To facilitate matters, while I was yet in London I made to him, in writing, a communication to that effect, of which I send you a copy, marked B. You will observe that I ask Mr. Adams, in this communication, whether Great Britain has, at his instance, or otherwise, considered the Marcy amendment? This was done after conference with him, and after he had told me what would be his answer. He said that after I had made the proposition here it was considered at London, and Lord John Russell, upon his (Mr. Adams) suggesting this amendment to the treaty there, said at once that the principle was inadmissible; that the British government would not assent to it. This answer I thought it most desirable we should have on record, and therefore made a suggestion in my note which Mr. Adams said he would adopt. Great Britain, so far as I know, never has, before this, distinctly placed herself on record against the adoption of that humane and noble principle as a provision of maritime law. I was much gratified that I had gone over to London. I felt a sense of relief in conferring with Mr. Adams upon questions of so much importance, and got knowledge of some facts of which I had no knowledge before. I was in England but two days, and then returned immediately to Paris. I missed, however, the mail by the steamer of last week, which I much regretted. With much respect, your obedient servant, His Excellency WM. H. SEWARD, WM. L. DAYTON. FOREIGN OFFICE, July 18, 1861. SIR: Upon considering your proposition of Saturday last I have two remarks to make: 1. The course hitherto followed has been a simple notification of adherence to the declaration of Paris by those states which were not originally parties to it. 2. The declaration of Paris was one embracing various powers, with a view to general concurrence upon questions of maritime law, and not an insulated engagement between two powers only. Her Majesty's government are willing to waive entirely any objection on the first of these heads, and to accept the form which the government of the United States prefers. With regard to the second, her Majesty's government arc of opinion that they should be assured that the United States are ready to enter into a similar engagement with France, and with other maritime powers, who are parties to the declaration of Paris, and do not propose to make singly and separately a convention with Great Britain only. But as much time might be required for separate communications between the government of the United States and all the maritime powers who were parties to or have acceded to the declaration of Paris, her Majesty's gov crnment would deem themselves authorized to advise the Queen to conclude a convention on this subject with the President of the United States so soon as they shall have been informed that a similar convention has been agreed upon, and is ready for signature, between the President of the United States and the Emperor of the French, so that the two conventions might be signed simultaneously and on the same day. I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obedient, humble servant, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, Esq., &c., &c., &c. J. RUSSELL. B. LONDON, July 25, 1861. SIR: Yours of the 19th instant, enclosing a copy of Lord John Russell's of the 18th instant, was duly received by me at Paris. My powers to negotiate with France an accession by the United States to the treaty of Paris of 1856 are of the same general character as your own. Under those powers and the instructions received by me from Washington I did propose such accession to the government of France, but with an addition to the first clause of the following words: "And the private property of subjects or citizens of one of the belligerents shall not be seized, upon the high seas, by the vessels of war of the other belligerents, unless it may be contraband of war." To this proposition I received an answer from the French minister of foreign affairs, dated June 20, 1861, the substance of which was that the French government declined to consider the proposition (inasmuch as it differed from the provisions of the treaty of Paris) unless it was addressed to all the powers who were parties to that convention. In the meantime I saw it stated in the public press of Europe that the British, French, Spanish, and Belgian governments had made a declaration of their intentions as respects their conduct towards the United States government and the insurgents of the south, and I was not certain whether our government would desire, under the circumstances, that the proposition to accede to the treaty in question, without the amendment, should be made. Your renewed instructions to proceed on the basis of that treaty are subsequent to and with a full knowledge by our government of the facts hereinbefore stated. Under these circumstances, therefore, I feel authorized and required to proceed without further delay. Before, however, I shall communicate further with the French government, I wish to know whether Great Britain has, at your instance, or otherwise, considered the amendment of the treaty herein before referred to. Before abandoning the hope of obtaining the incorporation, in our code of maritime law, of that great and humane principle, it seems to me desirable that we should have distinct assurance that the principle will not be admitted. I do not recollect that Great Britain has any time, heretofore, answered distinctly, if at all, upon that proposition, but seems rather to have avoided it. I think it desirable that that answer should be of record, (either in a note from or to you,) so that the responsibility may attach, through all time, where it properly belongs. Immediately upon the receipt of your answer I will enclose a copy of your notes, in connexion with that from Lord John Russell to the French government, and, as soon as heard from, advise you of its reply. Respectfully, your obedient servant, SIR: Your despatch No. 27 was not received by me until after my return from London. By my note to Mr. Adams, written in London, and to be found in de spatch No. 22, you will find your instructions were anticipated by my action; that immediately upon learning, from a reliable source, what were the views of the government in regard to an accession to the treaty of Paris, expressed with full knowledge of facts occurring since its original instructions to me, I at once took measures to comply with them, without attempting to balance the suggestions of my own mind against its known wishes. But I confess that in a matter of such grave importance as an accession by the United States to that treaty, I did want those wishes distinctly expressed with full knowledge of the facts. You will observe, by the copy of a communication to the minister of foreign affairs, (marked A,) and hereunto annexed, that I have already moved in the matter here. With much respect, I have the honor to be your obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, WM. L. DAYTON. Secretary of State. A. PARIS, August 2, 1861. SIR: I had the honor to inform your excellency some time since that I was authorized, upon the part of the United States, to treat with any person or persons authorized by the Emperor concerning the principles of maritime law which affect neutral and belligerent rights at sea, and other matters connected therewith, of interest to the two nations, and on the 31st of May last proposed to your excellency an accession by the United States to the treaty of Paris of 1856, with certain words of addition thereto. Under date of 26th of June last I received a reply from your excellency stating that the protocols of the congress of Paris impose upon all the powers who signed the declaration of the 16th of April the obligation not to negotiate, separately, upon the application of maritime rights in time of war, any arrangement which differed from the declaration resolved upon in common, and that, as a consequence, it would be necessary that my offer include the other powers signing the declaration before it would be considered. At the time the foregoing offer was made I had some reason to believe that it might be accepted by all the powers who negotiated that treaty, but subsequent information (the nature of which I have explained to you) has satisfied me that this was an error. The government of the United States would have preferred the incorporation in the treaty of the amendment before referred to; and when there shall be any hope for the adoption of that beneficent feature by the necessary parties as a principle of the law of nations, the United States will not only be ready to agree to it, but even to propose it, and to lead in the necessary negotiations. Under existing circumstances I am satisfied that I would not be justified in further delaying negotiations for an accession by the United States to the treaty of Paris of 1856, in the vain hope that the amendment in question, if proposed to all the powers, would, at present, be accepted. I have the honor, therefore, to apprise your excellency that I am prepared, on the part of the government of the United States, and hereby propose to your excellency, to enter into a convention with the Emperor of the French for accession by the United States to the "declaration concerning maritime law" adopted by the plenipotentiaries of France, Great Britain, Austria, Prussia, Russia, Sardinia, and Turkey, at Paris, on the 16th of April, 1856, and that I have special authority for this purpose from the President of the United States, dated 26th of April last, which I shall be happy to submit to your excellency. I beg likewise, in this connexion, to say to your excellency that a like proposition has been made by Mr. Adams to her Britannic Majesty, and herewith I deem it proper to enclose you a copy of the reply of Lord John Russell. With much respect, I have the honor to be your very obedient servant, WM. L. DAYTON. MONSIEUR LE MINISTRE. Mr. Seward to Mr. Dayton. [Confidential.] No. 41.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, August 17, 1861. SIR: I send you a copy of a despatch, which is this day sent to Mr Adams, concerning the negotiations with Great Britain for the melioration of international law relating to the rights of neutrals in maritime war. You will, of course, wait in your negotiations, at Paris, until the result of the explanations, which Mr. Adams is instructed to ask, shall have been received and duly considered. There is reason, however, to expect that the delay which thus becomes necessary will be moved for by Mr. Thouvenel himself when he shall have become advised of the new and singular position assumed by Lord John Russell. I am, sir, respectfully, your obedient servant, You will learn from a distinct despatch, No. 41, which accompanies or which will soon follow this, that our negotiation in England has taken a new phase, which, of course, will soon present itself in discussion with the French government. Treason was emboldened by its partial success at Manassas, but the Union now grows manifestly stronger every day. Let us see how Great Britain will explain. I am, sir, respectfully, your obedient servant, WILLIAM L. DAYTON, Esq., &c., &c., &c. WILLIAM H. SEWARD. Mr. Seward to Mr. Dayton. No. 46.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, August 19, 1861. SIR: Your despatch No. 22, under the date of July 30, has been received. It relates to an interview, and is accompanied by a correspondence between yourself and Mr. Adams. Your proceedings and your letter are deemed judicious, and are fully approved. In communications which have preceded this I have already said all that the despatch now before me seems to require. I am, sir, respectfully, your obedient servant, 1 WILLIAM L. DAYTON, Esq., &c., &c., &c. WILLIAM H. SEWARD. No. 29.] Mr. Dayton to Mr. Seward. PARIS, August 19, 1861. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of despatches Nos. 29, 30, and 31. * Your despatch No. 30 includes copies of despatches 42 and 46 to Mr. Adams. These are of great interest, as they affect the question of our blockade of the southern ports. I never think it wise to volunteer a subject out of which complaints may arise before they are brought to my notice by the party likely to complain; but should occasion arise, I shall avail myself fully of the views suggested by you as to the purpose and object of the late act of Congress authorizing the President to close the ports by proclamation. But I'very much fear that difficulties will grow up between us and Great Britain and France upon this question. Unless the ports are hermetically sealed by blockade, not by proclamation-if these countries get short of cotton, and we are not ourselves in possession of the interior-excuses enough will be made for breaking the blockade. The tone of the public press here indicates this; the private conversation of public men indicate it. ་ * * * * * * With much respect, your obedient servant, WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Esq., &c., &c., &c. * WILLIAM L. DAYTON. No. 31.] Mr. Daylon to Mr. Seward. PARIS, August 19, 1861. SIR: On Thursday of last week I was informed by Lord Cowley that Mr. Adams and Lord John Russell had agreed upon the text of a convention in respect to maritime rights, &c. On the following day a copy of this convention was sent to me by Lord Cowley. I find it substantially, if not Ex. Doc. 1-16 |