these principles in connection with two others, in the celebrated Declaration of Paris. The articles in addition to those proposed by the United States were: (1) that declaring that blockade to be binding must be effective, and (2) that doing away with the practice of privateering. Both of these had been advocated by the United States for some years, especially that against privateering, which had formed a part of Franklin's negotiations with Great Britain in 1783. The evil of the paper blockade had always been condemned by the United States, especially during and since the stormy days of the Napoleonic Wars. Although the powers at Paris refused to adopt the Marcy Amendment, and the United States consequently declined to become a party to the Declaration, the direct influence of the United States upon that Declaration was, indeed, inestimable.

From the early days of its history the United States had earnestly endeavored to restrict the list of contraband articles to the narrowest possible limit, in opposition to the English tendency of expanding it. Franklin went as far as to contend that the rule of confiscating contraband goods as a punishment for carrying them was too severe, and that, therefore, the detention of such goods should be substituted for this rule. The famous assertion of Jefferson that "our citizens have always been free to make, vend, and export arms" has ever since been accepted as the established rule; that is, that a neutral government is not required to interfere with individual trade in contraband goods so long as the goods are a part of a bona fide commercial transaction.

The British condemnation of provisions as contraband was strongly protested by the United States. The compensation agreed upon in the Jay treaty to be paid by the British government for the illegal capture of American vessels and cargoes, was mainly the result of the controversy concerning provisions. The very important principle that neutral mail steamers be exempt from seizure was introduced by the United States during the Civil War. Secretary Seward's instructions that public mails of any friendly or neutral power should be delivered unopened and unsearched to the proper neutral authorities were communicated to all the foreign powers and the rule gradually became universal.

The liberal tendency of the United States toward contraband

articles was totally changed during the Civil War. The list of contraband articles published by the Federal government included almost everything that might be useful in war. Furthermore, in the case of the Trent, the Federal government at first advocated Captain Wilkes' principle of treating as analogues of contraband the belligerent diplomatic persons found on neutral vessels bound for a neutral port. From the discussion that arose on this incident, however, it was clearly established that such persons are not to be treated as contraband and that a belligerent captor should not forcibly extract such persons from a neutral vessel.

It has been mentioned above that the practice of paper blockade was always condemned by the United States. Napoleon's 'continental system' caused much damage to American merchants and shipping, and as a result of it the French Chambers appropriated $5,000,000, after much delay, to the United States as indemnity for the damage done. The European powers realized the evil of such blockades and formally declared at Paris in 1856 that blockades in order to be binding must be effective.

The British government always denied the exemption from search of a merchant vessel sailing under the convoy of either a belligerent or a neutral war ship. The United States also condemned merchant vessels sailing under a belligerent convoy, but always contended that a neutral merchant vessel under the convoy of a ship of war of its own state must be exempt from the belligerent right of visit and search. This immunity of ships under neutral convoy was provided for in many of the treaties between the United States and other powers. In 1801, Great Britain also admitted the American usage by joining the Maritime Convention of St. Petersburg, which urged this principle.

According to the British doctrine of continuous voyage, neutral vessels bound for an enemy port from an enemy or enemy colonial port, but stopping and breaking the voyage at some intermediate neutral port for the purpose of getting a set of papers showing a colourable importation, were condemned when captured on their way from the intermediate neutral port to the ultimate hostile destination. But the United States went so far, in the Civil War, as to condemn vessels for contraband trading and attempt to break blockade even on the

first leg of the voyage when the ships were going from neutral port to neutral port, when there was suspicion that the goods had an ultimate hostile destination. This American doctrine was severely criticised as being unjustifiable, but since that time it has gained recognition as a part of international law by its incorporation in the London Conference of 1908-09. But here it was applied to the carrying of absolute contraband only and not to blockade.

In the main, the influence of the United States upon the laws of neutrality has been profound and far reaching. Comparing the present system of neutrality as a whole to that which obtained in the early days down as far as the year 1776, its advancement has been far greater than has been that of any other branch of international law. That this advancement has been a great blessing to all mankind goes without saying. The sphere of hostile operations has been vastly limited, the means of peaceful intercourse between nations in time of war has been guaranteed to a great extent, and, above all, the freedom of neutral commerce enlarged and safeguarded. In spite of all the opposition raised by the great European maritime powers, the United States, by its persistent advocacy of liberal views, contributed a larger portion of influence toward these accomplishments than any other nation in the world.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

American State Papers.

Archives of Diplomacy (British) 1863.

Bernard, Montague. Violations of Neutrality by England.
Black. Prize Cases.

Bowles, T. G. Defense of Paris.

Boyd, C. A. Wheaton, International Law.

Burnet, Sir Thomas. History of His Own Time.

Bynkershoek. Quæstiones Juris Publici.

Canning. Speeches.

Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York, Proceedings of. Dana, Richard Henry. Notes on Wheaton's International Law. 8th Edition. 1866.

Davis, J. C. Bancroft. Mr. Fish and the Alabama Claims, a Chapter in Diplomatic History.

Diplomatic Correspondence. (United States.)

Dumont, Jean. Corps Universal Diplomatique du Droit des Gens. de Flassan, Jean Babtiste Gaëtan de Raxis.

Raisonneé de la Diplomatique Française.

Histoire Générale et

Foster, John W. A Century of American Diplomacy.

Franklin, Benjamin. Complete Works.

Gessner. Review of the Springbok Case.

Godolphin, John. A View of the Admiral Jurisdiction.

Grotius, Hugo. De Jure Belli ac Pacis. Translated and edited by

Whewell.

Hague, Texts of the Peace Conferences at the

Hale, Robert S. Report on the Mixed Commission.

Hall, W. E. International Law. 5th and 6th Editions.

Hastings, G. W. Transactions of the National Association for the

Promotion of Social Science.

Hertslet. The Map of Europe by Treaty.

Holland, T. E. Admiralty Manual of Prize Law.

Atherley-Jones, L. A. Commerce in Time of War.

Lampredi. Del Commercio dei Popoli Neutrali in Tempo de Guerro.

Lawrence. International Law.

Loménie, Louis Leonard. Beaumarchais et son Temps.

London Times, The. Jan. 4, 1900. March 7, 1868.

Mc Master, John Bach. A History of the People of the United States.

Marshall, John. Life of Washington.

de Martens, Charles. Causes Célèbres Droit des Gens.

de Martens, G. F. Recueil des Traites.

Nouveau Recueil des Traites.

Moore, John Bassett. International Arbitrations.