Page images
PDF
EPUB

Such was the theory in regard to navigable rivers; but the Congress of Vienna in 1815* established a general rule in respect to European rivers, which is more in accordance with natural equity. It ordained that the use of navigable streams, which separate or traverse States, from the point where navigation commences to the sea, should be entirely free,-and not denied, as far as commerce is concerned, to any one; but that a uniform police, as favorable as possible to the commerce of all nations, might regulate the details of such navigation. A controversy having arisen in 1831, as to what was to be understood by the Rhine, it was decided that navigation upon this stream should be open through the mouths called the Waal and the Leck, and through the artificial canal of Voorne.

This treaty covered all the European rivers which run through more than one state, except the Danube. By the treaties of Bucharest in 1812, and of Adrianople in 1829, the commercial use of the Danube was to remain common to the subjects of Turkey and Russia. But, by the late treaty of Paris, the rules of the Congress of Vienna are applied to this river also. It thus becomes a thoroughfare of commerce, under certain regulations adopted for the improvment of the channel.

A similar movement in advance of the older policy, a little before the treaty of Paris, affected one of the principal rivers of this continent Let us be allowed to go back a little, in order to set forth this movement more clearly. In the first years after the independence of the United States was acknowledged, Spain was disposed to claim exclusive control over the Mississippi below the point where the Southern boundary of the United States struck the river. But by the treaty of San Lorenzo el Real in 1795, the use of the river, and liberty to deposit and to export goods from New Orleans, was granted to citizens of the United States. The arguments of our negotiators, in endeavoring to persuade the Spanish Government that we had a right to the use of the river, seem to be weakened by a certain inconsistency, and not to assert the true ground. They claim a right as real as any other, but concede it to be an imperfect right. Now, as an imperfect right is one which cannot be reduced to the rule of justice and enforced, they admit that Spain is under no obligation to open the river. The treaty above spoken of was not long in operation before we exercised sovereignty over the mouth and the whole course of Mississippi.

The navigation of the St. Lawrence was more rigidly closed to visits from our vessels. The British Government always

*Articles 108, 109 in Wheaton's Elements, Appendix, page 639.

[blocks in formation]

stood on the strict law of nations as then prevailing, while the United States went back of a positive code to the principles of natural equity and justice. Meantime canals and railroads having bound the West to the Atlantic sea-board, and New York having become a financial center for this continent, the importance of the question was considerably lessened. By the treaty of June 5, 1854, commonly called the reciprocity treaty, the navigation of the St. Lawrence, as well as of the canals of Canada, was thrown open to citizens of the United States, on the same conditions which are imposed upon the subjects of Great Britain. This privilege, however, might be revoked by the British Government upon due notice. The United States, on their part, conceded to the other party the free navigation of Lake Michigan.

It is unlikely that, as far as the freedom of river navigation is concerned, the world will go backward. All the great rivers of Europe and North America are now open to those who live upon their waters; and no interior nation is necessarily prohibited from exchanging visits with the rest of mankind on a friendly footing.

Another provision of the treaty of Paris, politically as well as commercially important, regulates the use of the Black Sea. While the shores of the Black Sea, and the avenue to it, were exclusively within Turkish jurisdiction, it seemed reasonable to place that sea in the same category with a river included within the territory of a single nation; no ship, especially no national ship, had a right to enter the Hellespont or pass by the blue Symplegades.' And when Russia, by conquest, acquired territory upon this sea, the question of trade lay within the jurisdiction of the two powers. By the treaty of Adrianople, Russian vessels, and others belonging to powers at amity with Turkey, might enter the straits and pursue their way into the inner ocean. Turkey, however, very properly prohibited all armed vessels from running into this channel; and by the treaty of London in 1841, the five powers there represented agreed to respect that restriction.

In the recent treaty, the contracting powers are again pledged to respect this restriction on national vessels-a restriction which is evidently necessary to the security of the Turkish capital. The Black Sea itself is neutralized, or rendered free for the mercantile vessels of all nations; and no flag of war, whether be longing to the powers having control over the shores or to any other, can be seen upon its waters. The only exception to this is, that Russia and Turkey are allowed to keep up a coast service, the number of vessels for this purpose being determined

by a convention between these two states at the time of the treaty, and not being capable of modification afterwards without the consent of the other contracting powers.

May it not be hoped, that however Russia may itch to equip a new navy on the Euxine, the free navigation of the Danube, and the freedom of the sea itself, will render all schemes of conquest on these waters impracticable, as arraying the rest of Europe against them.

A movement indicating a liberal policy somewhat analogous to this, marked the negotiations between this country and England in 1854.

The right to fish upon the sea, and for aught that appears on the Banks of Newfoundland, is open to all nations; but of course there is no right to dry and cure fish even on the unsettled coasts belonging to any sovereign, without the permission of the same. By the treaty of 1783, in which Great Britain acknowledged the independence of the United States, she conceded to the citizens of the latter permission to fish not only on the Banks, but on those coasts of Newfoundland, which were used by British fishermen for that purpose, as well as along the coasts and in the bays and creeks of British America generally; but the right of drying and curing fish was conceded only along the unsettled coasts of Nova Scotia, Labrador, and the Magdalen Islands, and not on the island of Newfoundland.

This right, of course, was terminated by the war in 1812, and the treaty of Ghent contained no provisions respecting the fisheries. The claim made on our part, that the articles of the peace of 1783, relating to the fisheries, were in their nature. perpetual and so not annulled by the war, seems to have been utterly unfounded. A convention, concluded in 1818, again opened the privilege. The people of the United States might now fish, as well as cure and dry fish, on the greater part of the coast of Labrador and Newfoundland, so long as the same should continue unsettled. This privilege was, however, accompanied with a renunciation on the part of the United States of the liberty" to take, dry or cure fish on or within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors, of his Britannic Majesty's dominions in America, not included within the above mentioned limits."

Such was the state of our relations to Great Britain as to this point, until the treaty of 1854. By this treaty was given to our fishermen leave to take fish, excepting shell fish, on the coasts and in the bays, harbors and creeks of British America, from which they had been excluded before, without limit as to distance from the shore, as well as leave to land, for the purpose

of drying their nets and curing their fish. A reciprocal privilege was conceded to British subjects, of fishing along the coasts of the United States, from the 36th degree of latitude northwards. In both cases the liberty does not include salmon and shad fisheries in rivers and in the mouths of rivers.

We have given only that article of this treaty, which related to a delicate and agitating subject, on which the passions of men might easily ferment into a war. Other articles, conceived in the same spirit of liberality, promise to cement peace by the strong bond of common interests.

The treaty of Paris, which thus carried out the principles of the treaty of Vienna in regard to river navigation, and secured the freedom of the Black Sea, was signed on the 30th of March. On the 16th of April, the same powers by their plenipotentiaries made a solemn declaration, which forms an era in the history of international law. After stating that the uncertainty of maritime law gives rise to differences of opinion between neutrals and belligerents, which may occasion serious difficulties and even conflicts, the document proceeds to mention the following points, as agreed upon between the powers, who were parties to the treaty:

That privateering is henceforth to be abolished;

That the neutral flag shall cover enemy's goods, with the exception of contraband of war;

That neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are not liable to capture under an enemy's flag; and

That blockades, in order to be binding, must be maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the coast of the enemy.

The parties to this declaration engage to bring it to the notice of states not represented in the Congress of Paris, and add that it is not binding, except between those powers who have acceded or shall accede to it. By an accompanying protocol, it is agreed that the four principles of the declaration shall be indivisible; so that powers which accept of them, shall be restricted from entering "into any arrangement in regard to the application of the right of neutrals in time of war, which does not at the same time rest on the four principles contained in the declaration."

In regard to these principles, it may be observed first, that the declaration touching blockades is merely an affirmation of what is now acknowledged to be international law, and appears as such in all treatises on this science. It is, however, a gain

for humanity that paper blockades, with their injustice towards neutrals and the endless train of negotiations for damages coming after, should have an end put to them by the very states which formerly rivaled one another in their innovations on the received practice of blockade. Another remark for which they call is, that the question of " contraband of war," one of the most difficult and perplexing when we come to its details, is passed over in silence. It would have been greatly for the advantage of mankind, if the great powers who made the treaty of Paris, had specified what articles are contraband of war, and especially how provisions are to be considered.

But it is more important to remark, that in this document the neutral flag is made to cover the goods that are carried under it. The opposite doctrine-not indeed without attempts to change it even by force on the part of neutrals-has hitherto prevailed, and while our government has ever been seeking to establish the principle that free ships make free goods, our courts have accepted the other principle as a part of international law. The advance and improvement in public law here is very great. This arrangement marks a time when the interests of peace carry the day over those of war. The same great maritime power, which crushed the Baltic confederacy, and through the war with Bonaparte, restricted neutrals within the narrowest boundary of rights, is now a party to a rule which neutrals have longed for but almost despaired of. Great Britain proclaims that her interests are on the side of peace, that she expects to be a neutral in future wars, that she relinquishes that interpretation of the law of nations which she was ready to enforce at the cannon's mouth.

Postponing what we might have to say of the agreement concerning privateering, we may ask why these four principles were made indivisible? Or since the third and fourth of them are not new, why is the rule that free ships make free goods united inseparably with an agreement to abolish letters of marque? Does the reason lie in England's unwillingness to give up the old understanding in regard to neutral ships, unless by keeping the ocean free from private armed vessels, she can gain something to her commerce, which shall be a sort of compensation? Or as the parties to the treaty were well aware of the strong desire of the United States to introduce such a rule into the international code, and aware also of our dependence in war upon privateers as well as of the readiness of our citizens to rush into such a warfare, did they mean to secure themselves against our depredations upon their commerce, while they held out to us the long coveted position of safety and of freedom from search for our own vessels ?

« PreviousContinue »