Page images
PDF
EPUB

CHAPTER VIII.

Negotiations respecting International Maritime Law, and the Declaration of Paris, 1856.-Conventions Proposed by the Government of the United States to Great Britain and France.-Failure of the Negotiations.-Informal Communications with the Confederate States on the same Subject.

THE negotiation which forms the subject of this chapter proved abortive, and has not an important place in the history of the war. It has, however, a place in that history, and cannot, therefore, be left unnoticed. The circumstances which led to it may be briefly stated.

The Declaration on Maritime Law, signed at the close of the Conferences of Paris in 1856, had received the assent of by far the larger number of civilized nations. Of the propositions embraced in it,' the fourth was already a settled maxim of public law, and the third had nearly reached the same stage; but the rule that enemy's goods are protected by the neutral flag had been a subject of long controversy, whilst the employment of privateers had always been regarded as optional, though open to many objections. The United States had

1 "1. Privateering is and remains abolished.

"2. The neutral flag covers enemy's goods, with the exception of contraband of war.

"3. Neutral merchandize, except contraband of war, is not liable to seizure under the flag of an enemy.

"4. Blockades to be binding must be effective, that is to say, maintained by a force sufficient really to prohibit (interdire réellement) access to the coast of the enemy."

Chap. VIII. refused to become a party to it, judging that it was not for their interest to relinquish the liberty of using privateers, unless upon condition that all private property at sea, not contraband, should be declared exempt from capture. This condition had been embodied in a counter-proposal, which, from having been brought forward by Mr. Marcy, when Secretary of State, had become known as Mr. Marcy's Amendment. The counter-proposal, however, had been withdrawn, in April 1857, by Mr. Buchanan's Administration, which was understood to be unwilling to give up, even on these terms, the right of resorting to the issue of letters of marque.

The British and French Governments, at the beginning of the war, were desirous of ascertaining whether the principles of the Declaration would, if not formally accepted, be at any rate respected in practice by the two belligerents. It was with this view that Lord Lyons and M. Mercier, on the 15th June, waited on Mr. Seward and proposed to read to him despatches which they had received from their respective Governments. Mr. Seward, as we have already seen,1 refused to receive any communication which assumed that the revolted States were to be regarded as belligerents by foreign Powers, but said that, as to what the two Governments practically asked, "he was ready to agree to all, and more than all that was desired. The United States had always held, and held still, that the flag covered the cargo, and that the property of a friend was not liable to seizure under an enemy's flag. The Government admitted fully that it would be responsible for the acts of any privateer to whom it should issue letters of marque. He regarded these principles to be quite as applicable to measures of coercion adopted against rebels as to the operations of a regular war."2

1 Page 159.

2 Lord Lyons to Lord J, Russell, 17th June, 1861,

The report of this conversation does not prepare us to Chap. VIII. find that the Government of the United States was at the time when it occurred, and had for some time been, not merely willing to adopt the Paris Declaration but very desirous to conclude express Conventions on the subject with both France and Great Britain. Instructions to negotiate such Conventions had in fact been sent to Mr. Adams and Mr. Dayton as early as the 25th April. The three Governments and their respective Ministers appear to have been at cross purposes as to the place where the negotiation was to be carried on, and questions of form arose which had the effect of protracting it; but Conventions, substantially identical, were finally submitted in draft to Lord Russell and M. Thouvenel, and by them accepted on behalf of their respective Governments. Here, however, a difficulty arose, which could not well have been unforeseen.

"You will clearly understand," Lord Russell had, at the outset, written to Lord Lyons, "that Her Majesty's Government cannot accept the renunciation of privateering on the part of the Government of the United States if coupled with the condition that they should enforce its renunciation on on the Confederate States; either by denying their right to issue letters of marque, or by interfering with the belligerent operations of vessels holding from them such letters of marque, as long as they carry on hostilities on the recognized principles, and under the admitted liabilities, of the law of nations."l

"I think," Mr. Dayton had told Mr. Seward, "that the force and efficacy of an accession by our Government to the Treaty of Paris is misunderstood. If I understand the views of these foreign Governments, such accession by us would merely bind our hands as respects privateering; it would not at all enlarge our

1 Lord J. Russell to Lord Lyons, 18th May, 1861.

Chap. VIII. rights as against a belligerent Power not a party to the Treaty, nor would it bind these European Governments to enforce the laws of piracy as against such belligerent Power not a party to the Treaty. If they admit the Confederate States as a belligerent Power, and recognize them for even commercial purposes (which, I take it, is what they meant to do) our accession to the Treaty of Paris will not change their action in this respect. The status of these rebellious States as respects privateering will remain where it was. At least that is the view which I think will be taken of this matter in England and France.” "It is doubtful, perhaps," he wrote again, "whether the other Powers will, under the circumstances, negotiate for the accession of the United States to the Treaty in question; but, should they do so, it will be with the understanding that it imposes no new duties on them, growing out of our domestic controversy.”1

No one, indeed, can read Mr. Dayton's despatches without perceiving that, though he obeyed his instructions by negotiating the Convention, he obeyed them with reluctance. If the Convention was proposed with a view--I will not say to entrap the Governments and Great Britain and France, but to obtain a temporary advantage which they did not mean to concede, he saw clearly that this expectation was futile. If not, he thought the time chosen for acceding to the Declaration inopportune. And he was convinced, and rightly convinced, that the engagement for which he was treating would receive one interpretation in America and another in Europe. The assumption on one side was, that France and England would be bound to regard the Confederates as subjects of a Power which had renounced privateering. The assumption on the other was, that, for the purposes of the war, and so long as it might

1 Mr. Dayton to Mr. Seward, 7th and 12th June, 1861.

last, the Confederates must be regarded as a com- Chap. VIII. munity virtually independent, not bound by Treaties made by the Government of the United States, and at liberty to resort to privateering.

ment.

On the 22nd June Mr. Seward wrote to Mr. Dayton:

"We wish to act singly and in good faith with the French GovernWe understand, and shall continue to understand, that France does not concede belligerent rights to the insurgents in contravention of our sovereignty. We shall insist that she does nothing adverse to our position, whatever may be sail to the contrary.

"She has proposed to tell us that she thinks the Confederate States are entitled to belligerent rights. We have declined to hear that. We have not heard it. We shall continue to regard France as respecting our Government, throughout the whole country, until she practically acts in violation of her friendly obligations to us, as we understand them. When she does that, it will be time enough to inquire whether, if we accede to the Treaty of Paris, she could, after that, allow pirates upon our commerce shelter in her ports; and what our remedy then should be. We have no fear on this head."

On the 6th July he had a conversation with Lord Lyons, of which we have the following account:

6

"He went on to tell me that he was endeavouring to disentangle a complication which had been produced by Mr. Dayton at Paris Mr. Dayton had, he said, been instructed to state to the French Govern ment that the Government of the United States preferred the proposal of Mr. Marcy, by which private property would be altogether exempted from capture; but that, nevertheless, they were willing, if necessary, to accede at once to the Declaration of Paris pure and simple,' and to postpone the discussion of Mr. Marcy's proposal to a more propitious moment. Mr. Dayton, however, when he saw that France had accorded belligerent rights to the rebels, became alarmed, and conceived that an acceptance of the Declaration of Paris would be injurious to the United States, inasmuch as it would preclude them from employing privateers without imposing a similar restriction on the insurgents. He had, therefore, departed from his instructions, and made, on his own responsibility, proposals intended to avert this danger. Now (Mr. Seward went on to say) if, on the one hand, the Government of the United States declared that they held their accession to the Paris Declaration to impose an obligation on France with regard to all the States in the Union-the disloyal as well as the loyal; or, if on the other hand, the Government of France announced that it did not intend, by accepting the accession of the United States, to contract any engagement affecting the States in revolt,

« PreviousContinue »