The basis of this voluntary action of our government was, that sound maxim of the law of nations, that a state is prima facie responsible for whatever is done within its jurisdiction, since it must be presumed to be capable of preventing or punishing offences committed within its boundaries; and that a body politic is, therefore, responsible for the acts of individuals which are acts of actual or meditated hostility towards a nation, with which the government of these subjects professes to maintain relations of friendship or neutrality. (3 Phillimore's International Law, 218; Grotius, l. ii., c. 21, § 2; Puffendorf, 1. i., c. 5, § ult.) In the year following, upon the application of England, and for her better protection (Canning's Speeches, vol. 4, pp. 152-3, Abr. Debates in Congress, vol. 7), we passed the act of 1794; and lastly, and most important to be remembered when the day of settlement comes, we, in that year, entered into a treaty of amity and commerce with her, by which, on her demand, we undertook to pay to her and her citizens all losses suffered by armed vessels fitted out in our ports.*

Our conduct during this whole period received, and still receives, the commendation of all enlightened publicists. Phillimore and Ward are profuse in their praise of the justice, dignity, and intelligence, which marked the action of this government; and George Canning lost no opportunity in Parliament to urge an emulation of our example. In the debates, upon Lord Althorpe's petition for the repeal of the Foreign Enlistment Act (Hansard's Parl. Debates N. S., vol. 8, pp. 1019-59, Canning's Speeches, vol. 4, pp. 152-3), he said:

"It surely could not be forgotten, that, in 1794, this country complained of various breaches of neutrality (though much inferior to those now under consideration), committed on the part of subjects of the United States. What was the conduct of that nation in consequence? Did she resent the complaint as an infringement of her independence? Did it refuse to take such steps as would insure the immediate observance of neutrality? Neither. In 1794, immediately after the application from the British government, the legislature of the United States passed an act, prohibiting, under heavy penalties, the engagement of American citizens in the armies of any foreign powers.† Was that the only instance of the kind? It was but last year (1818) that the United States passed an act, by which the act of 1794 was confirmed in every respect, again prohibiting the engagement of their citizens in the service of any foreign powers; and pointing distinctly to the service of Spain or the South American provinces."

He might have added, had he spoken at a later period, that in 1838 we again, upon the request of Great Britain, called in legislative aid; this time to prevent succor to the Canadian rebellion. Again, in 1823, he said (Canning's Speeches, vol. 5, pp. 50-1):

"If I wished for a guide in a system of neutrality, I would take that laid down by America in the days of the presidency of Washington and the secretaryship of Jefferson. Here, sir," he added, after stating what we had done, "I contend, is the principle on which we ought to act."

After the treaty of 1794, the efforts of our government to prevent infractions of its neutrality were still increased.

In 1803 (President's Message, October 17), Mr. Jefferson said:

*

* *

"We have seen, with sincere concern, the flames of war lighted up again in Europe; and nations, with which we have the most friendly and useful relations, engaged in mutual destruction. In the course of this conflict, let it be our endeavor, as it is our interest, to cultivate the friendship of the belligerent nations by every act of justice and innocent kindness; to receive their armed vessels with hospitality from the distresses of the sea; but to administer the means of annoyance to none; to establish in our harbors such a police as may maintain law and order; to restrain our citizens from embarking, individually, in a war, in which their country has no part, and to punish severely those persons, citizen or alien, who usurp our flag not entitled to it."*

In 1805, still greater vigor was announced. Mr. Jefferson, in the annual message of that year, says, after reciting certain infractions of our neutrality and sovereignty:

"These enormities appearing to be unreached by any control of their sovereigns, I found it necessary to equip a force, to cruise within our own seas, to arrest all vessels of this description found hovering on our coasts within the limits of the Gulf Stream, and to bring in the offenders for trial as pirates." (Am. State Pap., For. Rel., vol. 1, p. 66.)

In 1817, Spain was engaged in a contest with her colonies. The proximity of the scene of conflict, the sympathy which our people naturally held with the struggling colonies, and the adventurous character of our seamen, all combined to make interference feasible and attractive. Many attempts were made, the better to prevent which, we passed the act of 1818, alluded to by Mr. Canning. A voluminous correspondence took place between Don Luis de Onis, the Spanish minister, and the State Department, touching these armaments, a critical examination of which will show that the charges now constantly made by the English press, that our government was derelict at that time are not well founded.† Some vessels escaped, perhaps, in

* It is well known that the "Alabama" usually approaches her victims under the English flag; see papers in the matter of the "Brilliant," published by the New York Chamber of Commerce, 1862.

† The Spanish minister complained to our government that hostile expeditions were being fitted out in Louisiana, to aid the insurrectionary parties in South America. The complaint was immediately referred to the proper person, in New Orleans, and

2

spite of our vigilance. One case, which occurred in Baltimore, has been related to me by a gentleman who was cognizant of the fact. A suspected vessel had been seized, and, to prevent her going to sea before the matter could be investigated, her sails were taken from her and packed in a warehouse. After a time, the captain, who persistently asserted his innocence, asked permission to take the sails to spread them for drying, they being in danger of mildew. The port officer, a confiding, and not over-shrewd person, consented, and in the night the vessel slipped away, leaving the simple official to make the best settlement with his government that he could. Upon the final adjustment of the respective claims between Spain and the United States, it was not denied by us that we were liable to make compensation to sufferers by armed vessels, which we might have stopped; but, on the contrary, we took from Spain a release from all claims of this character, as part of the consideration for the concessions which we then made. (Treaty with Spain, 1819.) And on December 7th, 1819, President Monroe declared to the world, (annual message,) referring to Spanish matters:

"It is gratifying to have it in my power to state, so strong has been the sense throughout the whole community of what is due to the character and obligations of the nation, that very few examples of a contrary kind have occurred."

In 1838, our government was again zealous in the enforcement of what had by this time become its traditional policy; and used its most vigorous efforts in endeavoring to prevent

the result was, that our own officers were set to work, without Spanish aid, and succeeded in breaking up almost entirely the system.

Many persons were prosecuted and seven vessels seized, of which, three being found guilty, were condemned. Nine or ten prizes were libelled and restored to their Spanish owners, on the ground that the capturing vessels had been fitted out and armed, or had their forces augmented in the waters of the United States. Mr. Dick, the United States District Attorney, says, "It is notorious, that to no one point of duty have the civil and military authorities of the United States more strenuously, or, it is believed, more successfully, devoted their attention, than to the discovering and suppressing all attempts to violate the laws in this respect. Such attempts have never been successful, except when conducted under circumstances of concealment that eluded discovery and almost suspicion; or when carried on at some remote point of the coast, beyond the reach of detection or discovery. In every instance where it was known that these illegal acts were attempting, or where it was afterwards discovered that they had been committed, the persons engaged, so far as they were known, were prosecuted, while the vessels fitted out or attempted to be fitted out, have been seized and libelled, under the act of 5th June, 1794; and when captures have been made by vessels thus fitted and armed, and their force augmented in our waters, and the prizes brought within our waters, or even found upon the high seas by our cruisers, they have been restored to the Spanish owner, and in some instances damages awarded against the captors." Niles' Reg., p. 63.

:

all interference by our people in the disturbances then existing in Canada. In an official letter, Mr. Webster says:

"The President directs me to say that it is his fixed resolution that all such disturbers of the public peace and violators of the laws of their country shall be brought to exemplary punishment." (Webster's Works, vol. 6, p. 260.)

In the same volume Mr. Webster refers to the fixed American doctrine on this subject, especially the practice of directing our officers to watch for infringements of neutrality, without waiting for information, and cites the instructions given our army during the war for Texan independence. (Ibid. p. 452.)

The next occasion on which Great Britain, by taking a belligerent attitude, forced upon us the embarrassment and annoyance of the neutral character, was during the war with Russia, in 1854-6. It has been very loosely charged that, at that time, armaments for Russia were permitted to go on here, and that some war-vessels intended for that nation escaped. The best investigation which I have been able to give to that period fails to discover any vessel which can be traced to the Russians, or which ever caused, or attempted to cause, damage to the other belligerents. During that war, much excitement was caused in England by the announcement that the barque Maury, of New York, belonging to a highly respectable mercantile firm (the owners of the Jacob Bell, lately burned by the Florida), had been detected in shipping arms to the enemy, and had been seized. The real truth about that matter seems never yet to have reached the British public. The facts were, that the barque was openly advertised for China, and was loading on freight. She was seized on the application of the British consul, sustained by very suspicious affidavits. An examination of her cargo, &c., proved her innocence, and the consul made a public apology in the columns of the New York Herald of October 24, 1855, for the seizure.* The owners did not let the matter rest, however, but procured an investi