Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

counselors must then be given, and that of the legislature, an inde pendent aud essential organ in the operation, must also be expressed; in forming which they will be governed every man by his own judgment, and may, very possibly, judge differently from the Executive. With the same honest views, the most honest men often form different conclusions. As far, however, as we can judge, the principle of 'free bottoms, free goods,' is that which would carry the wishes of our nation."

President Jefferson to Mr. Livingston, Sept. 9, 1801. 4 Jeff. Works, 408 ff.

[ocr errors]

"On the question whether the principle of free bottoms making free goods and enemy bottoms enemy goods,' is now to be considered as established in the law of nations, I will state to you a fact within my own knowledge, which may lessen the weight of our authority as having acted in the war of France and England on the ancient principle that the goods of an enemy in the bottom of a friend are lawful prize, while those of a friend in an enemy bottom are not so.' England became a party in the general war against France on the 1st of February, 1793. We took immediately the stand of neutrality. We were aware that our great intercourse with these two maritime nations would subject us to harassment by multiplied questions on the duties of neutrality, and that an important and early one would be which of the two principles above stated should be the law of action with us. We wished to act on the new one of free bottoms, free goods;' and we had established it in our treaties with other nations, but not with England. We determined, therefore, to avoid, if possible, committing ourselves on this question until we could negotiate with England her acquiescence in the new principle. Although the cases occurring were numerous, and the ministers, Genet and Hammond, eagerly on the watch, we were able to avoid any declaration until the massacre of St. Domingo. The whites, on that occasion, took refuge on board our ships, then in their harbor, with all the property they could find room for, and on their passage to the United States many of them were taken by British cruisers and their cargoes seized as lawful prize. The inflammable temper of Genet kindled at once, and he wrote with his usual passion a letter reclaiming an observance of the principle of 'free bottoms, free goods,' as if already an acknowledged law of neutrality. I pressed him in conversation not to urge this point; that although it had been acted on by convention, by the armed neutrality, it was not yet become a principle of universal admission; that we wished indeed to strengthen it by our adoption, and were negotiating an acquiescence on the part of Great Britain; but if forced to decide prematurely, we must justify ourselves by a declaration of the ancient principle, and that no general consent of nations had as yet changed it. He was immovable, and on the 25th of July wrote a letter so insulting that nothing but a deter mined system of justice and moderation would have prevented his being shipped home in the first vessel. I had the day before answered his of the 9th, in which I had been obliged in our own justification to declare that the ancient law was the established principle, still existing and authoritative. Our denial, therefore, of the new principle and action on the old one were forced upon us by the precipitation and intemperance of Genet, against our wishes and against our aim; and our invol untary practice, therefore, is of less authority against the new rule." Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Everett, Feb, 24, 1823. 7 Jeff. Works, 271.

"On the subject of 'free ships, free goods,' the United States cannot, with the same consistency as some other nations, maintain the principle as already a part of the law of nations, having on one occasion admitted and on another stipulated the contrary. They have, however, invariably maintained the utility of the principle, and whilst as a pacific and commercial nation they have as great an interest in the due establishment of it as any nation whatever, they may with perfect consistency promote such an extension of neutral rights. The northern powers, Russia among the rest, having fluctuated in their conduct, may also be under some restraints on this subject. Still they may be ready to renew their concurrence in voluntary and conventional arrangements for giving validity to the principle, and in drawing Great Britain into them."

Mr. Madison, Sec. of State, to Mr. Armstrong, Mar. 14, 1806. MSS. Inst., Ministers. See also President Madison to Mr. Ingersoll, July 28, 1814. 2 Madison's Writings, 585.

"It is also desirable to stipulate with the British Government that free ships shall make free goods, though it is proper to remark that the importance of this rule is much diminished to the United States by their growth as a maritime power, and the capacity and practice of their merchants to become the owners of the merchandise carried in our vessels. It is nevertheless still important to them, in common with all nentral nations, as it would prevent vexatious seizures by belligerent cruisers, and unjust condemnations by their tribunals from which the United States have sustained such heavy losses."

Mr. Monroe, Sec. of State, to Mr. Adams, May 21, 1816. MSS. Inst., Ministers.

It has grown to be a usage among maritime nations that a belligerent may take the property of his enemy from a neutral ship, "paying the neutral his freight, and submitting the question of facts to the tribunals of the belligerent party. It is evident, however, that this usage has no foundation in natural right," and is subject to limitation in special treaties.

Mr. Adams, Sec. of State, to Mr. Anderson, May 27, 1823 (MSS. Inst., Ministers), in which letter the question is discussed at great length.

"This search for and seizure of the property of an enemy in the vessel of a friend is a relic of the barbarous warfare of barbarous ages, the cruel, and, for the most part, now exploded system of private war. As it concerns the enemy himself, it is inconsistent with the mitigated usage of modern wars, which respects the private property of individuals on the land. As relates to the neutral, it is a violation of his natural right to pursue, unmolested, his peaceful commercial intercourse with his friend. Invidious as is its character in both these respects, it has other essential characteristics equally obnoxious. It is an uncontrolled exercise of authority by a man in arms over a man without defense; by an officer of one nation over the citizen of another;

by man intent upon the annoyance of his enemy; responsible for the act of search to no tribunal, and always prompted to balance the disappointment of a fruitless search by the abusive exercise of his power, and to punish the neutral for the very clearness of his neutrality. It has, in short, all the features of unbridled power stimulated by hostile and unsocial passions."

Mr. Adams, Sec. of State, to Mr. Canning, June 24, 1823. MSS. Notes, For. Leg.

"It has been remarked that by the usages of modern war the private property of an enemy is protected from seizure and confiscation as such; and private war itself has been almost universally exploded upon the land. By an exception, the reason of which it is not easy to perceive, the private property of an enemy upon the sea has not so fully received the benefit of the same principle. Private war, banished by the tacit and general consent of Christian nations from their territories, has taken its last refuge upon the ocean, and there continued to disgrace and afflict them by a system of licensed robbery, bearing all the most atrocious characters of piracy. To a Government intent, from motives of general benevolence and humanity, upon the final and total suppression of the slave trade, it cannot be unreasonable to claim her aid and co-operation to the abolition of private war upon the sea.

"From the time when the United States took their place among the nations of the earth, this has been one of their favorite objects.

"It is time,' said Dr. Franklin, in a letter of 14 March, 1785, 'it is high time for the sake of humanity that a stop were put to this enor mity. The United States of America, though better situated than any European nation to make profit by privateering, are, as far as in them lies, endeavoring to abolish the practice by offering in all their treaties with other powers an article engaging solemnly that in case of future war no privateer shall be commissioned on either side, and that unarmed merchant ships on both sides shall pursue their voyages unmolested. This will be a happy improvement of the law of nations. The humane and the just cannot but wish general success to the proposition.'

"The ninth article contains the usual list of contraband of war, omitting the articles used in the construction or equipment of vessels. These articles are not included in the principle upon which contraband of war was originally founded. Several of them are articles of ordinary export from the United States, and the produce of their soil and industry. Others are articles equally important to the commerce of other natious, particularly Russia, whose interests would be unfavorably affected by embracing them in the contraband list. The first effect of including them in a list of contraband with one nation while they are excluded from the same list in treaties with others, is that the belligerent with whom they have been stipulated as contraband acquires, so far as the treaties are observed, an exclusive market for the acquisition

of the articles of which the other belligerent is deprived. The next consequence is that the other belligerent, suffering under the double injury of this contradictory rule, breaks through the obligation of her own treaty and seizes and confiscates upon the principle of retaliation upon the enemy. This observation applies to every other point of maritime law in which the neutral interest is sacrificed to the belligerent interest with the one power, while the reverse is stipulated with the other. The uniform and painful experience which we have had of this should operate as a warning to the Government of the United States to introduce the harmony of one congenial system into their federative relations with foreign powers, and never to concede as maritime right to one power a principle the reverse of which they have stipu lated with others.

"The tenth article of the draft proposes the adoption of the principle that free ships make free goods and persons, and also that neutral property shall be free, though laden in a vessel of the enemy. The Government of the United States wish for the universal establishment of this principle as a step towards the attainment of the other, the total abolition of private maritime war."

Mr. Adams, Sec. of State, to Mr. Rush, July 28, 1823. MSS. Inst., Ministers. The proposition to abolish by treaty private war by sea, and to restrict contraband, was sent at the same time by Mr. Adams to all the leading European states. It was, however, never acted on so as to bind the United States, except in cases of special treaty.

"The principle upon which the Government of the United States now offers this proposal to the civilized world is, that the same precepts of justice, of charity, and of peace, under the influence of which Christian uations have, by common consent, exempted private property on shore from the destruction or depredation of war, require the same exemption in favor of private property upon the sea. If there be any objection to this conclusion, I know not in what it consists; and if any should occur to the Russian Government, we only wish that it may be made a subject of amicable discussion."

Mr. Adams, Sec. of State, to Mr. Middleton, Aug. 13, 1823. MSS. Inst., Ministers.

"It will be within the recollection of the House that immediately after the close of the war of our independence a measure closely analogous to this congress of Panama was adopted by the Congress of our Confederation, and for purposes of precisely the same character. Three commissioners, with plenipotentiary powers, were appointed to negotiate treaties of amity, navigation, and commerce with all the principal powers of Europe. They met and resided for about one year for that purpose at Paris, and the only result of their negotiations at that time was the first treaty between the United States and Prussia, memorable in the diplomatic annals of the world, and precious as a monument

of the principles in relation to commerce and maritime warfare, with which our country entered upon her career as a member of the great family of independent nations. This treaty, prepared in conformity with the instructions of the American plenipotentiaries, consecrated three fundamental principles of the foreign intercourse which the Congress of that period were desirous of establishing. First, equal reciprocity, and the mutual stipulation of the privileges of the most favored nation in the commercial exchanges of peace; secondly, the abolition of private war upon the ocean; and thirdly, restrictions favorable to neutral commerce upon belligerent practices with regard to contraband of war and blockades. A painful, it may be said a calamitous, experi ence of more than forty years has demonstrated the deep importance of these same principles to the peace and prosperity of this nation and to the welfare of all maritime states, and has illustrated the profound wisdom with which they were assumed as cardinal points of the policy of the Union."

President J. Q. Adams, Special Message, March 15, 1826.

"Previous to the war which grew out of the American Revolution, the respective rights of neutrals and belligerents had been settled and clearly defined by the conventional law of Europe, to which all the maritime powers had given their sanction in the treaties concluded among themselves. The few practical infractions, in time of war, of the principles thus recognized by them, have been disavowed, upon the return of peace, by new stipulations again acknowledging the exist ence of the rights of neutrals as set down in the maritime code.

"In addition to the recognition of these rights by the European powers, one of the first acts of the United States, as a nation, was their unequivocal sanction of the principles upon which they are founded, as declared in their treaty of commerce of 1778 with the King of France. These principles were that free ships gave freedom to the merchandise, except contraband goods, which were clearly defined, and that neutrals might freely sail to and between enemies' ports, except such as were blockaded in the manner therein set forth. These principles having thus been established by universal consent, became the rule by which it was expected that the belligerents would be governed in the war which broke out about that time between France and Spain on the one hand, and Great Britain on the other. The latter power, however, having soon betrayed a disposition to deviate from them in some of the most material points, the Governments which had preserved a neutral course in the contest became alarmed at the danger with which their maritime rights were threatened by the encroachments and naval supremacy of England, and the Empress of Russia, at their head, undertook to unite them in the defense of those rights. On the 28th February, 1780, she issued her celebrated declaration, containing the principles according to which the com

« AnteriorContinuar »