protecting power of the Union should be displayed under its flag, as well upon the ocean as upon the land."

President J. Q. Adams, First Annual Message, 1825.

When, in 1852, the Japanese authorities refused to protect citizens of the United States visiting or cast ashore in Japan, it was held proper (there being then no treaty protection) to display at Japan an imposing naval force, and to inform the Japanese Government that the Government of the United States will insist upon the protection and hospitality asked for being given.

Mr. Conrad, Acting Sec. of State, to Mr. Kennedy, Nov. 5, 1852. MSS. Notes,
Special Missions.

In 1858 the Secretary of the Navy was asked to send a naval force to Java, to take measures to secure the trial of persons charged with assassinating certain American citizens.

Mr. Cass, Sec. of State, to Mr. Toucey, Aug. 10, 1858. MSS. Dom. Let. Cited
supra, § 242.

As to extreme measures to exact payment of debt, see supra, § 222. See Mr.
Cass to Mr. Toucey, July 28, 1858; ibid.

"In the view that the employment of other than peaceful means might become necessary to obtain 'just satisfaction' from Paraguay, a strong naval force was concentrated in the waters of the La Plata to await contingencies, whilst our commissioner ascended the river to Asuncion. The Navy Department is entitled to great credit for the promptness, efficiency, and economy with which this expedition was fitted out and conducted. It consisted of nineteen armed vessels, great and small, carrying two hundred guns and twenty-five hundred men, all under the command of the veteran and gallant Shubrick. The entire expenses of the expedition have been defrayed out of the ordinary appropriations for the naval service, except the sum of $289,000 applied to the purchase of seven of the steamers constituting a part of it, under the authority of the naval appropriation act of the 3d March last. It is believed that these steamers are worth more than their cost, and they are all now usefully and actively employed in the naval service.

"The appearance of so large a force, fitted out in such a prompt manner, in the far distant waters of the La Plata, and the admirable conduct of the officers and men employed in it, have had a happy effect in favor of our country throughout all that remote portion of the world."

President Buchanan, Third Annual Message, 1859. See supra, §§ 38, 57. "The hostile attitude of the Government of Paraguay toward the United States early commanded the attention of the President. That Government had, upon frivolous and even insulting pretexts, refused to ratify the treaty of friendship, commerce, and navigation, concluded with it on the 4th March, 1853, as amended by the Senate, though this only in mere matters of form. It had seized and appropriated the property of American citizens residing in Paraguay, in a violent and arbitrary manner; and finally, by order of President Lopez, it had fired upon the U. S. S. Water Witch (1st February, 1855), under Commander S. Mis. 162-VOL. III-8

113

Thomas J. Page, of the Navy, and killed the sailor at the helm, whilst she was peacefully employed in surveying the Parana River, to ascer tain its fitness for steam navigation. The honor as well as the interests of the country demanded satisfaction.

"The President brought the subject to the notice of Congress in his first annual message (8th December, 1857). In this he informed them that he would make a demand for redress on the Government of Paraguay in a firm but conciliatory manner, but at the same time observed, that this will the more probably be granted if the Executive shall have authority to use other means in the event of a refusal. This is accordingly recommended.' Congress responded favorably to this recommendation. On the 2d June, 1858, they passed a joint resolution authorizing the President 'to adopt such measures, and use such force as, in his judgment, may be necessary and advisable, in the event of a refusal of just satisfaction by the Government of Paraguay, in connection with the attack on the U. S. S. Water Witch, and with other matters referred to in the annual message.' They also made an appropriation to defray the expenses of a commissioner to Paraguay, should he deem it proper to appoint one, 'for the adjustment of difficulties' with that Republic. "Paraguay is situated far in the interior of South America, and its capital, the city of Asuncion, on the left bank of the river Paraguay, is more than a thousand miles from the mouth of the La Plata.

"The stern policy of Dr. Francia, formerly the dictator of Paraguay, had been to exclude all the rest of the world from his dominions, and in this he had succeeded by the most severe and arbitrary measures. His successor, President Lopez, found it necessary, in some degree, to relax this jealous policy; but, animated by the same spirit, he imposed harsh restrictions in his intercourse with foreigners. Protected by his remote and secluded position, he but little apprehended that a navy from a far distant country could ascend the La Plata, the Parana, and the Paraguay and reach his capital. This was doubtless the reason why he had ventured to place us at defiance. Under these circumstances, the President deemed it advisable to send with our commissioner to Paraguay, Hon. James B. Bowlin, a naval force sufficient to exact justice should negotiation fail. This consisted of nineteen armed vessels, great and small, carrying two hundred guns and twenty-five hundred sailors and marines, all under the command of the veteran and gallant Shubrick. Soon after the arrival of the expedition at Montevideo, Commissioner Bowlin and Commodore Shubrick proceeded (30th December, 1858) to ascend the rivers to Asuncion in the steamer Fulton, accompanied by the Water Witch. Meanwhile the remaining vessels rendezvoused in the Parana, near Rosario, a position from which they could act promptly, in case of need.

"The commissioner arrived at Asuncion on the 25th January, 1859, and left it on the 10th February. Within this brief period he had ably and successfully accomplished all the objects of his mission. tion to ample apologies, he obtained from President Lopez the payment of $10,000 for the family of the seaman (Chaney) who had been killed in the attack on the Water Witch, and also concluded satisfactory treaties of indemnity, and of navigation and commerce, with the Paraguayan Government. Thus the President was enabled to announce to Congress in his annual message (December, 1859), that 'all our difficulties with Paraguay had been satisfactorily adjusted.'

"Even in this brief summary it would be unjust to withhold from Secretary Toucey a commendation for the economy and efficiency he

displayed in fitting out this expedition. It is a remarkable fact in our history that its entire expenses were defrayed out of the ordinary ap propriations for the naval service. Not a dollar was appropriated by Congress for this purpose, unless we may except the sum of $289,000 for the purchase of several small steamers of light draught, worth more than their cost, and which were afterwards usefully employed in the ordinary naval service.

"It may be remarked that the President, in his message already referred to, justly observes, that the appearance of so large a force, fitted out in such a prompt manner, in the far distant waters of the La Plata, and the admirable conduct of the officers and men employed in it. have had a happy effect in favor of our country throughout all that remote portion of the world.""

Mr. Buchanan's defense, 265, 256, quoted in 2 Curtis' Buchanan, 224.

Calvo's account of this transaction is substantially as follows (droit int. (3d ed.), vol. i, 4 16):

In 1853 the United States and Paraguay concluded a convention as to the free navigation of the river, and a treaty of commerce and navigation. The treaty and convention not having been ratified in consequence of certain action of the Senate, the Government did not hesitate to send Mr. Hopkins as consul to Assomption, who was without difficulty officially received by the Governor of Paraguay. It was alleged that Mr. Hopkins added to his consular functions certain private speculations based on concessions in Paraguay. He attempted in vain to obtain funds for this purpose in Paris and London. He purchased, as part of the scheme, a ship in New York, which he called the Assomption, and which he insured for $50,000. This vessel was shipwrecked on her first voyage, and the insurance money turned as capital into a corporation entitled, Compagnie de commerce et de navigation de Paraguay. Shortly afterwards, Mr. Hopkins, in his double capacity of consul and of speculator, fell into such difficulties at Paraguay as induced the Government to recall his exequatur. At this time a United States ship-of-war, the Water Witch, was at Assomption, charged with the exploration of the affluents of the river La Plata. Mr. Hopkins, on the ground that his safety and that of his "compatriots" were assailed, visited the ship and obtained the aid of certain armed sailors of the ship to go ashore with him and to carry off from the consular office the papers belonging to the "company." The difficulties that then originated were aggravated in 1855 by an attempt of the Water Witch to force its way through a channel of the river Paraguay, which was generally interdicted, and which was open to the fire of the Fort I'tapira. The Government of the United States, to obtain redress, sent a squadron of twenty ships with two thousand men; but the fleet was detained on its way by an offer of mediation by the Argentine Republic. This mediation resulted in a treaty, signed February 4, 1859, which, among other things, provided that the commercial claims of Mr. Hopkins be referred to arbitrators, to be chosen by the two Governments, respectively. The arbitrators reported that Mr. Hopkins had no claim of any kind against Paraguay, and in this report the commissioner of the United States joined. Calvo maintains that the precipitate action of the Government of the United States was a wrong, not merely to Paraguay, but to the United States, which, to support an unfounded claim, got up an expedition whose mere preparation cost over seven million of dollars.

CHAPTER XVI.

VISIT, SEARCH, CAPTURE, AND IMPRESSMENT.

I. AS A BELLIGERENT RIGHT.

Visit in such cases permitted, § 325.

II. IN CASES OF PIRACY.

III.

On probable cause papers may be demanded, § 326.

VISIT NO LONGER PERMITTED IN PEACE, § 327.

IV. ACTION OF PRIZE COURT MAY BE ESSENTIAL, § 328.

V. WHEN HAVING JURISDICTION SUCH COURT MAY CONCLUDE, § 329.
VI. BUT NOT WHEN NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW, § 329a.
VII. PROCEEDINGS OF SUCH COURT, § 330.

In the draft convention suggested on January 5, 1804, by Mr. Madison, Secretary of State, to Mr. Monroe, minister to England, occurs the following:

"ARTICLE III. If the ships of either of the parties shall be met with sailing either along the coasts or on the high seas by any ship-of-war or other public or private armed ships of the other party, such ships-of-war or other armed vessels shall, for avoiding all disorder in visiting and examining the same, remain out of cannon shot unless the state of the sea or the place of meeting render a nearer approach necessary, and shall in no case compel or require such vessel to send her boat, her papers, or any person from on board to the belligerent vessel, but the belligerent vessel may send her own boat to the other and may enter her to the number of two or three men only, who may in an orderly manner make the necessary inquiries concerning the vessel and her · cargo; and it is agreed that effectual provision shall be made for punishing violations of any part of this article."

On this Mr. Madison makes the following observations :

"This regulation is conformable to the law of nations, and to the tenor of all treaties which define the belligerent claim of visiting and searching neutral vessels. No treaty can be cited in which the practice of compelling the neutral vessel to send its boat, its officers, its people, or its papers to the belligerent vessel, is authorized. British treaties, as well as those to which she is not a party, in every instance where a regulation of the claim is undertaken, coincide with the article here proposed.

The article is in fact almost a transcript of the of 1786 between Great Britain and France.

article of the treaty

"The regulation is founded on the best reasons: 1st. It is sufficient for the neutral that he acquiesces in the interruption of his voyage, and the trouble of the examination imposed by the belligerent commander. To require a positive and active co-operation on his part in behalf of the latter is more than can be justified on any principle. 2d. The belligerent party can always send more conveniently to the neutral vessel than this can send to the belligerent vessel; having neither such fit boats for the purpose, especially in a rough sea, nor being so abundantly manned. 3d. This last consideration is enforced by the numerous and cruel abuses committed in the practice of requiring the neutral vessel to send to the belligerent. As an example you will find in the documents now transmitted a case where neither the smallness and leakiness of the boat, nor the boisterous state of the weather, nor the pathetic remonstrances of the neutral commander had any effect on the imperious injunctions of the belligerent, and where the task was performed at the manifest peril of the boat, the papers, and the lives of the people. The limitation of the number to be sent on board the neutral vessel is a reasonable and usual precaution against the danger of insults and pillage."

MSS. Inst., Ministers.

Another unjustifiable measure is "the mode of search practiced by British ships, which, instead of remaining at a proper distance from the vessel to be searched, and sending their own boat with a few men for the purpose, compel the vessel to send her papers in her own boat, and sometimes with great danger from the condition of the boat and the state of the weather."

Mr. Madison, Sec. of State, report, Jan. 25, 1806. MSS. Report Book. 2 Am.
St. Pap. (For. Rel.), 726.

"England is allowed, when she is at war, to visit neutral vessels for the purpose of seizing merchandise either belonging to her enemy, or considered as contraband destined for her enemy, and soldiers or other combatants in the service of her enemy. But she never had before claimed the right of visiting or seizing, under the pretense of retaking what belonged to herself. If the right was conceded to her of seizing, on board vessels of other nations, the seamen she claims as belonging to her, she would equally have that of seizing merchandise claimed by her subjects as belonging to them, and there would no longer be any acknowledged line of demarcation which would prevent her from exercising an unlimited jurisdiction over the vessels of all other nations."

Mr. Gallatin to the Emperor of Russia; presented June 19, 1814, to the Emperor
Alexander.

"The right of search has heretofore been so freely used and so much abused to the injury of our commerce that it is regarded as an odious doctrine in this country, and if exercised against us harshly in the ap proaching war will excite deep and widespread indignation. Caution on the part of belligerents in exercising it towards us in cases where