree, furnished with the great seal and registered at the court “dei conti,” be inserted in the official collection of laws and decrees of the kingdom of Italy, desiring all it may concern to obey it and make it obeyed.

(Signed) VITTORIO EMANUELE.

(Countersigned) E. CUGIA.

Turin, April 6, 1864.

Extract from Italian naval code, Chapter VII—of the neutrality of the state towards delligerent powers.

In case of war between powers towards which the state remains neutral, privateers, or vessels of war with prizes, shall not be received into the harbors or roadsteads, except in cases of stress of weather.

They will have to leave as soon as the danger has ceased.

No ship of war or privateer belonging to a belligerent will be allowed to remain longer than 24 hours in a port, harbor, or roadstead of the state, or in the adjacent waters, even when alone, except in cases of necessity arising from bad weather, of ship-wreck, or of an absence of the means necessary to carry on the navigation with safety.

In no case will they be permitted, during their stay in the port, harbor, or roadstead of the state, to sell, exchange, or barter, or even give away, any of the prizes, (taken in war,)

The ships of war of a friendly power, even when belligerent, are permitted to touch or even to remain in any harbor, port, or roadstead of the state, on condition that the object of their mission be exclusively a scientific one.

In no case can a belligerent ship avail itself of an Italian port for the purposes of war, or of obtaining arms and munitions. It shall not be able, under the pretense of repairs, to execute any alterations or other works designed to augment its warlike force.

Nothing shall be furnished to vessels of war or to belligerent privateers beyond articles of food and commodities, and the actual means of repair necessary to the sustenance of their crews and the safety of their navigation.

Vessels of war or belligerent privateers wishing to fill up their stores of coal cannot be furnished with the same before 24 hours after their arrival.

In the case in which vessels of war, whether privateers or merchantmen of the two belligerent nations, are both together in a port, harbor, or roadstead of the state, there shall be an interval of at least 24 hours between the successive departures of the vessels of one belligerent and those of the vessels of the other.

This interval can be increased according to the circumstances brought before the maritime authorities of the place.

The capture of prizes, as well as any other act of hostility between two belligerent ships within the territorial waters or the adjacent waters of the islands of the state, will constitute a violation of territory.

The Netherlands.

[Received from her Majesty’s legation at the Hague.]

Note from the minister for foreign affairs to his Majesty’s chargé d’affaires.

[Translation.]

The Hague, March 6, 1867.

Mr. Ward’s note of the 16th instant, asking information for his government about the laws, regulations, and other means that the Netherlands may use to prevent violation of neutrality within her borders, has been received.

In reply, the undersigned informs Mr. Ward that there is no code of laws or regulations in the kingdom of the Netherlands concerning the rights and duties of neutrals, nor any special laws or ordinances for either party, on this very important matter of external public law. The government may use articles 84 and 85 of the penal code; but no legislative provisions have been adopted to protect the government, and serve against those who attempt a violation of neutrality.

It may be said that no country has codified these regulations and given them the force of law; and though Great Britain and the United States have their foreign enlistment act, its effect is very limited. The Netherlands government has not yet thought proper to collect the regulations in relation to the rights and duties of neutrality; but has always scrupulously observed the principles of the European law of nations, and have published notices (as Great Britain and France did in 1861) to Netherland subjects not to carry dispatches or articles contraband of war, nor to break an effective blockade, nor to engage in privateering, nor accept letters of marque.

The admission of belligerent ships of war into our ports was regulated in the same manner, and the special instructions sent to our colonial governors, during the civil war in the United States, were communicated to the British legation on the 17th December, 1861.

Those notices were more extensive and precise last year. The government undertook to prevent the equipment of war vessels for belligerents in her ports. A copy of the Official Gazette, March 20, 1866, containing those notices, is hereto annexed.

Articles 84 and 85 of the penal code may be used as coercive measures to prevent violations of neutrality. For example, they might serve to prosecute those attempting to equip or sell vessels of war in our ports, for the benefit of belligerents. The vessels could then be seized as evidence, and their departure be thus prevented.

The undersigned requests Mr. Ward to communicate this to his government, and begs him to let this government know what articles are considered contraband of war by the cabinet at London.

Yours, &c.,

DE ZEYLEN DE NYEVELT.

Translation of proclamation—Ministry of foreign affairs.

As war is now existing between Brazil (in league with the Argentine Republic and Uruguay) and Paraguay, as well as between Spain and Chili, while Peru has declared war against Spain, the minister of foreign affairs and the minister of justice are empowered by the King to advise by these presents all inhabitants of this kingdom by no means to meddle with privateering, and to accept no foreign letters of marque. Should Netherlanders, who practice any such privateering business or lend a hand in it, be pursued before the Dutch authorities, the affairs of such people will be treated as criminally hostile, and will receive the punishment awarded by the law.

The above-mentioned ministers,

E. CREMERS.

PICKÉ.

The Hague, March 17, 1866.

In consequence of the commands of the King, the ministers of foreign affairs, of justice, and of marine, bring to the knowledge of all whom it may concern that, for the preservation of a complete neutrality during the war between the powers mentioned in the previous amendment, the following determinations have been resolved upon:

Article I. No ships of war or privateers belonging to one of the belligerent powers, with prizes, shall be allowed to come into Dutch harbors or estuaries, or remain there to refit, unless they are overtaken by evident necessity, such as misfortune at sea or want of provisions. They shall, moreover, so soon as the cause which delayed them be overcome, go on their way as speedily as possible.

Article II. Proclaiming prizes, the selling, bartering, or giving away of all prizes and of objects coming out of them, also of plundered goods, is forbidden in the harbors or estuaries of the Netherlands. It is also forbidden to unrig and sell ships of war or cruisers of the belligerent parties, also privateers, (so far as these are admitted,) unless the government in ordinary circumstances gives judgment that the sale can take place without danger to the neutrality of the state.

Article III. Privateers, even without prizes, are not admitted into Dutch harbors and estuaries, except in the cases specified in Article I. The conclusion of that article is also applicable to this one.

They must take in no more provisions than they require for immediate use, of coal hardly as much as is necessary to supply their wants for 24 hours.

Article IV. The ships of war of the belligerent parties, provided they submit to the international regulations for their admission into neutral ports, may remain for unlimited time in Dutch harbors and estuaries; they may also provide themselves with an unlimited quantity of coal.

The government, however, reserves to itself the right, whenever it is thought necessary for the preservation of neutrality, to limit the duration of such stay to 24 hours.

Article V. When ships of the belligerent parties (either ships of war, cruisers, or merchantmen) find themselves at the same time in the same harbor to refit, or in the inner waters of the country, a period of at least 24 hours must elapse between the departure of a ship of one belligerent party and the following departure of a ship belonging to another belligerent.

This period of time may be lengthened, according to circumstances, by the maritime authorities of the harbors.

Article VI. It is forbidden to furnish to the ships of war of either of the belligerent parties weapons or ammunition, as well as to aid in any way to the increase of his weapons or accoutrements.

The above-named ministers,

E. CREMERS.

PICKÉ.

The Hague, March 17, 1866.

The minister of war, charged ad interim with the department of marine.

J. W. BLANKEN.

The minister of foreign affairs thinks it his duty, in consequence of the war existing between the above-mentioned powers in South America, to call the attention of ship-owners, manufacturers, and freighters, to the dangers and difficulties to which they expose themselves if, putting themselves in opposition to their duties to the neutral powers, they do not respect an actual blockade, or transport contraband of war, soldiers, or dispatches intended for one of the belligerents.

In these circumstances the parties concerned will be exposed to all results proceeding herefrom, without any protection or intervention from the Netherland government, whatever claims they may make.

Also, the government will keep strict watch against the fitting out in this country of armed ships on behalf of the belligerent parties, or the taking part therein by Nether-landers.

The above-named minister,

E. CREMERS.

The Hague, March 17, 1866.

[Translation.]

Articles 84 and 85 of the penal (code Napoleon) book III, title I.

Article 84. Whoever exposes the state to a declaration of war, by hostile acts not approved by the government, shall be punished by banishment, and, if war ensues, by deportation.

Article 85. Whoever exposes Frenchmen to reprisals, through acts not approved by the government, shall suffer banishment.

Portugal.

Lisbon, February 26, 1867.

My Lord: In reply to your lordship’s dispatch marked circular, of the 14th instant, instructing me to procure information respecting the neutrality laws in Portugal, I have the honor to state to your lordship that I have this day received from the Portuguese minister a note, of which a copy, together with a translation by Mr. Duff, is herewith transmitted. Your lordship will perceive that its information is restricted to furnishing me with copies of the Portuguese declarations of neutrality, which are already in the possession of her Majesty’s government.

I have, therefore, requested further information in a note, of which I beg also to inclose a copy, as to what are the laws, regulations, or any other means at the disposal of the Portuguese government for preventing within their territory any acts which would be violations of the Portuguese neutrality laws as contained in the declarations of neutrality, which M. Cazal Ribeiro has transmitted to me.

I have the honor to be, &c.,

A. PAGET.

The Right Honorable Lord Stanley, M. P., &c., &c., &c.

Foreign Department, Lisbon,February 25, 1867. (Received 26th.)

Most illustrious and excellent Sir: I received the note which your excellency was pleased to address to me on the 19th instant, wherein you inform me that inasmuch as her Majesty’s government had appointed a commission to inquire into the neutrality laws in England, and were desirous to obtain information respecting the laws, regulations, or any other measures that may have been adopted in other countries upon this subject, they had instructed your excellency to point out to them what were the laws and regulations of Portugal for the purpose of preventing, within the Portuguese territory, any acts that might be considered to be a violation of the laws of neutrality.

And as your excellency requested me to forward to you copies of the laws and regulations to which you refer, as well as any other information that I might be able to furnish upon this point, I have the honor to state to your excellency that as Portugal professes the most liberal principles with regard to neutrality, and as it is desirous to co-operate towards the consolidation of those principles, and the securing of the freedom of the maritime trade and navigation of neutral powers, it did not hesitate, so far back as the year 1782, to accede to the declaration made by Russia on the 28th of February, 1780, to several powers, and to agree in the convention entered into with that empire, on the 12th of July of the above-mentioned year of 1782, to identical principles with those which are laid down in the second, third, and fourth articles of the declaration of the Congress of Paris of the 16th of April, 1856, on maritime law, a declaration to which Portugal fully and entirely adhered, because it was in accordance with the doctrines which it has for so many years professed with regard to neutrality.

Before the adhesion of Portugal to the declaration of the 16th of April, 1856, to which I allude, and at the time of the eastern question, the decree of the 5th of May, 1854, (of which a copy is inclosed,) was published in order that the most strict and absolute neutrality should be observed in this kingdom in regard of those powers which were then in a state of war.

On the 29th of July, 1861, the Portuguese government being desirous, under the circumstances which then occurred with respect to the United States of America, to enforce a compliance with the principles set forth in the declaration of Paris of the 16th of April, 1856, published the decree of that date, of which I also forward the inclosed copy to your excellency.

Finally, by the decree of the 2d of July, 1856, on the occasion of the breaking out of the war between Italy and Austria, as well as between Russia, that empire and other states of Germany, and of which a copy was sent to the several chiefs of missions of Portugal in order that they should communicate the provisions contained therein to the government to which they were accredited, your excellency will see what are the neutrality laws now in force in Portugal.

I avail myself, &c.,

CAZAL RIBEIRO.

Sir A. Paget, &c., &c., &c.

British Legation, Lisbon, February 26, 1867.

M. le Ministre: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your excellency’s note of yesterday’s date respecting the neutrality laws of Portugal, and to thank your excellency for the documents with which you have been good enough to furnish me.

There is one point, however, upon which her Majesty’s government are most desirous of information, to which your excellency’s note and the inclosures it contains do not refer, namely, what laws or regulations, or any other means, are at the disposal of the Portuguese government for preventing within its territory any acts which would be violations of the Portuguese neutrality laws, as contained in the declarations of neutrality which your excellency has transmitted to me. If your excellency would supply me with this information I should be greatly obliged. I avail myself, &c.,

A. PAGET.

H. E. M. Cazal Ribeiro.

Lisbon, March 29, 1867.

My Lord: With reference to my dispatch of the 26th ultimo, I have the honor to transmit to your lordship a copy, with translations by Mr. Duff, of a further note which I have received from the Portuguese minister respecting the neutrality laws and their enforcement in Portugal.

I have the honor to be, &c,

A. PAGET.

The Right Honorable Lord Stanley, M. P., &c., &c., &c.

Foreign Department, Lisbon, March 18, 1867. (Received 22d.)

Most illustrous and excellent Sir: I had the honor to receive the note which your excellency was pleased to address to me on the 26th of February last, requesting to be informed, in compliance with the wishes expressed by your government, what laws or means does the Portuguese government possess to enable it to preveut within its territory any acts of violation of neutrality.

In reply, it is my duty to state to your excelleucy that the laws and regulations in the matter are those which were inclosed in my note of the 25th of that month, or were mentioned in those documents, and the means of execution in the case of any violation of neutrality are—criminal proceedings, the use of force, complaints addressed to foreign governments, or any other means in order to meet some particular occurrence.

I avail myself, &c.,

CAZAL RIBEIRO.

Sir A. B. Paget, &c., &c., &c.

Prussia.

[Received from her Majesty’s embassy at Berlin.]

Note from the minister of foreign affairs to her Majesty’s ambassador.

Berlin, March 11, 1867.

The undersigned has the honor to state, in reply to the note of Lord Loftus, &c., of the 15th ultimo, that the decrees contained in the Prussian code of laws for preventing, during the war between foreign states, acts on Prussian territory which could be construed as an infringement of neutrality are partly direct and partly indirect.

A direct decree is contained in section 78 of the code of punishments of the 14th of April, 1851, by which hostile acts committed by a Prussian in his own country or abroad, or by a foreigner during his residence in Prussia, against a foreign state or its ruler, are punishable, if the same acts committed against the King of Prussia would be held to be high treason. But with respect to acts committed against non-German states, this decree is only enforced when reciprocity is guaranteed by public decrees or treaties.

The punishment consists in imprisonment in the house of correction for from two to ten years; but under extenuating circumstances, in confinement for one to ten years. Should the intention be discovered before the act is carried out, confinement from six months to three years.

It is stated in section 61 of what nature these hostile acts must be to render them liable to punishment, viz, every attempt which has for its object:

1. To murder the King, to take him prisoner, to deliver him into the power of the enemy, or to render him incapable of governing; or

2. Forcibly to after the succession to the throne or the constitution of the state; or

3. To incorporate, either entirely or partially, the territory of the Prussian state into a foreign state, or to separate a portion of territory from the whole.

Furthermore, in section 111, whoever enlists or causes the enlistment of a Prussian in a foreign military service will be punished with imprisonment for from three months to three years. The attempt to commit this act will be punished in the same manner.

Under the head of indirect preventative measures against breach of neutrality come all those laws which enable the government generally to oppose the maturing of acts of violence within the territory of the state. The following clauses of the book of the penal code apply to this:

§ Whoever assembles or commands armed bodies of men without authority, or who furnishes with arms or the necessaries of war a body of men whom he knows to be assembled without the permission of the law, will he punished with imprisonment not exceeding two years.

Whoever takes part in such armed meeting, has rendered himself liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year.

§ 340.

2. Whoever secretly, or in defiance of the authorities, stores up arms or ammunition, it not being his trade, will be punished with a fine of 50 Rths., or six weeks’ imprisonment. In these cases a confiscation of the stores takes place. The undersigned, &c., for the minister of foreign affairs,

THILE.

Russia.

St. Petersburg, August 29, 1867.

My Lord: With reference to your lordship’s dispatch circular of February 14, instructing me to ascertain and report what laws, regulations, and other means the Russian government possess for preventing acts within its territories of which belligerents might complain as a violation of the duties of neutrality, I have the honor to inclose a copy of a note which I have received from M. de Westmann, stating that with the exception of article 259 of the Russian penal code, which forbids Russian subjects to afford military succor to any power in a state of war with a government allied to that of Russia, there are no laws existing in this country of the nature alluded to in your lordship’s dispatch. A translation of the article of the penal code referred to is inclosed.

I have, &c.,

ANDREW BUCHANAN.

The Lord Stanley, M. P., &c., &c., &c.

[Translation.]

St. Petersburg, April 16, (28,) 1867.

Mr. Ambassador: In reply to your note of the 26th February, I have the honor to inform you that, with the exception of article 259 of the penal code of the empire, which forbids Russian subjects to afford military succor to any power in a state of war with a government allied to that of Russia, there are no laws for preventing acts of which belligerents might complain as violations of neutrality.

Yours, &c.,

WESTMANN.

[Translation.]

§ § 259.—Penal code of Russia.

If any Russian subject in time of peace shall by open force attack the inhabitants of a neighboring state or those of any other foreign country, and shall thereby subject his own country to the danger of a rupture with a friendly power, or even to an attack by such foreign subjects on the territory of Russia, for such a crime against international law, the offender, and all those who participate voluntarily in his enterprise with a knowledge of its objects and illegality, shall be sentenced to lose all their civil rights, and be condemned to hard labor in a fortress for a term of eight to ten years.

Spain.

[Received from her Majesty’s legation at Madrid.]

Note from the minister for foreign affairs to her Majesty’s minister.

[Translation.]

Palace, February 22, 1867.

Sir: I have received the note which your excellency addressed to me on the 17th instant, requesting, in the name of your government, a copy of the laws and regulations in force in the Peninsula concerning neutrality.

In this matter Spain has always adapted herself to the principles of international right, and solely on the occasion of the late war in the United States did her Majesty’s government issue a decree on the neutrality to be observed by Spanish subjects during that contest.

Of that document (the only one existing on the subject) a copy has been made, which I have the honor to transmit to your excellency in answer to your above-mentioned note.

I avail, &c,

E. D. CALONGE.

H. B. M. Minister Plenipotentiary.

[Translation.]

Royal decree concerning neutrality in the United States war, issued by H. C. M., on the 17th June, 1861.

Taking into consideration the relations which subsist between Spain and the United States of America, and the propriety of causing no detriment to the reciprocal sentiments of good understanding on account of the grave events which have happened in that republic, I have resolved to maintain the strictest neutrality in the contest entered into between the Confederate States of the south and the Federal States of the Union; and in order to avoid the prejudice which might result to my subjects and to navigation and commerce, in consequence of the want of clear dispositions by which to regulate their conduct, in accordance with my council of ministers, I decree the following:

Article 1. The fitting-out, supplying, and equipment of any privateer in any of the ports of the monarchy is prohibited, whatever may be the flag which she may hoist.

Art. 2. The proprietors, masters, or captains of merchant vessels are also prohibited from receiving letters of marque, and from contributing in any way to the armament and equipment of vessels of war or privateers.

Art. 3. Ships of war or privateers with prizes are prohibited from entering and remaining for more than 24 hours in the ports of the monarchy, except in the case of forced arrival.

When the latter shall occur, the authorities shall watch the ship, and shall oblige her to put to sea as soon as possible, without permitting her to supply herself with anything more than that which is necessary for the moment, but under no circumstances with arms or with munitions of war.

Art. 4. Articles taken from prizes shall not be sold at the ports of the monarchy.

Art. 5. The transport of all articles of commerce under the Spanish flag is guaranteed, except when intended for the blockaded ports.

The carrying of effects of war and of papers or communications for the belligerents is prohibited. Contraveners will be responsible for their own acts, and will have no right to the protection of my government.

Art. 6. All Spaniards are prohibited from enlisting in the belligerent armies, and from engaging themselves for service in vessels of war or privateers.

Art. 7. My subjects will abstain from any act which, by violating the laws of the kingdom, might be considered contrary to neutrality.

Art. 8. Contraveners of the above orders will have no right to the protection of my government; they will suffer the consequences of the measures taken by the belligerents, and will be punished according to the laws of Spain.

Sweden.

[Received from her Majesty’s legation at Stockholm.]

Note from the minister for foreign affairs to her Majesty’s minister.

[Translation.]

Stockholm, February 23, 1867.

Sir: In answer to your note of the 19th instant, I have the honor to inform you that the dispositions of the declaration of the Paris Congress of the 16th April, 1856, and of the annexed ordinance of 8th April, 1854, are the only laws now in force on matters of neutrality; and it is a principle with us, that where there is no law or positive fact to regulate the rights and duties of neutrals in time of war, the rules or principles in general use among nations must find application.

MANDERSTRÖM.

Mr. Jerningham, &c., &c., &c.

[Translation.]

Royal ordinance relating to what must be observed for the protection of the commerce and navigation of Sweden, in time of war between foreign powers. Issued at Stockholm the 8th April, 1854.

We, Oscar, by the grace of God King of Sweden and Norway, of the Goths and Vandals, hereby make known—

That, recognizing the necessity, in prospect of threatened collision between foreign maritime powers, for those of our faithful subjects engaged in commerce and navigation to observe strictly the obligations and precautions requisite to secure to the Swiss flag all the rights and privileges of neutrals, and also to avoid every act that might arouse the suspicion of belligerent powers and subject us to insult, we have thought proper to ordain, in reference to what has been already enacted on the subject, that the following rules be hereafter generally observed:

1. To enjoy the rights and privileges due to the Swedish flag as a neutral, every Swedish vessel must have on board the documents required by existing ordinances (see royal ordinances 1st March, 1841, and 15th August, 1851) to prove its nationality, and these documents must be on board during every voyage.

2. Captains are positively forbidden to have duplicate or false papers or bills of lading on board, and to hoist any foreign flag, on any occasion or pretext whatever.

3. If the crew of a Swedish vessel, while abroad, is diminished so as not to have enough left to work it, a complement must be taken from neutrals; but in no case shall the portion of the crew taken from belligerents exceed one-third. Every change of this kind, with causes for it, shall be noted on the crew-list, and be certified by the Swedish consul or vice-consul, or, those wanting, by the mayor or a notary public, according to the usages of the country.

4. Swedish vessels, as neutrals, may freely navigate in the ports and on the coasts of nations at war; but they must not attempt to enter a blockaded port, if notified of such a condition by the commanding officer of the blockade.

By a blockaded port is understood one so closed by many war vessels, stationed so near to each other that no vessel can pass without evident risk.

5. All sorts of goods, even belonging to the belligerents, may be freely carried on neutral Swedish vessels, with the exception of articles contraband of war. The following articles are contraband of war: cannons, mortars, arms of all kinds, bombs, grenades, bullets, flints, matches, powder, nitre, sulphur, shields, pikes, belts, cartridge-boxes, saddles and bridles, as well as everything used in war; excepting, of course, the quantity of such material as may be necessary to defend the vessel.

6. Every Swedish captain is prohibited from using his vessel to carry dispatches, troops, or munitions of war, for belligerents; and if forced to do so, he shall make a formal protest against such force.

7. Vessels of belligerent powers may import or export to or from Swedish ports all sorts of produce or goods not contraband of war.

8.Every Swedish subject is forbidden to arm or equip vessels to cruise against any belligerent power, their subjects or property, or to take part in any ships for that purpose. They are also forbidden to accept service on board privateers.

9. No privateer shall be allowed to enter a Swedish port, nor to hover on the coast. No prizes shall be brought into Swedish ports, unless from stress of weather. Our subjects are also forbidden to buy captured goods from privateers.

10. When a captain without escort is met at sea by a war vessel of a belligerent, he must show his papers, and not conceal any, or throw them overboard.

11. When merchant vessels are escorted, their captains must conform to the royal ordinance of the 10th June, 1852.

12. The captain who observes the above regulations enjoys a free navigation by the law of nations; and if he is molested, he must appeal to our ministers and consuls abroad for redress and damages. The captain who neglects them does so at his own risk, and forfeits our protection.

13. In case a Swedish ship is seized, the captain must make a certified report of the seizure to his consul or vice-consul, at the port where he is carried, or to the nearest consul or vice-consul.

We command and order all persons interested to conform to the above regulations. In faith whereof, we have signed the present with our hand, and have affixed our royal seal thereto.

Done at the palace of Stockholm, on the 8th of April, 1854.

OSCAE. [l. s.]

J. F. Fahræus.

United States.

Washington, February 18, 1867.

My Lord: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your lordship’s telegram of the 14th instant, inquiring what laws, regulations, or other means the United States government possess for the prevention of acts within their territories of which belligerents might complain as violating duties of neutrality.

The only law on the subject is the neutrality act of 1818. In the accompanying volume of Brightley’s Digest I have marked the law. In the foot-notes your lordship will find the principal cases which have been decided in the courts of the United States bearing upon the construction of the statutes.^*

When a complaint is addressed to the government, of a vessel being fitted out in breach of the law, the matter is referred for investigation to the district court attorney (an officer of the federal government) in the State in which the vessel is situated. It is his duty to see that the law is respected, and it is incumbent upon him to receive and collect evidence, and to libel the ship, if in his opinion the circumstances of suspicion are sufficient to warrant the institution of legal proceedings against her. He then reports the case to the government, who decide either in proceeding with the libel or on releasing the vessel. In the latter event it is in the power of the government to call upon the owners to give bonds in double the value of the vessel not to employ her for illegal purposes. This course is pursued where the evidence shows grounds for suspicion, but when the grounds are not strong enough to warrant a prosecution, with a view to forfeiture. Mr. Bemis, in a pamphlet on the Neutrality Laws, states that the bonds only affect the owners so long as the vessel remains in their possession, and he seems to be of the opinion that in the event of a bonâ fide sale, and of her subsequent employment as a cruiser or privateer against a friendly power, it would not be found possible to enforce the penalty against the original owners.

I inclose a newspaper extract with reference to the proceedings against a steamer called the R. R. Cuyler, which will show the manner in which the government acts. In this case the attorney-general directs that the libel be dismissed, and the vessel restored to the owners on their executing a bond as required by statute.

Though there are no specific regulations in force as to the mode in which the law is to be carried out, I apprehend it may be inferred that this government would consider any circumstances of suspicion attending the fitting out or equipment of a ship as sufficient to warrant her detention until the case can be investigated by the district attorney. It is not necessary that the allegations should be of such gravity as, if proved, would warrant her forfeiture. The owners may be compelled by law to give a bond previous to the sailing of an armed vessel, to guard against the possibility of her being-employed against a friendly power, should war exist between two countries at peace with the United States. And a similar bond can be exacted, under certain contingencies mentioned in the statute, from the owners of any vessel built for warlike purposea and laden with war material.

It is to be presumed that these provisions are intended to apply to cases of war ships fitted out during time of war, where no direct evidence appears of illegal intent, but where the government thinks it advisable to call upon the owners to find security for keeping the peace. In order to effect this object it is evident that a wide discretion must be left to the government for the exercise of the power of detention.

I may remark that the government of the United States has considerable advantages in proceeding against vessels under the statue. They have on the spot where the preparations are being made the district attorney, a legal officer responsible to the government, to whom the duty of investigation is committed. The libel is in the nature of a proceeding in admiralty “in rem.” It is decided by a judge conversant with international and maritime law, and without the intervention of a jury. The failure of the attempt to stop or punish the persons engaged in the expeditions against Cuba, and the suspension of proceedings against the men who took part in the Fenian raids against the British Provinces, in spite of the clearest evidence shows the difficulty of enforcing the law when it has to be put in operation “in personam,” and when it is dependent on the verdict of a jury.

I have, &c.,

FREDERICK W. A. BRUCE.

The Lord Stanley, M. P., &c., &c., &c.

The steamer R. R. Cuyler—Conspiracy on board to assume control of the vessel at sea—The owners not culpable—The vessel to be bonded.

New York, February 15.

The suspicion that the steamship R. R. Cuyler was intended for a piratical enterprise appears, from facts which have come to light since the seizure by the government, to have been well founded. The theory advanced, which there is no grounds for doubting, is, that there was a conspiracy on board to assume control of the vessel after she had gone to sea, and thus deprive the lawful owners of their property, who were not to receive their pay for her until she was delivered at Laguayra, Venezuela, to the Colombian government. Whatever may have been intended by the extraordinary personages on board, and however they may have intended to execute their plans, are matters no longer to be regarded with alarm, as the party has been dispersed, and the owners required to file bonds in twice the value of the vessel that she shall not be used by them to commit hostilities against any nation with which this government is at peace. This is sufficiently set forth in the following letter, received by Collector Smythe from the Secretary of the Treasury yesterday:

Order to the collector.

Treasury Department, February, 1867.

Sir: I transmit herewith a copy of the letter of this date from the Attorney General of the United States at New York to the United States district attorney at New York, relative to the steamship R. R. Cuyler. You are hereby instructed to carry out the decision of the President, to release the R. R. Cuyler to the owners, upon being advised in writing by the United States district attorney that the required bond has been given and the proceedings in court dismissed.

Very respectfully,

h. McCULLOCH, Secretary of the Treasury.

H. A. Smythe, Collector of Customs, New York.

The following is a copy of the letter of the Attorney General:

The Attorney General’s letter.

Attorney General’s Office, February 13, 1867.

In re steamship “R. R. Cuyler.”

Sir: The President has had under his consideration the case of the steamship R. R. Cuyler, now detained at the port of New York under a seizure made by the customs officers, and a libel filed by you on or about the 5th of the current month, for alleged infraction of our neutrality laws.

The decision of the President had thereon is that such circumstances are shown as to require bond and security to be given by the owners, Messrs. Sturges, Taylor, Hubbell & Dollard, according to the provisions of the 10th and 11th sections of the act of April 20, 1818, entitled “An act in addition to the act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States, and to repeal the acts therein named.”—3d vol. Statutes at Large, p. 447.

You, are accordingly instructed that, upon the entering and delivery to you of such bond to the United States, with sufficient sureties, prior to the clearing of the vessel, in double the amount or the value of the vessel and cargo on board, including her armament, conditioned that the vessel shall not be employed by such owners to cruise or commit hostilities against the subjects, citizens, or property of any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district, or people with whom the United States are at peace, as provided by the said 10th section, you will dismiss the proceedings so instituted.

Instructions will be sent to the collector of the port by the Secretary of the Treasury for the release of the vessel to her owners, when you advise them that the bond has been given and the proceedings in court have been dismissed.

I am, very respectfully, &c.,

HENRY STANBERY, Attorney General.

Samuel G. Courtney, Esq., U. S. District Attorney, New York City.

Case of the “R. R. Cuyler”—Alleged conspiracy of an ex-rebel captain and crew to turn the vessel into a Chilian privateer—Bonds required by the government.

[From the New York Post.]

The steamship R. R. Cuyler, seized some time ago by the customs authorities of this port, and held for examination on a charge that she was destined for an illegal voyage, is still in the hands of the officers, but the former owners and claimants of the vessel are confident she will soon be released. The theory that there was a conspiracy on board to take her from the owners, who were not, it is declared, to get their pay for her, or all of it, till she should be delivered at Laguayra, Venezuela, to the Colombian government, is now, it appears, fully accepted, and it goes into the case as part of the matter which the Attorney General will consider when he decides whether the R. R. Cuyler ought to be held to await the action of the courts with a view to her condemnation if the charged should be sustained.

This theory is founded on information already partially given to the public. The evidence that the vessel was to become a Chilian privateer, or have some other illegal character, is considered complete; and her owners do not hesitate to admit that they would probably have lost her, except for the interference of the United States authorities. This avowal raises many interesting points about the fitting out of the Cuyler, which will be fully investigated if an examination is entered upon, but which otherwise may never be brought out.

What is now recognized as the important fact of the case is that the conspiracy was fully matured, and was to be executed by ex-rebels, who comprised the passengers of the vessel. It appears that the getting together of these men and the equipment of them, with the purchase of some war material, costing more than $100,000, were the parts of the business about which the owners had no direct knowledge; and Read, the rebel officer who had charge of the numerous “passengers,” only a part of whom it seems were on board the Cuyler at the wharf when she was ready to sail at the time of the seizure, was at the head of the piratical expedition, Exactly what was to be done with the Cuyler after she had left this port and was in the hands of the desperadoes who had been gathered to take possession of her, the representatives of the men whose interests were involved do not undertake to say.

These things in some respects explain, and in other respects complicate and mystify, the affair of the Cuyler. What influence they may have on the determination of the matter is a curious question. That the vessel, if she had been allowed to go, would have made a legal voyage, nobody asserts; nor is it likely that the government officers will urge that the American owners were guilty of complicity with the rebels, or with the persons, whoever they may have been, who furnished the means required at the beginning of the suspicious undertaking.

In a later edition the Post says:

“Collector Smythe has to-day received a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury directing that the steamship R. R. Cuyler be released when the owners of her give bonds to the government in double the amount of her value that she shall not be used by them to commit hostilities against any nation with which this government is at peace.

If bonds are not given, and no new instructions come from Washington, proceedings for the confiscation of the vessel will go on. No intimation has yet been given as to what the course of the claimants will be.

The following declarations and notifications were issued by the several countries hereunder specified, on the breaking out of the civil war in America:

France.

Declaration respecting neutrality of France daring struggle in America.

[Translation.]

Paris, June 10, 1861.

The minister of foreign affairs has submitted to the Emperor the following declaration, which his Majesty has approved:

Declaration.

His Majesty the Emperor of the French, taking into consideration the state of peace which exists between France and the United States of America, has resolved to maintain a strict neutrality in the contest now pending between the government of the Union and the States that are attempting to form a distinct confederation.

In consequence, his Majesty in view of article 14 of the Naval Ordinance of August, 1861; article 3 of the law of April, 1825; articles 84 and 85 of the Penal Code; 65 and others of the decree of the 24th of March, 1852; 313 and others of the Maritime Penal Code; and article 21 of the Code Napoleon, declares:

1. It shall not be lawful for any vessel of war or privateer of either of the belligerents to enter and remain with prizes in our ports or harbors more than 24 hours, unless in case of necessity.

2. No sale of prize goods shall take place in our ports or harbors.

3. It shall not be lawful for any Frenchman to accept a commission from either party to arm war vessels, or to accept letters of marque for privateering, or to take any part in equipping and arming a war vessel for either party.

4. Every Frenchman, in France or elsewhere, is forbidden to enlist or accept service in the army or navy, or in privateers of either belligerent.

5. Every Frenchman, residing in France or elsewhere, must refrain from any act against the laws of the empire or the law of nations that might be considered as an act hostile to one of the two parties, and contrary to the neutrality we have resolved to observe.

Violators of the prohibitions and recommendations contained in the present declaration shall be punished, if necessary, by the provisions of the law of the 10th of April, 1825, and by articles 84 and 85 of the Penal Code, and also be liable to prosecution by article 21 of the Code Napoleon, and articles 65 and onward of the decree of the 24th March, 1852, in relation to the navy, and by 313 et sequens of the Penal Code for the sea forces.

His Majesty moreover declares that every Frenchman who does not obey the present instructions cannot claim the protection of his government against any acts or measures that belligerents may exercise or decree.

NAPOLEON.

E. Thouvenel, Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Prussia.

The minister of commerce issued the notification annexed to the mercantile classes in the Baltic ports:

“It is my duty to make known to you that during the continuance of the conflict that has broken out among the North American States the mercantile classes must abstain from all enterprises which are forbidden by the general principles of international law, and especially by the ordinance of the 12th of June, 1856, which has relation to the declaration of the 12th of April, 1856, upon the principles of maritime law. Moreover, I will not omit to make especially noticeable by you that the royal government will not permit to its shipping or its subjects, which may mix up in these conflicts by taking letters of marque, sharing in privateering enterprises, carrying merchandise contraband of war, or forwarding dispatches, to have the benefit of its protection against any losses which may befall them through such transactions.

“The equipment of privateers in the ports of this country is forbidden by the laws of the land, as is known to the mercantile community.”

Belgium.

[Translation.]

Belgium has given its adhesion to the principles laid down in the declaration of the Congress of Paris of April 16, 1856. This adhesion was published, together with the said declaration, (6th June, 1856,) in the Belgian Moniteur of June 8, 1856.

The commercial public is notified that instructions on this subject have been given to the judicial, maritime, and military authorities, warning them that privateers, under whatever flag or commission, or letters of marque, are not to be allowed to enter our ports, except in case of imminent perils of the sea. The aforesaid authorities are charged, consequently, to keep a strict watch upon all such privateers and their prizes, and to compel them to put to sea again as soon as practicable.

The same authorities have been charged not to recognize the validity of any commission or letter of marque whatsoever.

All persons subject to the laws of Belgium who shall fit out or take any part in any privateering expedition will therefore expose themselves to the danger, on the one hand, of being treated as pirates abroad, and, on the other, to prosecution before Belgian tribunals with all the rigor of the laws.

Russia.

To the Commander-in-chief of the port of Cronstadt:

His Imperial Highness the general admiral, foreseeing the possibility of ships belonging to the southern States of the American Union, which have seceded from the United States of North America, arriving at our ports during the present navigation, has directed me to inform your excellency, for your guidance, that, according to the opinion of the minister of foreign affairs, the flag of men-of-war belonging to the seceded States must not be saluted.

That there may be no obstacle in the way of commerce, merchant vessels of the seceded States are to be treated according to the rules acted on by us with regard to Italian merchant vessels sailing under the Italian flag; i. e., according to the treaties that are at present in force, (commercial treaty concluded between America and us, December 6/18, 1832.)

Should the crews of vessels belonging to the seceded States not wish to acknowledge the authority of the consuls appointed by the federal government of Washington, then, in case of dispute, they must abide by the decision of our local authorities, in the same manner as foreigners whose governments have no representatives in our empire.

General-Major GREIG, Director of the Chancellery of the Minister of Marine.

Circular addressed to the custom-houses on the White, Baltic, Black, and Azoff seas.

By order of the minister of finance, the department of foreign trade prescribes, in case any merchant vessels arrive in our ports belonging to the southern States of the American Union, the same not acknowledging the authority of the government of the United States of America, the said vessels are to be treated and received as hitherto, according to the treaty of 1832, should even their ships’ papers not be in order, which may occur in consequence of the present political condition of the United States of America.

General-Lieutenant PASHKOFF, Director of the Department of Foreign Trade.

SORNIN, Chief of Section, &c.

Netherlands.

[Translation.]

At the Hague.

In obedience to the King’s orders, the ministers for foreign affairs, of justice, and of the marine, present to the knowledge of all it may concern, that, to guard against probable difficulties during the doubtful complications in the United States of North America, no privateers under any flag soever, or provided with any commission or letters of marque, or their prizes, shall be admitted into our havens or seaports, unless in case of marine disaster, and that requisite orders be issued that under any circumstances such privateers and their prizes be required to go again to sea as speedily as possible.

The ministers above named.

[Translation.]

The Hague.

The minister for foreign affairs and the minister of justice, by the King’s authority, warn, by these presents, all inhabitants of the kingdom that during the existing disturbances in the United States of America they in nowise take part in privateering, because the Netherlands government has acceded to the declaration upon maritime rights set forth by the Paris conference of 1856, whereby, among other matters, privateering is abolished, and no recognition of commissions got for letters of marque permitted; also that commissions and letters of marque in conflict with the aforesaid prohibition, which may issue to inhabitants of the Netherlands, cannot have a lawful effect in behalf of the King’s subjects or of any abroad who are in subjection to the laws of the kingdom. Those who, under such circumstances, engage in or lend their aid in privateering to other people, will be considered as pirates, and prosecuted according to law in the Netherlands, and subjected to the punishment provided for the commission of such offenses.

The ministers above named.

[Translation.]

The Hague, June, 1861.

The minister for foreign affairs, apprised by a communication from the minister of marine that the King had authorized the naval force in the West Indies to be seasonably strengthened by his Majesty’s steam-frigate Zealand and the screw-propellers Dyambi and Vesuvius, for the purpose of giving protection to the trade and navigation of the Netherlands during the contest which seems to be in existence in the United States of North America, wherever it may be desired, therefore esteems it to be his duty to direct the attention of shipmasters, consignees, and freighters to the peril to which their insurance against loss will be exposed by any violation of the obligations imposed on neutral powers to respect actual blockades, and not to carry contraband of war or dispatches of belligerents.

In these cases they will be subject to all the resulting losses that may follow, without the benefit of any protection or intervention on the part of his Majesty’s government. Of which take notice.

The minister above named.

Portugal.

[Translation.]

Palace of Necessidades, July 29, 1861.

It being proper, in view of the circumstances at present existing in regard to the United States of America, to carry into effect the principles established in the declaration of Paris of April 16, 1856, made by the representatives of the powers that signed the treaty of peace of the 30th of March of that year, to which declaration my government acceded, and likewise, for the same reason, to adopt other measures which I deem opportune, I have been pleased, after hearing the council of state, to decree as follows:

Article 1. In all the ports and waters of this kingdom, as well on the continent and in the adjacent islands as in the ultramarine provinces, Portuguese subjects and foreigners are prohibited from fitting out vessels destined for privateering.

Article 2. In the same ports and waters referred to in the preceding article is, in like manner, prohibited the entrance of privateers and of the prizes made by privateers, or by armed vessels.

The cases of overruling necessity, (força maior,) in which, according to the law of nations, hospitality is indispensable, are excepted from this regulation, without permission, however, being allowed, in any manner, for the sale of any objects proceeding from prizes.

The ministers and secretaries of state in all the departments will thus understand, and cause it to be executed.

KING.

Countersigned:

Marquez de Loule.

Alberto Antonio de Moraes Carvalho.

Visconde de Sa da Bandeira.

Carlos Bento da Silva.

Thiago Augusto Velloso de Horta.

Antonio José d’Avila.

Hawaiian Islands.

Proclamation of the King of the Hawaiian Islands declaring the neutrality of the Hawaiian Islands in the war between the United States and the so-called Confederate States.

Kailua, August 26, 1861.

Be it known to all whom it may concern that we, Kamehameha IV, King of the Hawaiian Islands, having been officially notified that hostilities are now unhappily pending between the government of the United States and certain States thereof styling themselves “the Confederate States of America,” hereby proclaim our neutrality between the said contending parties.

That our neutrality is to be respected to the full extent of our jurisdiction, and that all captures and seizures made within the same are unlawful and in violation of our rights as a sovereign.

And be it further known, that we hereby strictly prohibit all our subjects, and all who reside or may be within our jurisdiction, from engaging, either directly or indirectly, in privateering against the shipping or commerce of either of the contending parties, or of rendering any aid to such enterprises whatever; and all persons so offending will be liable to the penalties imposed by the laws of nations, as well as by the laws of said States, and they will in nowise obtain any protection from us as against any penal consequences which they may incur.

Be it further known, that no adjudication of prizes will be entertained within our jurisdiction, nor will the sale of goods or other property belonging to prizes be allowed. Be it further known, that the rights of asylum are not extended to the privateers or their prizes of either of the contending parties, excepting only in cases of distress or of compulsory delay by stress of weather or dangers of the sea, or in such cases as may be regulated by treaty stipulation.

Given at our marine residence of Kailua, this 26th day of August, A. D. 1861, and the seventh of our reign.

By the King,

KAMEHAMEHA.

By the King and Kuhina Nui,

KAAHUMANU.

R. C. WYLLIE.

Bremen.

Ordinance of Senate against privateering. Published July 4, 1861.

[Translation.]

The Senate finds it necessary, in regard to the events which have occurred in North America, to renew the regulations contained in its ordinance of April 29, 1854, and accordingly makes the following notification for general observance:

1. All subjects of the state of Bremen are forbidden, under severe penalties, both from meddling in any way with privateering and from taking part therein, either by fitting out privateers themselves, or contributing through others to the same.

2. The proper officers are ordered not on any account to allow the fitting out or provisioning of privateers, under whatever flag or carrying whatever letters of marque, in any port of the Bremen territory, nor to admit into a Bremen port any such privateers, or the prizes made by them, except in cases of proved stress of weather at sea.

Resolved at Bremen, in the assembly of the Senate, on the 2d, and published on the 4th of July, 1861.

Hamburg.

Ordinance against privateering.

[Translation.]

On the occasion of the events which have taken place in the United States of North America, the Senate reminds the public that, according to the notification of July 7, 1856, relative to the declaration of the Congress of Paris on the application of maritime law in time of war, privateering is entirely abolished, and therefore it is prohibited to engage in any way in privateering, or to take part in it either in fitting out privateers or by assisting others to do so. The proper orders have also been issued not to allow in Hamburg ports the fitting out or provisioning of privateers, under whatever flag or furnished with whatever letters of marque, and not to admit into Hamburg ports or roadsteads any such privateers, with or without prizes, except in cases of proved stress of weather at sea.

Given in the assembly of the Senate, Hamburg, July 19, 1861.

Appendix No. V.

BRITISH PROCLAMATIONS OF NEUTRALITY.

I.—Spain and Spanish America.

A proclamation prohibiting his Majesty’s natural-born subjects from serving or enlisting, or entering themselves to serve, in the military forces or ships of war raised or set forth by the persons exercising or assigning to exercise the powers of government in certain provinces and parts of provinces in Spanish America, or in the military forces of his Catholic Majesty employed in Spanish America, or in his said Majesty’s ships of war, 27th November, 1817.

George, P. R.:

Whereas there unhappily subsists a state of warfare between his Catholic Majesty and divers provinces or parts of provinces in Spanish America; and whereas it has been represented to us that many of our subjects have, without our leave or license, enlisted or entered themselves to serve in the military forces or ships of war raised or set forth by the persons exercising or assuming to exercise the powers of government in such provinces or parts of provinces, and that divers others of our subjects are about, in like manner, to enter and enlist themselves; and whereas such practices are highly prejudicial to, and tend to the peace and welfare of our Crown and dominions; we do therefore hereby, by and with the advice of our privy council, strictly charge and command all and every of our natural-born subjects, of what degree or quality soever, not to serve in any such military forces or ships of war as aforesaid, and not to enlist or enter themselves to serve therein, and not to go beyond the seas, or embark in order to serve, or with intent to enter or enlist themselves to serve, in such military forces or ships o war; and it is at the same time our royal will and pleasure, and we do, by and with the advice aforesaid, hereby also strictly charge and command all and every of our said subjects not to serve or enlist, or enter themselves to serve, in any of the military forces or ships of war raised or set forth, or to be raised or set forth, by his Catholic Majesty, and not to go beyond the seas, or embark in order or to the intent to serve, or enter, or enlist themselves to serve in any such military forces or ships of war; it is, nevertheless, our royal will and pleasure that nothing herein contained shall be deemed or taken to prohibit any of our subjects who are engaged at the time of the date of this our proclamation in serving in the military forces of his Catholic Majesty, with our leave or license from continuing to serve therein, provided that such our said subjects do not serve with the military forces of his Catholic Majesty, when employed in Spanish America; and we do hereby, by and with the advice aforesaid, strictly require all our said subjects duly to conform to our commands herein contained, under pain of our highest displeasure and the utmost forfeitures, penalties, and punishments to which by law they will otherwise be liable.

Given at our court at Brighton, the 27th day of November, 1817, in the 58th year of his Majesty’s reign.

God save the King.

II.

British proclamation for putting in execution the law made to prevent the enlisting or engagement of his Majesty’s subjects in foreign service, and the fitting out or equipping in his Majesty’s dominions vessels for warlike purposes without his Majesty’s license, 6th June, 1823.

George R.:

Whereas hostilities at this time exist between different states and countries in Europe and America, and it is his Majesty’s determination to observe the strictest neutrality with respect to the states and countries engaged in such hostilities; and whereas his Majesty has been informed that attempts have been made to induce his Majesty’s subjects to engage in such hostilities, by entering into the military and naval service of some of the states and countries without his Majesty’s leave or license;

And whereas by an act made and passed in the 50th year of the reign of his late Majesty of blessed memory, intituled “An act to prevent the enlisting or engagement of his Majesty’s subjects to serve in foreign service, and the fitting out or equipping, in his Majesty’s dominions, vessels for warlike purposes, without his Majesty’s license,” It is, amongst other things, enacted “that if any natural-born subject of his Majesty,” &c. (Second clause of the foreign enlistment act.)

And it is further enacted “That it shall and may be lawful for any justice of the peace * * * * according to law for the said offense,’ (1st paragraph of the third clause of the foreign enlistment act.)

And it is further enacted “That in case any ship or vessel,” &c., (5th clause of the foreign enlistment act.)

And it is further enacted “That if any master or person,” &c., (6th clause of the foreign enlistment act.)

And it is further enacted “That if any person in any part of the United Kingdom,” &c, (7th clause of the foreign enlistment act.)

And it is further enacted “That if any person in any part of the United Kingdom,” &c, (8th clause of the foreign enlistment act.)

His Majesty, therefore, being resolved to cause the provisions of the said statute to be effectually put in execution, and being desirous that none of his Majesty’s subjects should unwarily subject themselves to the penalties thereby inflicted, hath thought fit, by and with the advice of his privy council, to issue this his royal proclamation, and doth hereby strictly command that no person or persons whatsoever do presume to commit or attempt any act, matter, or thing whatsoever contrary to the provisions of the said statute, and the tone, intent, and meaning thereof, and that the said provisions of the said statute be punctually observed and kept, upon pain of the several penalties by the said statute inflicted upon offenders against the same, and of his Majesty’s high displeasure.

Given at our court at Carleton House this 6th day of June, 1823, and in the fourth year of our reign.

God save the King.

III.—Greece and Turkey.

(30 September, 1825.)

George R.:

Whereas his Majesty, being at peace with all the powers and states of Europe and America, has repeatedly declared his royal determination to maintain a strict and impartial neutrality in the different contests in which certain of these powers and states are engaged;

And whereas the commission of acts of hostility by individual subjects of his Majesty against any power or state, or against the persons and properties of the subjects of any power or state, which being at peace with his Majesty is at the same time engaged in a contest with respect to which his Majesty has declared his determination to be neutral, is calculated to bring into question the sincerity of his Majesty’s declaration;

And whereas, if his Majesty’s subjects cannot be effectually restrained from such unwarranted commission of acts of hostility, it may be justly apprehended that the governments aggrieved thereby might be unable, on their part, to restrain their subjects from committing acts of violence upon the persons and property of unoffending subjects of his Majesty;

And whereas the Ottoman Porte, a power at peace with his Majesty, is and has been for some years past engaged in a contest with the Greeks, in which contest his Majesty has observed a strict and impartial neutrality;

And whereas great numbers of his Majesty’s loyal subjects reside and carry on a beneficial commerce, and possess establishments, and enjoy privileges within the dominions of the Ottoman Porte, protected by the faith of treaties between his Majesty and that power;

And whereas his Majesty has received recent and undoubted information that attempts are now making to induce certain of his Majesty’s subjects to fit out ships of war and privateers in the ports of his Majesty’s kingdom, and to embark therein, for the purpose of carrying on, under the Greek flag, hostile operations against the Ottoman government, of capturing and destroying Turkish ships and property, and of committing depredations on the coasts of the Turkish dominions;

And whereas such hostile operations would be directly contrary to the provisions of the act passed in the 59th year of the reign of his late Majesty (cap. 63) intituled “An act to prevent the enlisting or engagement of his Majesty’s subjects to serve in foreign service, and the fitting out or equipping, in his Majesty’s dominions, vessels for warlike purposes without his Majesty’s license,” in which it is among other things enacted, “That if any natural-born subject,” &c., (2d clause of the foreign enlistment act.)

And it is further enacted, “That if any person,” &c., (7th clause of the foreign enlistment act.)

His Majesty, therefore, being desirous of preserving to his subjects the blessings of peace which they now happily enjoy, and being resolved to persevere in that system of neutrality which his Majesty has so repeatedly declared his determination to maintain, in order that none of his Majesty’s subjects may unwarily render themselves liable to the penalties imposed by the statute herein mentioned, has thought fit, by and with the advice of his privy council, to issue this his royal proclamation.

And his Majesty does hereby strictly command that no person or persons whatsoever do presume to take part in any of the said contests, or to commit or attempt any act, matter, or thing whatsoever, contrary to the provisions of the said statute, upon pain of the several penalties by the said statute imposed, and of his Majesty’s high dis-pleasure.

And his Majesty, by and with the advice aforesaid, doth hereby enjoin all his Majesty’s subjects strictly to observe, as well towards the Ottoman Porte and the Greeks as towards all other belligerents with whom his Majesty is at peace, the duties of neutrality, and to respect in all and each of them the exercise of those belligerent rights which his Majesty has always claimed to exercise when his Majesty has himself been unhappily engaged in war.

Given at our court at Windsor, the 30th day of September, 1825, and in the sixth year of our reign.

God save the King.

IV.—Austria, France, and Sardinia.

(May 13, 1859.)

By the Queen.—A proclamation.

Victoria R.:

Whereas we are happily at peace with all sovereigns, powers, and states;

And whereas, notwithstanding our utmost exertions to preserve peace between all the sovereign powers and states now at war, hostilities have unhappily commenced between his Imperial Majesty the Emperor of Austria on the one part, and his Majesty the King of Sardinia and his Imperial Majesty the Emperor of the French on the other part;

And whereas a state of war now exists between his Imperial Majesty the Emperor of Austria on the one part, and his Majesty the King of Sardinia and his Imperial Majesty the Emperor of the French on the other part, and between their respective subjects and others inhabiting within their countries, territories, or dominions;

And whereas we are on terms of friendship and amicable intercourse with all and each of these sovereigns, and with their several subjects and others inhabiting within their countries, territories, or dominions;

And whereas great numbers of our loyal subjects reside and carry on commerce, and possess property and establishments, and enjoy various rights and privileges within the dominions of each of the aforesaid sovereigns, protected by the faith of treaties between us and each of the aforesaid sovereigns;

And whereas we, being desirous of preserving to our subjects the blessings of peace, which they now happily enjoy, are firmly purposed and determined to abstain altogether from taking any part, directly or indirectly, in the war now unhappily existing between the said sovereigns, their subjects and territories, and to remain at peace with and to maintain a peaceful and friendly intercourse with all and with each of them, and their respective subjects, and others inhabiting within any of their countries, territories, and dominions, and to maintain a strict and impartial neutrality in the said hostilities and war unhappily existing between them:

We therefore have thought fit, by and with the advice of our privy council, to issue this our royal proclamation.

And we do hereby strictly charge and command all our loving subjects to govern themselves accordingly, and to observe a strict neutrality in and during the aforesaid hostilities and war, and to abstain from violating or contravening either the laws and statutes of the realm in this behalf, or the law of nations in relation thereto, as they will answer to the contrary at their peril.

And whereas in and by a certain statute made and passed in the 59th year of his Majesty King George III, (cap. 69,) entitled “An act to prevent the enlisting or engagement of his Majesty’s subjects to serve in a foreign service, and the fitting out or equipping, in his Majesty’s dominions, vessels for warlike purposes without his Majesty’s license,” it is among other things declared and enacted as follows: “That if any person within any part of the United Kingdom,” &c., (7th clause of the foreign enlistment act.)

And it is in and by the said act further enacted, “That if any person in any part of the United Kingdom,” &c., (8th clause of the foreign enlistment act):

Now, in order that none of our subjects may unwarily render themselves liable to the penalties imposed by the said statute, we do hereby strictly command that no person or persons whatsoever do commit any act, matter, or thing whatsoever contrary to the provisions of the said statute, upon pain of the several penalties by the said statute imposed, and of our high displeasure.

And we do hereby further warn and admonish all our loving subjects, and all persons whatsoever entitled to our protection, to observe towards each and all of the aforesaid sovereigns, their subjects and territories, and towards all belligerents whatsoever with whom we are at peace, the duties of neutrality; and to respect, in all and each of them, the exercise of those belligerent rights which we and our royal predecessors have always claimed to exercise.

And we do hereby further warn all our loving subjects, and all persons whatsoever entitled to our protection, that if any of them shall presume, in contempt of this our royal proclamation, and of our high displeasure, to do any acts in derogation of their duty as subjects of a neutral sovereign, in a war between other sovereigns, or in violation or contravention of the law of nations in that behalf, as more especially by breaking, or endeavoring to break, any blockade lawfully and actually established by or on behalf of any or either of the said sovereigns, by carrying officers, soldiers, dispatches, arms, ammunition, military stores or materials, or any article or articles considered and deemed to be contraband of war, according to the law or modern usages of nations, for the use or service of any or either of the said sovereigns, that all persons so offending, together with their ships and goods, will rightfully incur, and be justly liable to, hostile capture, and to the penalties deuounced by the law of nations in that behalf.

And we do hereby give notice, that all our subjects and persons entitled to our protection who may misconduct themselves in the premises will do so at their peril and of their own wrong; and that they will in no wise obtain any protection from us against such capture or such penalties as aforesaid, but will, on the contrary, incur our high displeasure by such misconduct.

Given at our court at Buckingham Palace this 13th day of May, in the year of our Lord 1859, and in the 22d year of our reign.

God save the Queen.

V.—United States.

(May 13, 1861.)

By the Queen.—A proclamation.

Victoeia R.:

Whereas we are happily at peace with all sovereigns, powers, and states;

And whereas hostilities have unhappily commenced between the government of the United States of America and certain States styling themselves the Confederate States of America;

And whereas we, being at peace with the government of the United States, have declared our royal determination to maintain a strict and impartial neutrality in the contest between the said contending parties:

We therefore have thought fit, by and with the advice of our privy council, to issue this our royal proclamation;

And we do hereby strictly charge and command all our loving subjects to observe a strict neutrality in and during the aforesaid hostilities, and to abstain from violating or contravening either the laws and statutes of the realm in this behalf, or the law of nations in relation thereto, as they will answer to the contrary at their peril;

And whereas in and by a certain statute made and passed in the 59th year of his Majesty King George the III, intituled “An act to prevent the enlisting or engagement of his Majesty’s subjects to serve in a foreign service, and the fitting out or equipping, in his Majesty’s dominions, vessels for warlike purposes, without his Majesty’s license,” it is among other things declared and enacted as follows:

“That if any natural-born subject of his Majesty,” &c., (2d clause of the foreign enlistment act.)

And it is in and by the said act further enacted, “That if any person within any part of the United Kingdom,” &c., (7th clause of the foreign enlistment act.)

And it is in and by the said act further enacted, “That if any person in any part of the United Kingdom,” &c., (8th clause of the foreign enlistment act):

Now, in order that none of our subjects may unwarily render themselves liable to the penalties imposed by the said statute, we do hereby strictly command, that no person or persons whatsoever do commit any act, matter, or thing whatsoever, contrary to the provisions of the said statute, upon pain of the several penalties by the said statute imposed, and of our high displeasure.

And we do hereby further warn all our loving subjects, and all persons whatsoever entitled to our protection, that if any of them shall presume, in contempt of this our royal proclamation, and of our high displeasure, to do any acts in derogation of their duty as subjects of a neutral sovereign in the said contest, or in violation or contravention of the law of nations in that behalf; as for example, and more especially, by entering into the military service of either of the said contending parties as commissioned or non-commissioned officers or soldiers; or by serving as officers, sailors, or marines, on board any ship or vessel of war or transport of or in the service of either of the said contending parties; or by serving as officers, sailors, or marines, on board any privateer bearing letters of marque of or from either of the said contending parties; or by engaging to go or going to any place beyond the seas with intent to enlist or engage in any such service, or by procuring or attempting to procure within her Majesty’s dominions, at home or abroad, others to do so; or by fitting out, arming, or equipping any ship or vessel to be employed as a ship of war, or privateer, or transport, by either of the said contending parties; or by breaking or endeavoring to break any blockade lawfully and actually established by or on behalf of either of the said contending parties; or by carrying officers, soldiers, dispatches, arms, military stores or materials, or any article or articles considered and deemed to be contraband of war, according to the law or modern usage of nations, for the use or service of either of the said contending parties, all persons so offending will incur and be liable to the several penalties and penal consequences by the said statute, or by the law of nations in that behalf imposed or denounced.

And we do hereby declare, that all our subjects and persons entitled to our protection, who may misconduct themselves in the premises, will do so at their peril and of their own wrong, and that they will in nowise obtain any protection from us against any liabilities or penal consequences, but will, on the contrary, incur our high displeasure by such misconduct.

Given at our court at the White Lodge, Richmond Park, this 13th day of May, in the year of our Lord, 1861, and in the 24th year of our reign.

God save the Queen.

VI.—Spain and Chili.

(6th February 1866.)

By the Queen.—A proclamation.

Victoria:

Whereas we are are happily at peace with all sovereigns, powers, and states. And whereas hostilities have unhappily commenced between the government of Spain and the government of the republic of Chili. And whereas we, being at peace with both the said governments, have declared our royal determination to maintain a strict and impartial neutrality in the contest between the said contending parties.

We therefore have thought fit, by and with the advice of our privy council, to issue this our royal proclamation.

And we do hereby strictly charge and command all our loving subjects to observe a strict neutrality in and during the aforesaid hostilities, and to abstain from violating or contravening either the laws and statutes of the realm in this behalf, or the law of nations in relation thereto, as they will answer to the contrary at their peril.

And whereas, in and by a certain statute made and passed in the 59th year of his Majesty King George the III, intitutled “An act to prevent the enlisting or engagement of his Majesty’s subjects to serve in a foreign service, and the fitting out or equipping, in his Majesty’s dominions, vessels for warlike purposes, without his Majesty’s license,” it is, amongst other things, declared and enacted as follows:

“That if any natural-born subject of his Majesty,” &c., (2nd clause of the foreign enlistment act.)

And it is in and by the said act further enacted, “That if any person within any part of the United Kingdom,” &c., (7th clause of the foreign enlistment act.)

And it is in and by the said act further enacted, “That if any person in any part of the United Kingdom,” &c., (8th clause of the foreign enlistment act.)

Now, in order that none of our subjects may unwarily render themselves liable to the penalties imposed by the said statute, we do hereby strictly command that no person or persons whatsoever do commit any act, matter, or thing whatsoever, contrary to the provisions of the said statute, upon pain of the several penalties by the said statute imposed, and of our high displeasure.

And we do hereby further warn all our loving subjects, and all persons whatsoever entitled to our protection, that if any of them shall presume, in contempt of this our royal proclamation, and of our high displeasure, to do any acts in derogation of their duty, as subjects of a neutral sovereign, in said contest, or in violation or contravention of the law of nations in that behalf, as for example and more especially, by entering into the military service of either of the said contending parties as commissioned or non-commissioned officers or soldiers; or by serving as officers, sailors, or marines, on board any ship or vessel of war or transport, of or in the service of either of the said contending parties, or by serving as officers, sailors, or marines, on board any privateers bearing letters of marque of or from either of the said contending parties; or by engaging to go or going to any place beyond the seas with intent to enlist or engage in any such service; or by procuring or attempting to procure, within her Majesty’s dominions, at home or abroad, others to do so; or by fitting out, arming, or equipping any ship or vessel to be employed as a ship of war, or privateer, or transport, by either of the said contending parties; or by breaking or endeavoring to break any blockade lawfully and actually established by or on behalf of either of the said contending parties; or by carrying officers, soldiers, dispatches, arms, military stores, or materials, or any article or articles considered and deemed to be contraband of war, according to the law or modern usage of nations, for the use or service of either of the said contending parties, all persons so offending will incur and be liable to the several penalties and penal consequences by the said statute, or by the law of nations in that behalf imposed or denounced.

And we do hereby declare that all our subjects, and persons entitled to our protection, who may misconduct themselves in the premises, will do so at their peril, and of their own wrong, and that they will in nowise obtain any protection from us against any liabilities or penal consequences, but will, on the contrary, incur our high displeasure by such misconduct.

Given at our court at Osborne House, Isle of Wight, this 3d day of February, in the year of our Lord 1866, and in the 29th year of our reign.

God save the Queen.

VII.—Spain and Peru.

(13th March, 1866.)

The same as the preceding, (Spain and Chili,) mutatis mutandis.

VII.—Austria, Prussia, Italy, Germany.

By the Queen.—A proclamation.

Victoria R.:

Whereas we are happily at peace with all sovereigns, powers, and states;

And whereas, notwithstanding our utmost exertions to preserve peace between all the sovereign powers and states now at war, hostilities have unhappily commenced between his Imperial Majesty the Emperor of Austria, his Majesty the King of Prussia, his Majesty the King of Italy, and the Germanic Confederation;

And whereas a state of war now exists between his Imperial Majesty the Emperor of Austria, his Majesty the King of Prussia, his Majesty the King of Italy, and the Germanic Confederation, and between their respective subjects and others inhabiting within their countries, territories, or dominions;

And whereas we are on terms of friendship and amicable intercourse with all and each of these sovereigns, and with the Germanic Confederation, and with their several subjects and others inhabiting within their countries, territories, or dominions;

And whereas great numbers of our loyal subjects reside and carry on commerce, and possess property and establishments, and enjoy various rights and privileges, within the dominions of each of the aforesaid sovereigns and states, protected by the faith of treaties between us and each of the aforesaid sovereigns and states;

And whereas we, being desirous of preserving to our subjects the blessings of peace, which they now happily enjoy, are firmly purposed and determined to abstain altogether from taking any part, directly or indirectly, in the war now unhappily existing between the said sovereigns and states, their subjects and territories, and to remain at peace with and to maintain a peaceful and friendly intercourse with all and with each of them, and their respective subjects and others inhabiting within any of their countries, territories, and dominions, and to maintain a strict and impartial neutrality in the said hostilities and war unhappily existing between them;

We therefore have thought fit, by and with the advice of our privy council, to issue this our royal proclamation:

And we do hereby strictly charge and command all our loving subjects to govern themselves accordingly, and to observe a strict neutrality in and during the aforesaid hostilities and war, and to abstain from violating or contravening either the laws and statutes of the realm in this behalf, or the law of nations in relation thereto, as they will answer to the contrary at their peril.

And whereas, in and by a certain statute made and passed in the 59th year of his Majesty King George the Third, entitled “An act to prevent the enlisting or engagement of his Majesty’s subjects to serve in a foreign service, and the fitting out or equipping, in his Majesty’s dominions, vessels for warlike purposes, without his Majesty’s license,” it is amongst other things declared and enacted as follows: “That if any person within any part of the United Kingdom,” &c., (7th clause of the foreign enlistment act.)

And it is in and by the said act further enacted, “That if any person in any part of the United Kingdom,” &c., (8th clause of the foreign enlistment act.)

Now, in order that none of our subjects may unwarily render themselves liable to the penalties imposed by the said statute, we do hereby strictly command that no person or persons whatsoever do commit any act, matter, or thing whatsoever contrary to the provisions of the said statute, upon pain of the several penalties by the said statute imposed, and of our high displeasure.

And we do hereby further warn and admonish all our loving subjects, and all persons whatsoever entitled to our protection, to observe towards each and all of the aforesaid sovereigns and states, their subjects and territories, and towards all belligerents whatsoever with whom we are at peace, the duties of neutrality; and to respect in all and each of them the exercise of those belligerent rights which we and our royal predecessors have always claimed to exercise.

And we do hereby further warn all our loving subjects, and all persons whatsoever entitled to our protection, that if any of them shall presume, in contempt of this our royal proclamation and of our high displeasure, to do any acts in derogation of their duty as subjects of a neutral sovereign in a war between other sovereigns and states, or in violation or contravention of the law of nations in that behalf, as more especially by breaking or endeavoring to break any blockade lawfully and actually established by or on behalf of any or either of the said sovereigns and states, by carrying officers, soldiers, dispatches, arms, ammunition, military stores or materials, or any article or articles considered and deemed to be contraband of war according to the law or modern usages of nations, for the use or service of any or either of the said sovereigns and states, that all persons so offending, together with their ships and goods, will rightfully incur and be justly liable to hostile capture, and to the penalties denounced by the law of nations in that behalf.

And we do hereby give notice, that all our subjects and persons entitled to our protection who may misconduct themselves in the premises will do so at their peril and of their own wrong; and that they will in nowise obtain any protection from us against such capture, or such penalties as aforesaid, but will, on the contrary, incur our high displeasure by such misconduct.

Given at our court at Windsor, this 27th day of June, in the year of our Lord 1866, and in the 30th year of our reign.

God save the Queen.

Appendix No. VI.

[June 3, 1867].

REGULATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS PUBLISHED BY HER MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT DURING THE CIVIL WAR IN THE UNITED STATES, 1861–65.

Letter from the Foreign Office to the Admiralty, Colonial, War, and India Offices, interdicting armed cruisers and privateers, whether of the United States of North America or the so-styled Confederate States, from carrying prizes into British ports. June 1, 1861.

Foreign Office, June 1, 1861.

My Lords: Her Majesty’s government are, as you are aware, desirous of observing the strictest neutrality in the contest which appears to be imminent between the United States and the so-styled Confederate States of North America; and with the view more effectually to carry out this principle they propose to interdict the armed ships, and also the privateers of both parties, from carrying prizes made by them into the ports, harbors, roadsteads, or waters of the United Kingdom, or of any of her Majesty’s colonies or possessions abroad.

I have accordingly to acquaint your lordships that the Queen has been pleased to direct that orders in conformity with the principles above stated should forthwith be addressed to all proper authorities in the United Kingdom, and to her Majesty’s naval or other authorities in all quarters beyond the United Kingdom, for their guidance in the circumstances.

I have, &c.,

J. RUSSELL.

The Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty.

Note.—A similar letter was addressed, on the same day, to each of the secretaries of state for India, war, and the colonies.

[Extract from the London Gazette of the 15th December, 1863.]

Letter from Earl Russell to the lords commissioners of the admiralty, and dispatched from, the duke of Newcastle to the governor of the Bahamas.

Foreign Office, January 31, 1862.

My Lords: Her Majesty being fully determined to observe the duties of neutrality during the existing hostilities between the United States and the states calling themselves “the Confederate States of America,” and being, moreover, resolved to prevent, as far as possible, the use of her Majesty’s harbors, ports, and coasts, and the waters within her Majesty’s territorial jurisdiction, in aid of the warlike purposes of either belligerent, has commanded me to communicate to your lordships, for your guidance, the following rules, which are to be treated and enforced as her Majesty’s orders and directions:

Her Majesty is pleased further to command that these rules shall be put in force in the United Kingdom and in the channel islands on and after Thursday, the 6th day of February next, and in her Majesty’s territories and possessions beyond the seas six days after the day when the governor or other chief authority of each of such territories or possessions respectively shall have notified and published the same, stating in such notification that the said rules are to be obeyed by all persons within the same territories and possessions.

I. During the continuance of the present hostilities between the government of the United States of North America and the States calling themselves “the Confederate States of America,” or until her Majesty shall otherwise order, no ship of war or privateer belonging to either of the belligerents shall be permitted to enter or remain in the port of Nassau, or in any other port, roadstead, or waters of the Bahama islands, except by special leave of the lieutenant-governor of the Bahama islands, or in case of stress of weather. If any such vessel should enter any such port, roadstead, or waters by special leave, or under stress of weather, the authorities of the place shall require her to put to sea as soon as possible, without permitting her to take in any supplies beyond what may be necessary for her immediate use.

If, at the time when this order is first notified in the Bahama islands, there shall be any such vessel already within any port, roadstead, or waters of those islands, the lieutenant governor shall give notice to such vessel to depart, and shall require her to put to sea within such time as he shall, under the circumstances, consider proper and reasonable. If there shall then be ships of war or privateers belonging to both the said belligerents within the territorial jurisdiction of her Majesty, in or near the same port, roadstead, or waters, the lieutenant governor shall fix the order of time in which such vessels shall depart. No such vessel of either belligerent shall be permitted to put to sea until after the expiration of at least twenty-four hours from the time when the last preceding vessel of the other belligerent (whether the same shall be a ship of war, or privateer, or merchant ship) which shall have left the same port, roadstead, or waters, or waters adjacent thereto, shall have passed beyond the territorial jurisdiction of her Majesty.

II. During the continuance of the present hostilities between the government of the United States of North America and the States calling themselves “the Confederate States of America,” all ships of war and privateers of either belligerent are prohibited from making use of any port or roadstead in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or in the channel islands, or in any of her Majesty’s colonies or foreign possessions or dependencies, or of any waters subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the British Crown, as a station or place of resort for any warlike purpose or for the purpose of obtaining any facilities of warlike equipment; and no ship of war or privateer of either belligerent shall hereafter be permitted to sail out of or leave any port, roadstead, or waters subject to British jurisdiction, from which any vessel of the other belligerent (whether the same shall be a ship of war, a privateer, or a merchant ship) shall have previously departed, until after the expiration of at least twenty-four hours from the departure of such last-mentioned vessel beyond the territorial jurisdiction of her Majesty.

III. If any ship of war or privateer of either belligerent shall, after the time when this order shall be first notified and put in force in the United Kingdom and in the channel islands, and in the several colonies and foreign possessions and dependencies of her Majesty, respectively enter any port, roadstead, or waters belonging to her Majesty either in the United Kingdom or in the channel islands, or in any of her Majesty’s colonies or foreign possessions or dependencies, such vessel shall be required to depart and to put to sea within twenty four hours after her entrance into such port, roadstead, or waters, except in case of stress of weather, or of her requiring provisions or things necessary for the subsistence of her crew, or repairs; in either of which cases the authorities of the port, or of the nearest port, as the case may be, shall require her to put to sea as soon as possible after the expiration of such period of twenty-four hours, without permitting her to take in supplies beyond what may be necessary for her immediate use; and no such vessel, which may have been allowed to remain within British waters for the purpose of repair, shall continue in any such port, roadstead, or “waters, for a longer period than twenty-four hours after her necessary repairs shall have been completed: Provided, nevertheless, That in all cases in which there shall be any vessels (whether ships of war, privateers, or merchant ships) of both the said belligerent parties in the same port, roadstead, or waters within the territorial jurisdiction of her Majesty, there shall be an interval of not less than twenty-four hours between the departure therefrom of any such vessel (whether a ship of war, a privateer, or a merchant ship) of the one belligerent, and the subsequent departure therefrom of any ship of war or privateer of the other belligerent; and the times, hereby limited, for the departure of such ships of war and privateers respectively, shall always, in case of necessity, be extended so far as may be requisite for giving effect to this proviso, but not further or otherwise.

IV. No ship of war or privateer of either belligerent shall hereafter be permitted, while in any port, roadstead, or waters subject to the territorial jurisdiction of her Majesty, to take in any supplies, except provisions and such other things as may be requisite for the subsistence of her crew; and except so much coal only as may be sufficient to carry such vessel to the nearest port of her own country, or to some nearer destination; and no coal shall be again supplied to any such ship of war or privateer, in the same or any other port, roadstead, or waters subject to the territorial jurisdiction of her Majesty, without special permission, until after the expiration of three months from the time when such coal may have been last supplied to her within British waters as aforesaid.

I have, &c.,

RUSSELL.

Note.—A similar letter has been addressed to the secretaries of state for the home, colonial, war, and India departments, and to the lords commissioners of her Majesty’s treasury.

Downing Street, October 6, 1863.

Sir: Doubts having been expressed as to whether, under the regulations of the 31st January, 1862, which were embodied in a proclamation issued by you on the 11th March following, it is required that the commander of a belligerent ship of war or privateer should obtain the permission of the local authorities before entering the ports, roadsteads, or waters of the Bahamas out-islands, when the governor is not there present, I am to acquaint you that Earl Russell has taken her Majesty’s pleasure thereupon, and you are to understand that at the ports of the out-islands, as at Nassau, the special leave of the governor himself is required (unless in stress of weather) by any belligerent vessel desiring to enter, with this exception only, that in cases of grave emergency and real necessity and distress, such as a sailing vessel being dismasted, or accident happening to the machinery of a steam-vessel, the vessel may enter the ports, roadsteads or waters, on obtaining leave from a resident officer, to whom the governor shall have delegated his authority in that behalf.

With a view to give effect to her Majesty’s intentions, you will be pleased to convey to the officers in the out-islands to whom it may be best confided, the authority in question, taking care to communicate to them copies of the regulations of the 31st January, 1862, and calling their especial attention to the limits of the authority delegated, and to that clause of the regulations of 31st January, 1862, in which it is directed that vessels entering under stress of weather, or by special leave, shall be required to put to sea as soon as possible.

I have, &c,

NEWCASTLE.

Governor Bayley, C. B., &c., &c., &c.

Return to an address of the honorable the House of Commons, dated 3d June, 1864, for “copy of any additional instructions to colonial governors on the subject of belligerent cruisers.”

FREDERICK ROGERS.

Colonial Office, June 6, 1864.

Circular instructions to governors of colonies respecting the treatment of prizes captured by federal or confederate cruisers if brought into British waters.

Downing Street, June 2, 1864.

Sir: I think it well to communicate to you the decisions at which her Majesty’s government have arrived on certain questions which have arisen respecting the treatment of prizes captured by federal or confederate cruisers if brought into British waters.

1. If any prize captured by a ship of war of either of the belligerent powers shall be brought by the captors within her Majesty’s jurisdiction, notice shall be given by the governor to the captors immediately to depart and remove such prize.

2. A vessel which shall have been actually and bona fide converted into, and used as, a public vessel of war, shall not be deemed to be a prize within the meaning of these rules.

3. If any prize shall be brought within her Majesty’s jurisdiction through mere stress of weather, or other extreme and unavoidable necessity, the governor may allow for her removal such time as he may consider to be necessary.

4. If any prize shall not be removed at the time prescribed to the captors by the governor, the governor may detain such prize until her Majesty’s pleasure shall be made known.

5. If any prize shall have been captured by any violation of the territory or territorial waters of her Majesty, the governor may detain such prize until her Majesty’s pleasure shall be made known.

Her Majesty’s government have not thought it necessary to make any addition to the instructions already given with respect to cargoes, viz, that her Majesty’s orders apply as much to prize cargoes of every kind which may be brought by any armed ships or privateers of either belligerent into British waters as to the captured vessels themselves. They do not, however, apply to any articles which may have formed part of any such cargoes if brought within British jurisdiction, not by armed ships or privateers of either belligerent, but by other persons who may have acquired or may claim property in them by reason of any dealings with the captors.

These rules are for the guidance of the executive authority, and are not intended to interfere in any way with the process of any court of justice.

I have, &c.,

EDWARD CARDWELL.

[“London Gazette,” September 9, 1864.]

Foreign Office, September 8, 1864.

It is hereby notified that her Majesty has been pleased to order that for the future no ship of war belonging to either of the belligerent powers of North America shall be allowed to enter, or to remain, or be, in any of her Majesty’s ports for the purpose of being dismantled or sold; and her Majesty has been pleased to give directions to the commissioners of her Majesty’s customs, and to the governors of her Majesty’s colonies and foreign possessions, to see that this order is properly carried into effect.

[Extract from the “London Gazette” of May 19, 1865.]

Letter from Earl Russell to the lords commissioners of the admiralty.

Foreign Office, May 11, 1865.

My Lords: I have the honor to acquaint you that, in the existing state of the civil war in America, and the uncertainty which may be felt as to its continuance, it appears to her Majesty’s government that the time has arrived for ceasing to enforce so much of the orders which, in pursuance of my letter of the 31st of January, 1862, were issued by the several departments of her Majesty’s government, as empowered the authorities of any port belonging to her Majesty, either in the United Kingdom or the channel islands, or in any of her Majesty’s colonies or foreign possessions or dependencies, to require any ship of war or privateer of either belligerent which might enter any port, roadstead, or waters belonging to her Majesty, in order to obtain provisions or things necessary for the subsistence of her crew, or to effect repairs, to put to sea as soon as possible after the expiration of a period of 24 hours, without permitting her to take in supplies beyond what might be necessary for her immediate use; and not to suffer any such vessel as might have been allowed to remain within British waters for the purpose of repair to continue in any port, roadstead, or waters belonging to her Majesty for a longer period than 24 hours after her necessary repairs should have been completed; and also so much of the same orders as limited the quantity of coal and the period within which it might be obtained, to be embarked on board any such ship of war or privateer of either belligerent.

I have addressed a similar letter to the secretaries of state for the home, colonial, war, and India departments, and to the lords commissioners of her Majesty’s treasury.

RUSSELL.

Note.—A similar letter has been addressed to the secretaries of state for the home, colonial, war, and India departments, and to the lords commissioners of her Majesty’s treasury.

[Extract from the “London Gazette” of June 5, 1865.]

Letter from Eavl Russell to the lords commissioners of the admiralty.

Foreign Office, June 2, 1865.

My Lords: I have the honor to state to your lordships that since the date of my letter of the 11th ultimo intelligence has reached this country that the late President of the so-called Confederate States has been captured by the military forces of the United States, and has been transported as a prisoner to Fort Monroe, and that the armies hitherto kept in the field by the Confederate States have for the most part surrendered or dispersed.

In this posture of affairs her Majesty’s government are of opinion that neutral nations cannot but consider the civil war in North America as at an end.

In conformity with this opinion her Majesty’s government recognize that peace has been restored within the whole territory of which the United States of North America before the commencement of the civil war were in undisturbed possession.

As a necessary consequence of such recognition on the part of her Majesty’s government, her Majesty’s several authorities in all ports, harbors, and waters belonging to her Majesty, whether in the United Kingdom or beyond the seas, must henceforth refuse permission to any vessel of war carrying a confederate flag to enter any such ports, harbors, and waters; and must require any confederate vessels of war which, at the time when these orders reach her Majesty’s authorities in such ports, harbors, and waters may have already entered therein on the faith of proclamations heretofore issued by her Majesty, and which, having complied with the provisions of such proclamations, may be actually within such ports, harbors, and waters, forthwith to depart from them.

But her Majesty’s government consider that a due regard for national good faith and honor requires that her Majesty’s authorities should be instructed, as regards any such confederate vessels so departing, that they should have the benefit of the prohibition heretofore enforced against pursuit of them within 24 hours by a cruizer of the United States lying at the time within any such ports, harbors, and waters, and that such prohibition should be then and for the last time maintained in their favor.

If, however, the commander of any confederate vessel of war which may be found in any port, harbor, or waters of her Majesty’s dominions at the time these new orders are received by her Majesty’s authorities, or may enter such port, harbor, or waters within a month after these new orders are received, should wish to divest his vessel of her warlike character, and, after disarming her, to remain without a confederate flag within British waters, her Majesty’s authorities may allow the commander of such vessel to do so at his own risk in all respects, in which case he should be distinctly apprised that he is to expect no further protection from her Majesty’s government, except such as he may be entitled to in the ordinary course of the administration of the law in time of peace.

The rule as to 24 hours would of course not be applicable to the case of such vessel.

I have addressed a similar letter to the secretaries of state for the home, colonial, India, and war offices, and also to the lords commissioners of her Majesty’s treasury, requesting them, as I do your lordships, to issue instructions in conformity with the decision of her Majesty’s government to the several British authorities at home or abroad who may be called upon to act in the matter.

I am, &c.,

RUSSELL.

Note.—A similar letter was addressed to the secretaries of state for the home, colonial, war, and India departments, and to the lords commissioners of her Majesty’s treasury.

Appendix No. VII.

[June 3, 1867].

Return to an address of the honorable the House of Commons, dated July 8, 1863, for “copy of a memorial from certain shipowners of Liverpool to the secretary of state for foreign affairs, suggesting an alteration in the foreign enlistment act.”

No. 1.

To the right honorable the Earl Russell, her Majesty’s principal secretary of state for the foreign department.

The memorial of the undersigned shipowners of Liverpool showeth: That your memorialists, who are deeply interested in British shipping, view with dismay the probable future consequences of a state of affairs which permits a foreign belligerent to construct in, and send to sea from, British ports vessels of war, in contravention of the provisions of the existing law.

That the immediate effect of placing at the disposal of that foreign belligerent a very small number of steam-cruisers has been to paralyze the mercantile marine of a powerful maritime and naval nation, inflicting within a few months losses, direct and indirect, on its shipowning and mercantile interests, which years of peace may prove inadequate to retrieve.

That your memorialists cannot shut their eyes to the probability that in any future war between England and a foreign power, however insignificant in naval strength, the example now set by subjects of her Majesty while England is neutral may be followed by citizens of other countries neutral when England is belligerent; and that the attitude of helplessness in which her Majesty’s government have declared their inability to detect and punish breaches of the law notoriously committed by certain of her Majesty’s subjects, may hereafter be successfully imitated by the governments of those other countries in answer to English remonstrances.

That the experience of late events has proved to the conviction of your memorialists that the possession by a belligerent of swift steam-cruisers, under no necessity, actual or conventional, to visit the possibly blockaded home ports of that belligerent, but able to obtain all requisite supplies from neutrals, will become a weapon of offense against which no preponderance of naval strength can effectually guard, and the severity of which will be felt in the ratio of the shipping and mercantile wealth of the nation against whose mercantile marine the efforts of those steam-cruisers may be directed.

That the effect of future war with any power thus enabled to purchase, prepare, and refit vessels of war in neutral ports, will inevitably be to transfer to neutral flags that portion of the sea-carrying trade of the world which is now enjoyed by your memorialists and by other British shipowners.

That over and above the chances of pecuniary loss to themselves, your memorialists share in the regret with which a law regarding community must naturally look on successful attempts to evade the provisions of an act of Parliament passed for a single and simple purpose, but which has been found not to give the executive all the powers needed for its effective execution.

That your memorialists would accordingly respectfully urge upon your lordship the expediency of proposing to Parliament to sanction the introduction of such amendments into the foreign enlistment act as may have the effect of giving greater power to the executive to prevent the construction in British ports of ships destined for the use of belligerents.

And your memorialists would further suggest to your lordship the importance of endeavoring to secure the assent of the governments of the United States of America and of other foreign countries to the adoption of similar regulations in those countries also.

All which your memorialists respectfully submit.

Lamport & Holt.

James Baines & Co.

Richard Nicholson & Son.

W. B. Boadle.

J. Prowse & Co.

Currie, Newton & Co.

Nelson, Alexander & Co.

Kendall Brown.

G. S. H. Fletcher & Co.

J. Aikin.

Finlay, Campbell & Co.

Cropper, Ferguson & Co.

J. Campbell.

S. R. Graves.

Rankin, Gilmour & Co.

Rathbone Bros. & Co.

James Brown & Co.

James Poole & Co.

W. Jacob & Co.

Henry Moore & Co.

Imrie & Tomlinson.

Thomas Chilton

Jones, Palmer & Co.

Farnworth & Jardine.

Thomas & James Harrison.

L. H. Macintyre.

Potter Brothers.

Chas. Geo. Cowie & Co.

W. J. Seally.

R. Girvin & Co.

C. T. Bowling & Co.

Liverpool, June 9, 1863.

No. 2.

Mr. Hammond to Messrs. Lamport & Holt, and others.

Foreign Office, July 6, 1863.

Gentlemen: I am directed by Earl Russell to acknowledge the receipt of the memorial dated the 9th of June, signed by you and others of the merchants at Liverpool, in which you urge upon his lordship the expediency of proposing to Parliament such amendments to the foreign enlistment act as shall enable the government to prevent the construction in British ports of ships destined for the use of belligerents.

I am to state to you, in reply, that in Lord Russell’s opinion the foreign enlistment act is effectual for all reasonable purposes, and to the full extent to which international law or comity can require, provided proof can be obtained of any act done with the intent to violate it.

Even if the provisions of the act were extended, it would still be necessary that such proof should be obtained, because no law could or should be passed to punish upon suspicion instead of upon proof.

I am, &c.,

E. HAMMOND.

1. Mr. C. S. A. Abbott, of the Foreign Office, was attacked to the commission and in attendance at the meetings.
2. “An act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States,” April 30, 1790, ch. 9. Act of March 3, 1817, ch. 58.
3. Fifteenth Congress, sess. 1, chap. 8, April 20, 1818.
4. Signed by Benjamin Franklin.
5. See the correspondence respecting Mr. Jay’s mission, American State Papers, vol. i, pages 470 to 525. (There is an interesting report on the law of prize, furnished to Mr. Jay by Sir W. Scott and Dr. Nicholl, which deserves attention, page 494.)
6. Re-enacted March 2, 1797, and made perpetual April 24, 1800.
7. This was the first treaty providing for a commission to investigate British and American claims. A second commission was appointed under the treaty of Ghent of 1814, to consider claims arising from the seizure of slaves; and a third under the convention of February 8, 1853, for the general settlement of outstanding claims.
8. Mr. Bemis, in his pamphlet on “American Neutrality,” published at Boston in 1866, remarks: “To my own appreciation both of these ‘bonding’ clauses, as they are called, had most of their neutral virtue taken out of them when Congress made them applicable.—(1.) To ‘vessels belonging wholly or in part to citizens of the United States,’ thereby leaving foreigners at liberty to clear unneutrally armed ships, (see project of the act, Ann. Cong. 1816–’17, p. 477, sec. 1; (2.) When they limited the bond so as only to prevent ‘such owners’ from cruising or committing hostilities, instead of making the bond guard against belligerent employment of the vessel by ‘any person to whom they (such owners) may sell or pretend to sell such vessel.’ (Ann. Cong. 1816–17, p. 478, sec. 2;) and (3,) by requiring that any vessel to be subject to detention must have on board ‘a cargo principally consisting of arms and munitions of war,’ thus letting go at large a vessel armed to the teeth, and ‘manifestly built for warlike purposes,’ provided she adopts the precaution of taking no such cargo with her, and is owned by foreigners.”
9. Ordinance of the senate of Hamburg. April 26, 1854; ordnance of the senate of Lubec, April 28, 1854; of Lubec of the same date; government of Oldenburg, April 20, 1854; the King of Sweden, April 8; Denmark, April 20; Mecklenburg. April 26; Hanover, May 5; the two Sicilies. May 17; Tuscany, June 3; Belgium, April 25; Sandwich Islands, July 17, 1854.

10. Note.—The references here mentioned are the following:

    (a) At end of sec. 1. “See 2 McLean, 2; 5 Ibid., 250.”

    (b) Sec. 2, after words “If any person.” “Foreign consuls are not exempted from the penal effects of the statute. A foreign minister who violates its provisions is liable to be summarily dismissed. 7 Opinions, 367.” [N. B. The opinion here referred to is that of Caleb Cushing, which has been circulated among the commissioners.]

    (c) In 2d sec., after the second “himself.” “This act is declaratory of the pre-existing law of nations, and was intended to aid the Executive in the enforcement of that law. The ‘Santissima Trinidada.’ 1 Brock, 7 Opinions, 367.”

    (d) In sec. 2, after word “Enlisted.” “It is not a crime under this act to leave this country with intent to enlist in foreign military service; nor to transport persons out of the country with their own consent who have an intention of so enlisting. To constitute a crime under this statute such persons must be hired or retained to go abroad with the intent of such enlisting. United States v. Karinski. 8 Law Reports, 254. See 4 Opinions, 336.”

    (e) In sec. 3, after the first “arm.” “Either will constitute the offense; it is not necessary that the vessel should be armed, or in a condition to commit hostilities on leaving the United States. United States v. Quincy, 6 Pet., 445. See 3 Opin., 738, 741.”

    (f) In sec. 3, after the word “armed.” “See United States v. Guinet, 2 Dall., 328.”

    (g) In sec. 3, after words “with intent” “Any degree of intent to commit hostilities against a nation with which this government is at peace is sufficient. 5 Opin., 92. But there must be a fixed intention that the vessel should be so employed; a mere wish so to employ her, if he could obtain funds on her arrival at a foreign port for the purpose of arming her, is not sufficient to render the defendant guilty. United States v. Quincy, 6 Pet., 445; Moodie v. The Alfred, 3 Dall., 307. But the fact that the arms and ammunition were cleared out as cargo, and the men shipped as for a common mercantile voyage, will not vary the case. The Oran Para, 7 Wheat., 486.”

    (h) In sec. 3, after word “people.” “United States v. Quincy, 6 Pet., 467.”

    (i) In sec. 5, after first “vessel.” “As to what amounts to the augmentation of the force of a foreign armed vessel within our ports, see United States v. Grassin, 3 W. C. C., 65; the schooner Nancy, Bee., 73; Moodie v. The Ship Brothers, Ibid., 76; Moodie v. The Betty Cathcart, Ibid., 292; United States v. Guinet, 2 Dall., 328; 2 Opin., 86.”

    (k) In sec. 6, after first, “United States.” “It is unimportant that such association originated beyond seas, if the expedition was carried on from hence. Ex parte Needham, Pet. C. C., 487.”

    (l) In sec. 6, after words “means for.” “See 5 McLean, 250, 306; 2 Wheat. Cr. Cas., xlviii; 3 Ibid., 174.”