row. literally, the same as that which you enclosed to me, and directed me to execute. I am to see Mr. Thouvenel upon the subject by appointment to-morUnless something shall occur, altering the existing condition of things, this convention will doubtless be executed at an early day. Your despatch No. 30 says, "the President is not impatient about the negotiations concerning neutral rights," but your prior despatches and the action of Mr. Adams have put any considerable delay out of my power. Besides, if the treaty is to be executed, whether it be done a few days or weeks earlier or later is, perhaps, not very important. I have felt much relieved in this negotiation by the specific character of my instructions. With great respect, I have the honor to be your obedient servant, WILLIAM L. DAYTON. The Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, &c., &c., &c. Mr. Dayton to Mr. Seward. No. 35.] PARIS, August 22, 1861. SIR: My anticipations expressed in despatch No. 10 are fully realized. Both Lord John Russell and Mr. Thouvenel refuse to negotiate for an accession by the United States to the treaty of Paris of 1856, except on the distinct understanding that it is to have no bearing, directly or indirectly, on the question of our southern or domestic difficulty, and to render the matter certain they each propose to make a written declaration simultaneous with the execution of the convention, of which I herewith send you a copy and a translation. I likewise send you a copy of Mr. Thouvenel's note to me with its translation. I had an interview on Tuesday, the 20th instant, with Mr. Thouvenel by appointment in reference to the subject-matter of the convention, and then he gave me the first notice of the purpose of the French government to execute this outside declaration, predicated as it was, beyond all doubt, upon a note he had just received from Lord John Russell, dated only the day preceding He said that both France and Great Britain had already announced that they would take no part in our domestic controversy, and they thought that a frank and open declaration in advance of the execution of this convention might save difficulty and misconception hereafter. He further said, in the way of specification, that the provisions of the treaty standing alone might bind England and France to pursue and punish the privateers of the south as pirates. That they were unwilling to do this, and had already so declared. He said that we could deal with these people as we chose, and they could only express their regrets on the score of humanity if we should deal with them as pirates, but they could not participate in such a course. He said, further, that although both England and France were anxious to have the adhesion of the United States to the declaration of Paris, that they would rather dispense with it altogether than be drawn into our domestic controversy. He insisted somewhat pointedly that I could take no just exception to this outside declaration, simultaneous with the execution of the convention, unless we intended they should be made parties to our controversy; and that the very fact of my hesitation was an additional reason why they should insist upon making such contemporaneous declaration. These are the general views expressed by him. In answer, I asscnted at once to the propriety of such declaration being made in advance if France and England did not mean to abide by the terms of the treaty. I stated that I had no reason to suppose that the United States desired to embroil these countries in our domestic difficulties-that in point of fact our great desire had been that they should keep out of them; but they proposed now to make a declaration to accompany the execution of the convention which they admitted would vary its obligations. That my instructions were to negotiate that convention, and that I had no authority to do anything or listen to anything which would waive any rights or relieve from any obligation which might fairly arise from a just construction of its terms. He said they did not mean to alter its terms, that it was not like an addition of other provisions to the terms of the treaty itself. To this I replied, that for the purpose intended, it was precisely the same as if this declaration they proposed to make were to be incorporated into the treaty itself. That its effect was to relieve them (without complaint on our part) from compliance with one of the admitted obligations of the treaty. I then told him I would consult with Mr. Adams, and it was not improbable that we might feel ourselves under the necessity of referring again to our government, to which he answered that that must be a question for us to determine. In the course of our conversation I told him that any declaration or action which looked to or recognized a difference or distinction between the north and south was a matter upon which our government was, under the circumstances, peculiarly sensitive. That we treated with foreign governments for our whole country, north and south, and for all its citizens, whether true men or rebels, and when we could not so treat, we would cease to treat at all. He answered that they did not mean to contest our right to treat for the whole country, and that was not the purpose of the outside declaration they proposed to make; but having heretofore adopted a course of strict neutrality, the declaration in question was right and proper to prevent misconception and controversy in the future. After my conference with Mr. Thouvenel closed, I immediately wrote to Mr. Adams, and suggested to him the propriety of either referring again to our government for instructions, or, if he thought that such reference would involve any unnecessary delay, then, at least, that at the time of executing the convention (if it were executed) we should in like manner make a counter declaration in writing, stating, in substance, that "we have no power to admit, and do not mean to admit, that this outside declaration by Great Britain and France is to relieve them, directly or indirectly, from any obligation or duty which would otherwise devolve upon them in virtue of said convention." I have felt constrained to make these suggestions to Mr. Adams, for I am unwilling to act affirmatively in a matter of so much importance without being clearly within my instructions. I shall await his answer before I communicate further with the French government. With much respect, your obedient servant, His Excellency WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State, &c., &c. WM. L. DAYTON. [Translation.] PARIS, August 20, 1861. SIR: I have the honor to communicate to you the text of the written declaration that I propose to myself to make, and of which I will take care to remit to you a copy, at the moment of the signing of the convention designed to render obligatory between France and the United States the principles upon maritime rights proclaimed by the congress of Paris. This declaration has for its object, as you will see, to prevent all misunderstanding upon the nature of the engagements which the government of the Emperor is disposed to contract. If you were ready to sign the convention contemplated, we might be able to agree to make it the same day when Lord Russell should proceed from his side to the signing of a similar act with Mr. Adams. Accept the assurances of the high consideration with which I have the honor to be, sir, your very humble and very obedient servant, Mr. DAYTON, Minister of the United States at Paris. [Translation.] Draft of declaration. THOUVENEL. In affixing his signature to the convention concluded in date of this day between France and the United States, the undersigned declares, in execution of the orders of the Emperor, that the government of his Majesty does not intend to undertake, by the said convention, any engagement of a nature to implicate it, directly or indirectly, in the internal conflict now existing in the United States. No. 37.] Mr. Dayton to Mr. Seward. PARIS, August 29, 1861. SIR: Herewith I beg to enclose a copy of a communication made by me to Mr. Thouvenel, in answer to his formal notice of a purpose on the part of the French government to make an outside declaration of its intentions at the time of the execution of the treaty, copies of which were enclosed in despatch No. 35. It is in part the same matter suggested to him by me in the conference in which he first notified me of his purpose. His written communication subsequent to that conference required a like formal reply. I am happy to learn from a communication received from Mr. Adams that he concurs with me in the propriety of stopping the negotiation where it is, and referring the matter to the government at home. I should have been most reluctant, under the circumstances, to execute this convention, had Mr. Adams insisted upon it, making only a counter declaration, such as was referred to in despateh No. 35; but I was very desirous, after what had passed, not to be considered an obstacle in the way of carrying out the wishes of the administration. I doubt now, however, if England and France would themselves have assented to proceed with the execution of the convention in the face of such declaration. With much respect, I have the honor to be your obedient servant, WM. L. DAYTON. His Excellency WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State, &c., &c. Mr. Dayton to Mr. Thouvenel. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, MONSIEUR LE MINISTRE: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of the 20th instant, in which (carrying out the purpose expressed by you in our prior conversation of that day) you communicate to me the text of a written declaration which you propose to make simultaneous with the execution of the convention between the United States and France, in reference to the principles upon maritime rights proclaimed by the Congress of Paris in 1856. You further suggest in your note that if I were ready to sign the convention contemplated, we might be able to agree to do so the same day when Lord Russell should proceed, on his side, to the signing of a like convention with Mr. Adams. The declaration which you propose to make in writing, simultaneous with the execution of the convention, has for its object, you say, "to prevent all misunderstanding as to the nature of the engagements which the govern ment of the Emperor is disposed to contract," and this declaration is, that "in the execution of the orders of the Emperor the government of his Majesty does not intend to undertake, by said convention, any engagements of a nature to implicate it directly or indirectly in the internal conflict now existing in the United States." My impressions, hastily thrown out when this proposition was verbally suggested, have been strengthened by subsequent reflection. I do not stop to inquire how such outside declaration as you propose may affect the rights or obligations of parties under the treaty. Indeed, it is so general that it may not be possible to anticipate its entire scope or operation. It gives us notice that the engagements of your government are not to be "of a nature to implicate it directly or indirectly in the internal conflict," &c. It may be that the conduct of the government of France, under this declaration, would practically extend no further than would be agreeable to the United States; yet I cannot act upon such assumption. My instructions are to negotiate a particular convention, the text of which has been examined and approved, as I understand, by your excellency. If the declaration which you propose to make does not alter the obligations or duties which would otherwise devolve upon France, in virtue of that convention, it is useless to make it. If it does alter such obligations or duties, then I am not authorized to execute the convention subject to such declaration. This, indeed, so far as my action at present is concerned, is the whole case. But the subject justifies, and perhaps requires some other remarks. You stated that you thought it more frank and loyal to make your declaration in advance, and in this I entirely concurred. If the treaty without such declaration would impose any duty upon France which she would be unwilling to perform, it was manifestly proper that she should declare her purpose in advance. It was proper, not only for the purpose of preventing misunderstanding as to the nature of her intended engagements, but for the other purposes of leaving to the United States the option of determining, with full knowledge, whether she would or would not enter into the treaty subject to such declaration. The declaration, it is true, is not strictly a part of the treaty, yet, for the purpose intended, its effect and operation would be the same as if it were incorporated into the treaty itself. It will prevent misunderstandings as to the nature of the engagements, or, in other words, it will prevent one party complaining of a non-performance of supposed engagements by the other under the treaty, just as effectively as if it were a condition added to the treaty itself. But for the interposition of this declaration I should have assented to the execution of the treaty at once; as it is, I have no power to do so. From this it must not be inferred that there is now, or at any time has been, the slightest wish upon the part of the United States to involve France or any other foreign government in its domestic controversy. The wish, nay, stronger than this, the right to be let alone by other nations, has been claimed at all times, so far as I know, by our government and its representatives abroad. They have never failed to deprecate, in the most earnest manner, all interference in this question upon the part of foreign powers. Yet the declaration which it is now proposed to make would seem to imply that such interference might be claimed by us at the hands of those powers with whom such treaty might be made. I submit, with great respect, that there is nothing in the present position of the United States, or in the past history of this negotiation, which would justify such an inference. the present administration at Washington came into power it almost immediately gave orders to its representatives abroad to open negotiations upon this general subject; not, it is to be assumed, for any small purpose or object growing out of what they then believed to be a mere temporary insurrection, but with a view to the settlement, so far as their assent could settle the same, of certain great principles of maritime law. The second and third of those principles, enunciated in the declaration of Paris, has been already proposed and urged upon the attention of other nations by the United States. The fourth of those principles, which requires that blockades to be respected shall be effective, had never been denied (at least by the United States) as a principle of international or maritime law. It was the first only of the points enunciated in that celebrated declaration about which hesitation existed. The abandonment of the right, by belligerents, to issue letters of marque and reprisal, under proper restraints, was a serious matter to a country having the extended commerce and limited navy of the United States; yet such abandonment by all nations would, we well knew, tend much to lessen the afflictions incident to war; and so, too, the exemption of property of noncombatants at sea, (except contraband,) as it is on land, would, in a still greater degree, tend to the same end. Hence the disposition manifested on the part of the United States, on every proper occasion, to connect in its negotiations the two; to make the concession of the one the equivalent, if possible, of the concession of the other. This was the condition of things when the present administration at Washington came into power. Not trammelled by certain considerations which had affected some of their predecessors, they immediately took up the negotiation where it had been left by a prior administration. Ascertaining definitely that the exemption of private property afloat (except contraband) would not be conceded by all the powers, they assented at once to the execution of a convention, adopting the four principles of the declaration of Paris as they are, without addition and without limitation. Then, for the first time, we were informed that the government of his Majesty the Emperor (in connexion with that of her Britannic Majesty) would only execute such convention subject to a certain condition, which it declares for itself, and of the extent and operation of which it is itself to judge. I cannot, of course, anticipate with certainty what view the government of the United States may take of this question, but I can scarcely suppose it will assent to the execution of a convention adopting the declaration of Paris, except upon terms of entire reciprocity, and subject to no other condition than those existing by and between the original parties; nor do I believe |