tively re-asserted by Secretary Marcy that the neutral has a perfect right to purchase the merchant vessels of the belligerents.41

Meanwhile the United States concluded many treaties with European and Central and South American states, restricting the list of contraband articles to the narrowest possible limits.*2 The treaty of 1849 with Guatemala is the common form of American treaties as far as contraband goods are concerned. To this, the treaty of 1825 with Brazil which included military clothes or uniforms as contraband, and several other treaties concluded during this period, are exceptions. During the Crimean war all the principal belligerent powers limited contraband strictly to arms and munitions of war.

B. Blockade.

From the downfall of Napoleon to the Declaration of Paris, a number of blockades were instituted on the Baltic Coasts, in several of the South American ports and elsewhere, but these blockades followed no precise or uniform rule as to the notifications, effectiveness or legality. Some proclamations extended to such a large area of the coasts as to say, "we will blockade all blockadeable ports." In 1849, the Danish minister notified a blockade of all the ports of Schleswig and Holstein, and some expressed the intention of a future blockade. In 1825 Brazil declared a blockade of Buenos Ayres and Uruguay extending over twenty degrees of latitude, and maintained by one frigate, one corvette, and three brigs. Calling this a 'blockade', the Brazilian government required all neutral vessels ready to depart to furnish bonds with promise not to violate the blockade of Buenos Ayres. The United States made a formal protest against the legality or the validity of the demand. Henry Clay, Secretary of State, wrote to the American representative in Brazil to the effect that “that measure has no justification whatever in the law of nations . . .

" Wharton, Digest, Vol. III, pp. 652-653, Marcy to Mason, Feb. 19, 1856.

42

"The treaty of 1800 with France, Treaties and Conventions, 1871, p. 270; that of 1825 with Brazil, p. 98; that of 1831 with Mexico, p. 549; that of 1836 with Venezuela, p. 878; that of 1836 with the Peru-Bolivian Confederation, p. 667; that of 1839 with Ecuador, p. 232; that of 1850 with San Salvador, p. 749; and that of 1849 with Guatemala, p. 440.

A blockade must execute itself . . . . .The belligerent has no right to resort to any subsidiary means".43 In this dispute the United States upheld the principle of individual or special notification of blockade.

This and other similar cases illustrate the practice of paper blockade. There was no combined effort made by the European powers for the prevention of such illegal practice until 1856 in the Declaration of Paris. The United States had constantly been contending against the continental system and had made many claims for the damages sustained by the American carriers at the hands of the French cruisers and privateers during the struggle of 1806 and 1807 between Great Britain and France. Satisfaction had been constantly demanded for the illegal captures of neutral commerce, but with no avail. In 1829 President Jackson asserted in his Annual Message to Congress "that they would continue to furnish a subject of unpleasant discussion and possible collision." This long dispute strained the relations between the two governments. In 1831 Louis Philippe concluded a treaty with the United States at Paris, promising the payment of $5,000,000 for indemnity. The United States promptly ratified the treaty in 1832, but the French Chambers refused to appropriate the money. Louis Philippe intimated through the American minister that an earnest message from the President to Congress would serve to induce the French Chambers to give attention to the matter. In consequence of this intimation, President Jackson's message of December 1, 1834, urged the passage of a law, authorizing retaliation upon French property.45 The vigorous language used in the message was little short of a declaration of war, and France consequently withdrew her minister at Washington, but the appropriation was soon made and the neutral demand of the United States was thus satisfied at last.

C. The Right of Visit and Search.

Another controversy settled in this period was that of the question of belligerent convoy between Denmark and the United States. The American neutral merchantmen with

43 Atherly-Jones, Commerce in War, pp. 133 ff.

44

Schurz, Clay, Vol. II, p. 52.

Richardson, Messages, Vol. III, p. 105 et seq.

British convoy, then enemy to Denmark, were captured by Danish cruisers under the order of 1810. After a long dispute between the two powers, a treaty was signed in 1830, stipulating an indemnity to be paid by Denmark to the American claimants for the seizure of their property.46 While admitting that sailing under enemy convoy was a justifiable cause for condemnation, the American commissioners argued that the American merchant vessels had submitted themselves to the British convoy not in order to escape search by Danish crusiers but in order to escape from the Milan and Berlin decrees of France, then an ally of Denmark.47 Strong arguments were presented in favor of both sides, but even some of the American jurists expressed doubts as to the justification for the position taken by the United States in this controversy.

From 1824 to 1858 the United States made a dozen or more different treaties holding the principle that simple declaration of the commander of the convoy is deemed sufficient to prove the innocence of the merchantmen.48 By that of 1860 with Venezuela it was further agreed in addition to the usual provisions, not to admit any merchant ship carrying on board contraband of war, to be protected by their convoys. Germany, Austria, Spain, Italy and the Baltic powers all agreed with and accepted the American usage, and France made six treaties during this period with the United States and other American Republics, adopting the same principle.

46

47

Martens, Nouveau Recueil, Vol. VIII, p. 350.

Dana, Wheaton, p. 709.

48 Treaties that stipulated the exemption of convoy are: That of 1824 with Colombia, Treaties and Conventions, 1871, p. 174; that of 1828 with Brazil, p. 100; that of 1831 with Mexico, p. 551; that of 1832 with Chile, p. 124; that of 1836 with the Peru-Bolivian Confederacy, p. 669; that of 1836 with Venezuela, p. 879; that of 1839 with Ecuador, p. 234; that of 1846 with New Granada, p. 184; that of 1849 with Guatemala, p. 442; that of 1850 with San Salvador, p. 751; that of 1851 with Peru, p. 683; that of 1858 with Bolivia, p. 87; and that of 1860 with Venezuela, p. 891.

CHAPTER 5

HISTORY OF NEUTRALITY FROM 1861 TO 1872

I.

RECOGNITION OF BELLIGERENCY.

When the secession movement was threatening in the South and all the European powers, especially Great Britain, were closely watching its progress, Mr. Black, the Secretary of State, on February 28, 1861, strongly appealed to the European powers not to recognize the independence of the seceding States or to encourage their disunion movement. In his circular to the United States Ministers abroad he said, "It is the right of this government to ask of all foreign powers that the latter shall take no steps which may tend to encourage the revolutionary movement of the seceding States, or increase the danger of disaffection in those which still remain loyal".1 To this warning Lord Russell replied that England would be reluctant to take any step which might sanction the separation, but that he could not make any promise for England in an affair whose circumstances might vary. Mr. Seward, successor to Secretary Black, instructed the American Ministers abroad to the effect that any Confederate agent seeking for foreign intervention must be prevented from going abroad. In his circular of March 9, 1861, he said, "My predecessor . . instructed you to use all proper and necessary measures to prevent the success of efforts which may be made by persons claiming to represent those States of this Union in whose name a provisional government has been announced to procure a recognition of their independence by the government of Spain."

During the early part of the year 1861, seven States of the Union formed themselves into a separate Confederation with a constitutional government completely organized. Actual hostilities commenced on April 12, 1861, with the bombardment of Fort Sumter. After a two days' struggle the fort fell into

1

Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States, 1861, p. 15.

2 Lord Russell to Lord Lyons, May 6, 1861.

the hands of the Southern troops. Two hundred thousand men were under arms against the Federal government before the end of the month. President Lincoln's proclamation of the 15th called for 75,000 volunteers to suppress the seceding States, stating that they were . . . too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings or by the powers vested in the marshals by law."

66

After land warfare had thus begun, the President of the Southern Confederacy proclaimed on the 17th of April that letters of marque and reprisal might be issued to vessels to cruise against Northern commerce, and in reply to this, President Lincoln issued his proclamation declaring that the entire coast of the Southern States was in a state of blockade. In this proclamation, President Lincoln said, " . . . . . and whereas a combination of persons, engaged in such insurrection, have (sic) threatened to grant pretended letters of marque to authorize the bearers thereof to commit assaults on the lives, property or the goods of the citizens of the country lawfully engaged in commerce on the high seas, and waters of the United States. have deemed it advisable to set on foot a blockade of the ports within the States aforesaid . . . . . . a competent force will be posted so as to prevent entrance and exit of vessels from the ports aforesaid. If therefore, with a view to violate such blockade, a vessel shall approach, or shall attempt to leave either (sic) of the said ports, she will be duly warned by the commander of one of the blockading vessels. . . . and if the same vessel shall again attempt to enter or leave the blockaded port, she will be captured and sent to the nearest convenient port for such proceedings against her and her cargo as prize, as may be deemed advisable.

995

I

The official copy of this proclamation reached London on the 10th of May and the Queen issued the proclamation of neutrality on the following 14th, recognizing at the same time the belligerency of the Confederate States. This action was considered by the United States government as unfriendly and unneutral, and the question was made the subject of reiterated complaints. The justification of the British recognition lies in the fact, as the British argued, that the state of war was Richardson, Messages, Vol. VI, p. 13. "Ibid., pp. 14-15.