Russia will wish the United States to make concessions which are to operate to his own disadvantage.

It has been intimated by our Commercial Agent at Stockholm, that the Crown Prince of Sweden is disposed to promote by his good offices, a peace between the United States and Great Britain, and that he did not hesitate to disapprove the British practice of impressment, with the extraordinary claim set up by Great Britain to the right of search in foreign Vessels for British Seamen. This favorable disposition of Sweden is an interesting circumstance, and a knowledge of it may be useful in your negotiations. The President has it in contemplation to send a Minister to Sweden immediately after the meeting of Congress.

I shall conclude by remarking that a strong hope is entertained that this friendly mediation of the Emperor Alexander will form an epoch in the relations between the United States and Russia which will be extensively felt and be long and eminently distinguished by the happy consequences attending it. Since 1780 Russia has been the pivot on which all questions of neutral right have essentially turned. Most of the Wars which have disturbed the World in modern times have originated with Great Britain and France. These wars have affected distant Countries, especially in their character as neutrals, and very materially the United States and Russia, who took no part in promoting them, and had no interest in the great objects of either power. A good intelligence between the United States and Russia respecting neutral rights, may have an important influence in securing them from violation, in any future War and may even tend to prevent War, to the advantage of all Nations. The opportunity afforded by this mediation to explain fully to the Government of Russia the just views and concurring policy of the United States will, it is presumed, contribute much to the establishment of such an understanding, and in that respect will merit your particular attention. I have [etc.]

59

JA MONROE

The Secretary of State (Monroe) to the Peace Commissioners (Gallatin, J. Q. Adams, Bayard)1

WASHINGTON, April 27, 1813. GENTLEMEN: The President presuming that the mediation of the Emperor of Russia may afford a favorable opportunity for improving our relations with Russia herself is disposed to avail himself of it, so far as it may be done to the mutual advantage of both Coun

'MS., Instructions to United States Ministers, vol. VII, pp. 277-278.

tries. With this view, he has thought it proper, to authorise you, to enter into a Treaty of amity and Commerce with that power.

A good intelligence between the United States and Russia respecting neutral rights, is an object of the highest importance. It is believed that it would produce the most beneficial effect on the interests of both Countries and indeed of all other commercial Nations. The present mediation is considered peculiarly auspicious to such an event. A violation of our neutral rights was among the principal causes of the War with England. In promoting peace those rights will come into view, on each of which the Government of Russia will form and probably express an opinion. It is not doubted that the opinion thus expressed will be such as might be expected from the Emperor, correct and sound in itself and such as ought to be satisfactory to every other power.

Whatever stipulations you may enter into with Russia on the subject of neutral rights you will be careful not to commit the United States in any way to maintain and enforce those rights on other powers, or to prolong the present War with Great Britain. I have [etc.] JAMES MONROE

60

Proclamation Regarding the British Blockade of the Atlantic Coast of the United States, June 29, 18141

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

WHEREAS it is manifest that the Blockade, which has been proclaimed by the Enemy, of the whole Atlantic Coast of the United States, nearly two thousand miles in extent, and abounding in ports harbours and navigable inlets, cannot be carried into effect, by any adequate force, actually stationed for the purpose; and it is rendered a matter of certainty and notoriety, by the multiplied and daily arrivals and departures of the public and private armed vessels of the United States, and of other vessels, that no such adequate force has been so stationed: And whereas a Blockade thus destitute of the character of a regular and legal blockade as defined and recognized by the established law of Nations, whatever other purposes it may be made to answer, forms no lawful prohibition or obstacle to such neutral and friendly vessels, as may chuse to visit and trade with the United States; and whereas it accords with 'MS., Proclamations, 1791-1861, p. 17.

the interest and the amicable views of the United States, to favor and promote, as far as may be, the free and mutually beneficial commercial intercourse of all friendly nations disposed to engage therein, and with that view to afford to their vessels destined to the United States, a more positive and satisfactory security against all interruptions molestations or vexations whatever, from the Cruisers of the United States: Now be it known that I James Madison, President of the United States of America, do by this my Proclamation, strictly order and instruct all the public armed vessels of the United States, and all private armed vessels commissioned as privateers, or with letters of marque and reprisal, not to interrupt detain or otherwise molest or vex, any vessels whatever belonging to neutral powers or the subjects or citizens thereof, which vessels shall be actually bound and proceeding to any port or place within the jurisdiction of the United States; but on the contrary to render to all such vessels all the aid and kind offices which they may need or require.

Given under my hand and the seal of the United States at the City of Washington the twenty ninth day of June in the [SEAL] year one thousand eight hundred and fourteen, and of the Independence of the United States the thirty eight JAMES MADISON

By the President

JAS MONROE

Secretary of State

61

Opinion of the United States Supreme Court in the Case of "The Nereide", March 11, 18151

MARSHALL, CH. J. after stating the facts of the case, delivered the opinion of the court as follows:

2. Does the treaty between Spain and the United States subject the goods of either party, being neutral, to condemnation as enemy property, if found by the other in the vessel of an enemy? That treaty stipulates that neutral bottoms shall make neutral goods, but contains no stipulation that enemy bottoms shall communicate the hostile character to the cargo. It is contended by the captors that the two principles are so completely identified that the stipulation of the one necessarily includes the other.

1

Let this proposition be examined.

19 Cranch 412-431.

The rule that the goods of an enemy found in the vessel of a friend are prize of war, and that the goods of a friend found in the vessel of an enemy are to be restored, is believed to be a part of the original law of nations, as generally, perhaps universally, acknowledged. Certainly it has been fully and unequivocally recognized by the United States. This rule is founded on the simple and intelligible principle that war gives a full right to capture the goods of an enemy, but gives no right to capture the goods of a friend. In the practical application of this principle, so as to form the rule, the propositions that the neutral flag constitutes no protection to enemy property, and that the belligerent flag communicates no hostile character to neutral property, are necessarily admitted. The character of the property, taken distinctly and separately from all other considerations, depends in no degree upon the character of the vehicle in which it is found.

Many nations have believed it to be their interest to vary this simple and natural principle of public law. They have changed it by convention between themselves as far as they have believed it to be for their advantage to change it. But unless there be something in the nature of the rule which renders its parts unsusceptible of division, nations must be capable of dividing it by express compact, and if they stipulate either that the neutral flag shall cover enemy goods, or that the enemy flag shall infect friendly goods, there would, in reason, seem to be no necessity for implying a distinct stipulation not expressed by the parties. Treaties are formed upon deliberate reflection. Diplomatic men read the public treaties made by other nations and cannot be supposed either to omit or insert an article, common in public treaties, without being aware of the effect of such omission or insertion. Neither the one nor the other is to be ascribed to inattention. And if an omitted article be not necessarily implied in one which is inserted, the subject to which that article would apply remains under the ancient rule. That the stipulation of immunity to enemy goods in the bottoms of one of the parties being neutral does not imply a surrender of the goods of that party being neutral, if found in the vessel of an enemy, is the proposition of the counsel for the Claimant, and he powerfully sustains that proposition by arguments arising from the nature of the two stipulations. The agreement that neutral bottoms shall make neutral goods is, he very justly remarks, a concession made by the belligerent to the neutral. It enlarges the sphere of neutral commerce, and gives to the neutral flag a capacity not given to it by the law of nations.

The stipulation which subjects neutral property, found in the bottom of an enemy, to condemnation as prize of war, is a conces

42179-34- -20

sion made by the neutral to the belligerent. It narrows the sphere of neutral commerce, and takes from the neutral a privilege he possessed under the law of nations. The one may be, and often is, exchanged for the other. But it may be the interest and the will of both parties to stipulate the one without the other; and if it be their interest, or their will, what shall prevent its accomplishment? A neutral may give some other compensation for the privilege of transporting enemy goods in safety, or both parties may find an interest in stipulating for this privilege, and neither may be disposed to make to, or require from, the other the surrender of any right as its consideration. What shall restrain independent nations from making such a compact? And how is their intention to be communicated to each other or to the world so properly as by the compact itself?

If reason can furnish no evidence of the indissolubility of the two maxims, the supporters of that proposition will certainly derive no aid from the history of their progress from the first attempts at their introduction to the present moment.

For a considerable length of time they were the companions of each other-not as one maxim consisting of a single indivisible principle, but as two stipulations, the one, in the view of the parties, forming a natural and obvious consideration for the other. The celebrated compact termed the armed neutrality, attempted to effect by force a great revolution in the law of nations. The attempt failed, but it made a deep and lasting impression on public sentiment. The character of this effort has been accurately stated by the counsel for the Claimants. Its object was to enlarge, and not in any thing to diminish the rights of neutrals. The great powers, parties to this agreement, contended for the principle, that free ships should make free goods; but not for the converse maxim; so far were they from supposing the one to follow as a corollary from the other, that the contrary opinion was openly and distinctly avowed. The king of Prussia declared his expectation that in future neutral bottoms would protect the goods of an enemy, and that neutral goods would be safe in an enemy bottom. There is no reason to believe that this opinion was not common to those powers who acceded to the principles of the armed neutrality.

4

From that epoch to the present, in the various treaties which have been formed, some contain no article on the subject and consequently leave the ancient rule in full force. Some stipulate that the character of the cargo shall depend upon the flag, some that the neutral flag shall protect the goods of an enemy, some that the goods of a