PARIS DEMOCRACY OF THE SEA. CONFERENCES-SECRETARY MARCY'S REPLY—RIGHTS OF NEUTRALS-THE LIBEBAL ON the 3d of March, 1862, Mr. Cox introduced the following joint resolution in relation to maritime rights: Whereas international law cannot acquire any considerable extension except by the collective work of the nations either assembled in congress by delegates, or by the combined negotiation of the principal nations: and whereas the events connected with the Trent affair have given rise to the discussion of maritime rights by the principal powers of the world, all interested in their authoritative settlement; and in that discussion the friendly offices of the Emperor of France were tendered to this Government for the purpose of adjusting the questions involved on a clear and liberal basis, looking to the amelioration of the rights of neutrals upon the sea: Therefore Be it resolved, &c. First. That the national legislature acknowledges the friendly intentions and enlightened views of the Emperor of the French in said interposition. Second. That it favors the most liberal propositions with respect to maritime rights and the abolition of such usages as restrict the liberty of neutrals and multiply the causes of dissension in the world, believing that humanity and justice demand that the calamities incident to war should be strictly limited to the belligerents themselves and to those who voluntarily take part with them; but that neutrals abstaining in good faith from such complicity ought to be left to pursue their ordinary trade with either belligerent. Third. That the present time is propitious for the resumption of negotiations to secure these objects, and especially for the concurrence of the nations in the benignant articles of the declaration of the Congress of Paris of the sixteenth of April, eighteen hundred and fifty-six, with the amendment proposed by Mr. Marcy, viz:-1. Privateering is and remains abolished, provided that the private property of the subjects or citizens of a belligerent on the high seas shall be exempted from seizure by public armed vessels of the other belligerent, except it be contraband. 2. The neutral flag covers enemy's goods, with the exception of contraband of war. 3. Neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are not liable to capture under the enemy's flag. 4. Blockades, in order to be binding, must be effective. Fourth. That the people of the United States entertain the hope that the great maritime powers of France and England, relinquishing their present objections growing out of their ill-advised recognition of our insurgent States as belligerents, will consent to the propositions of the Paris conference, as the United States have so constantly invited, and as Mr. Many proposto the Government of France on the twenty-eighth day of July, eighteen huleed and fifty-six; with such a liberal expansion of them that the private property, not contraband, of citizens and subjects of nations in collision should be exempted from confiscation equally in warfare waged on the land and in warfare waged upon the seas, which are the common highways of the nations. Fifth. That the efforts of the late Secretary Marcy and the present Secretary of State to have these maxims ingrafted as fixed principles of international law were eminently wise and just, sanctioned by our traditionary policy, and conducive to the welfare of the Republic, and to the highest interests of peace and civilization. Sixth. That, for the accomplishment of this result, it would be both courteous and wise for our Government to consider the proposal of the eminent publicist of France, M. Hautefeuille, for a congress of the maritime powers, which, by uniting in one body the scattered forces of all neutrals, may secure to each the respect and security which they cannot obtain while remaining isolated; and that thus they may be enabled to maintain, as a lasting element of the law of nations, that maritime equilibrium so long sought by the United States of America, and so important to the freedom of commerce and the repose of the world. On the 11th of April, 1862, I advocated these resolutions. Had our Government in its intestine conflict followed these doctrines upon the land, it would to-day stand upon a firmer ground of vantage than it now enjoys. It would commend this nation with emphasis to the attention of mankind, as the advocate of liberal laws, applicable to another and less stable ele ment. Mr. Cox said: These resolutions reassert the American doctrine in favor of neutral rights, and for the protection of private property on the sca. It has been the privilege of this Government, ever since its existence, to champion the equality of rights upon the sea. Against force and tradition, kingcraft and aristocracy, we have asserted by our institutions democracy upon the earth. Against force, tradition, and pretension, we have asserted democracy upon the sea. Not more dear to the American honor is the equality of right among our citizens under the Constitution than is the equality of right of our ships and property under our flag upon the ocean. There is no time unseasonable for its assertion. In the midst of our Revolution it was a theme of interest to our statesmen, and in the present troubles of our country it deserves a prominent place in our thoughts. In a debate in the English House of Commons, on the 17th of March, Mr. Disraeli said that the question of maritime rights was the most important question that could engage the attention of an English legislature, as it affected seriously the naval strength of that country. But for the overwhelming necessity created by the rebellion here, the same might be asserted with even more force with regard to our own Government. Not only is this true, because we are a commercial people -not only because our commerce and our sea-coast surpass those of any other nation-but because the relative strength of our commerce and our navy is such that all our interests lie in following the neutral line of policy, and in the protection of private property from devastation by the large navies of the Old World. The organs of aristocratic pretension in England, like the "Times," speaking as well for the Government as for the Tory party led by Lord Derby, oppose any further concession to neutrals upon the sea. These organs, while exulting over what they are pleased to term the disgraceful failure of democracy in America, evidenced by our rebellion, condemn with English stubbornness, and in their isolated pride, the humane principles of their own liberalists like Bright, Cobden, Horsefall, and Baring. They affect to regard the anxiety of their commercial class for a better code of maritime law as the suicide of British naval supremacy. They look with jealousy and hate upon the efforts of French statesman like Chevalier, Hautefeuille, Thouvenel, and, I may add, Napoleon, for the freedom of the seas. Indeed, the English Government, judging by the recent debates, are ready to retrograde from their present position taken at the instance of France, at the Paris Conference, in favor of neutral rights. One thing was developed in those debates. England must either creep back to her old selfish policy, or advance to our liberal doctrine. To remain as she is, will, in case of war, give her commerce to neutrals and her cruisers to idleness. With the efforts of France, seconded as they are by all other Powers except England, and perhaps Spain, the United States are in closest sympathy. My resolutions express that sympathy. They are the answer of our people to the tenders of France. I would especially commend these resolutions to the study of members who represent commercial cities, both upon the Atlantic and Pacific. They are not without vital interest to the agricultural and mechanical interests, however remote from the coast. My own district has no direct commerce. But, "Though inland far we be," our interest, which is agriculture, is imbound with commerce by golden bands. Commerce does not suffer without all interests suffering. The ship that ploughs its furrows upon the sea is bringing the harvest reward to the husbandman who ploughs the soil in the far-off valleys of the West. The importance of commerce in civilization cannot be overrated. The interdependence of States is the highest evidence of their true independence. The most flourishing States have attained their highest elevation when closely connected with every part of the civilized world by successful commerce. When they lost their enterprise on the sea, they sank in the scale of nations. Heaven has ordered through the sea a mutual dependence. Soil, climate, and the variety of the earth's productions knit nations in mutual enterprise, while they bind society together in mutual dependence. All the illuminations of knowledge, the generosities of heart, and the multiplied means of human happiness, are the results of commerce. The more free commerce is, the more light, humanity, and happiness the world enjoys. The less restricted that interdependence, the more opulent are the blessings of the civilization it bestows. Let the fetters which war imposes on commerce melt away, and with the reforms already made in the maritime law, we can truly say that in no season or contingency shall civilization retrograde, and the "seas will but join the regions they divide." The liberation of commerce from its trammels has been the work of many ages. Especially has the task of liberating neutral commerce during war, and of defining articles contraband, been the object of many commercial treaties. The navigation laws, defining what are national ships, the mode of registry, their peculiar privileges, and the conditions under which foreign ships shall be allowed to engage in the trade of the country, either as importers or exporters, or as carriers from one part of the country to another, though greatly ameliorated, are still the subject of liberal legislation for further reform. That nation which will guard its commerce and meliorate its restrictions will surely reap the benefits, in the credit, importance, and independence of its citizens and its nationality. It is with this high purpose that the Committee on Foreign Affairs will present before Congress these resolutions. It is perfectly consistent for a fair mind to sustain these resolutions and still retain the belief that the persons seized on board the Trent were contraband, at least in the English sense of that term; and however we may differ as to the propriety of restoring the persons seized, there can be no difference in asking for a better code in reference to contraband, and a code inspired with a different spirit from that which has dictated the English opinions. In the remarks which I submitted on the Trent question, I argued that, from an English stand-point, England could not make reclamation, and until she reversed her own authorities she could not in justice complain of the action of Captain Wilkes as illegal. I now turn from the conduct of England, which has settled nothing of principle involved in the questions, to the enlightened action of France and the other Powers of Europe which have shown an interest in the case, as a matter of principle involving neutral rights. I find nothing to condemn, but every thing to commend, in the action of the French Government submitted to the Committee. It was dictated by her traditional friendship for this country. There is no reason to believe that France was moved by any other motive than that expressed by her Minister of Foreign Affairs in his letter of the 3d of December, 1861, in which he says that the desire of France was to prevent a conflict, perhaps imminent, between the two friendly PowersEngland and the United States-and to uphold " for the rights of her own flag certain principles essential to the security of neutrals." There is nothing in this letter incompatible with the sentiments of the French nation toward us, expressed in the despatches of M. Thouvenel to the French Minister at Washington on the 16th of May last. In that letter the French Emperor is represented as anxious to do all in his power toward strengthening and maintaining the American Union. He says: "The Emperor, indeed, has always held the great qualities of the American people in too high esteem, and has had it too much at heart to draw closer the bonds which unite them to France, to look with indifference upon the calamities which now threaten them. His Majesty desires that the United States should not lose, by any political disintegration, their standing as a great Power, and that they should not abdicate, to the injury of the general interests of civilization and humanity, the position which their rapid and brilliant development has assigned them. Should, therefore, such circumstances arise that the friendly intentions of the Emperor should seem likely to lead to a reconciliation between the States of the South and those of the North, his Majesty would, with the most cordial enthusiasm, contribute to the extent of his influence toward the strengthening or the maintenance of the Union." France has made no demonstration of a change of these sentiments from that day to the present. There is nothing in the French minister's despatch on the Trent affair inconsistent with these earnest avowals of friendship. Congress would be insensible to these tenders, did it not commend them to the approbation of the American people. Not only was there no intermeddling by France in this matter, not only was her tender the index of a cordial amity, but the subject-matter of her despatch-the rights of neutrals upon the sea-was a subject in which she had a common interest with us and with all maritime Powers. It was a subject in which she had, at our suggestion some years since, taken a leading and lively interest. It was a subject the most important before the Paris conferences which closed the Crimean war. It was urged upon her attention during the past summer by our own Government. Her interest in it is only second to that of this Republic. It has been manifested in the enlightened sentiments of her publicists and the diplomatic missives of her ministers. I purposely pretermit any discussion of the question, whether the seizure of the Trent and the arrest of certain of her passengers was right or wrong. It will serve no purpose now to inquire whether her passen gers were contraband, and the act of carrying them hostile. I do not purpose to reopen the controversy whether, if the seizure was right, the delivery of the persons seized was right or wrong. The world is aware that by British precedents, the British Government could not, without disavowing its old policy as to what is contraband of war, make reclamation for the persons seized. Mr. Seward well says, "that he was not tempted at all by suggestions that cases might be found in history where Great Britain refused to yield to other nations, and even to ourselves, claims like that now before us." Perhaps it would have been wiser had the Trent dispute been arbitrated by a friendly Power like that of France. She would, as is now apparent, have settled it by the release of the prisoners seized. In that case, we would have had an authoritative precedent, binding Great Britain for all time, and made in harmony with the liberal maritime policy which it has been the pride of this Republic to urge upon the nations since our existence, and which we have, in the first years of this Government, ingrafted upon treaties with foreign Powers. It would have been full compensation to us for the mortification which was felt, when we yielded these persons to the English demand, had we succeeded in crystallizing into international law that lenient and catholic policy with regard to neutrals, private property, and non-combatants on the seas which has obtained on land, and which, as Mr. Seward well says, is an "old, honored, and cherished American cause, not upon British authorities, but upon principles that constitute a large part of the distinctive policy by which the United States have developed the resources of a continent, and thus becoming a considerable maritime Power, have won the respect and confidence of many nations. It is doubtless true, that the United States have received from the men of other times and countries those suggestions as to the freedom of the seas and the rights of neutrals of which she has made herself the especial friend and champion. Such doctrines were the natural result of opposition to the extravagant pretensions of great naval Powers. They were the result of natural reason, rebelling against arbitrary force. Nations have at different eras pretended to exclusive control of the sea, especially that part adjacent to their territories. Denmark claimed the Sound and other Baltic passes. Venice espoused the Adriatic. The Portuguese claimed the South Atlantic and the Indian Oceans. Spain once pretended to have exclusively the Gulf of Mexico. The gifted Selden, in his Mare Clausum, claimed for England the four seas adjacent to Great Britain. During the war with Napoleon, England claimed municipal rule over the Atlantic, Mediterranean, and the Baltic; and by her orders in council and her acts of Parliament assumed to control the neutral commerce of those seas. Napoleon retaliated. America, through Jefferson, appropriately called these acts" a lawless system of piracy." America held that the sea was the common highway of all; that the only control which one nation had over the sea was the curtilage of soil and jurisdiction seaward a cannon shot or marine league. This is the principle laid down by the best writers, and it is the doctrine which the United States has, ever since its existence, been endeavoring to ingraft on maritime law. The vessel is the floating territory of the nation under whose flag it sails, and no Power can rightfully question |