time when Colombia was a part of the Spanish dominions, and so far as the Spanish Laws would admit enjoyed the benefit of its stipulations, the principles that free ships should make free goods was expressly recognized, and established. Is it asserted that by her declaration of Independence, Colombia has been entirely released from all the obligations by which as a part of the Spanish Nation she was bound to other Nations? This principle is not tenable. To all the engagements of Spain with other nations affecting their rights and interests, Colombia so far as she was affected by them, remains bound in honour and in justice. The stipulation now referred to, is of that character, and the United States besides the natural right of protecting by force in their vessels on the seas, the property of their freinds, though enemies of the Republic of Colombia, have the additional claim to the benefit of the principle by an express compact with Spain made when Colombia was a Spanish Country. Again; by the late Treaty of 22 February 1819, between the United States and Spain it is agreed that the 15th. Article of the Treaty of 1795, in which it is stipulated that the flag shall cover the property, shall be so understood with respect to those powers who recognize the principle: but if either of the two contracting parties shall be at War, with a third party, and the other neutral, the flag of the neutral shall cover the property of enemies, whose Government acknowledge the principle, and not of others.

This Treaty having been concluded after the Territories now composing the Republic of Colombia had ceased to acknowledge the authority of Spain, they are not parties to it, but their rights and duties in relation to the subject matter of it, remain as they had existed before it was made. Nor will she be affected by it at all, if she continues to acknowledge in her new national character, and with reference to the United States the principle that free ships make free goods which was the Conventional Law between them while Colombia was a part of Spain.

You will urge all these considerations upon the Colombian Minister of Foreign affairs to obtain restitution of the Cargo of the Caravan, or indemnity for it. The claim rests upon foundations so solid that it is earnestly hoped your representations in its favor will be successful; and in the negotiation of the Treaty you will press in like manner for the insertion of an Article of the same purport as that of our last Treaty with Spain above recited. The principle can with safety be recognized only to that extent, and to that extent the United States would willingly assent to it, with every other Nation. It is a principle favorable to the rights of Peace, and of pacific spirit and tendency. It is recommended by every humane and liberal consideration as a rule of universal application. But

the nation which would enjoy the benefit of it as a neutral; or as a passive belligerent resorting to the neutral flag, must also recognise it as an active Belligerent, and suffer the property of her enemy to be conveyed safely by the same flag which safely conveys hers. Otherwise the liberal principle of itself is turned to the advantage of the Belligerent which rejects it, and the mild spirit of Peace is made subservient to the unfeeling rapacities of War.

I have [etc.]

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS

70

The Secretary of State (J. Q. Adams) to the British Minister (Canning)1

SIR:

WASHINGTON, June 24, 1823.

By the Law of Nations, when two nations conflict together in war, a third remaining neutral, retains all its rights of peace and friendly intercourse with both. Each belligerent acquires, indeed, by war the right of preventing the third party from administering to his enemy the direct and immediate materials of war, and, as incidental to this right, that of searching the merchant vessels of the neutral on the high seas to find them. Even thus limited it is an act of power which nothing but necessity can justify, inasmuch as it can not be exercised but by carrying the evils of war into the abodes of peace, and by visiting the innocent with some of the penalties of guilt. Among the modern maritime nations, an usage has crept in, not founded upon the Law of nations, never universally admitted, often successfully resisted, and against which all have occasionally borne testimony by announcing it in Treaties of extending this practice of search and seizure to all the property of the enemy in the vessel of the friend. This practice was, in its origin, evidently an abusive and wrongful extension of the search for contraband: effected by the belligerent because he was armed; submitted to by the neutral because he was defenceless, and acquiesced in by his sovereign, for the sake of preserving a remnant of peace, rather than become himself a party to the war. Having thus, occasionally, been practiced by all as Belligerents and submitted to by all as neutrals, it has acquired the force of an usage which, at the occurrence of every war, the Belligerent may enforce or relinquish, and which the neutral may suffer or resist, at their respective options.

'MS., Notes to Foreign Legations, vol. III, pp. 141-146.

This search for, and seizure of, the property of an enemy in the vessel of a friend is a relict of the barbarous warfare of barbarous ages; the cruel, and for the most part, now exploded system of private war. As it concerns the enemy himself, it is inconsistent with that mitigated usage of modern wars which respects the private property of individuals on the land. As relates to the neutral, it is a violation of his natural right to pursue, unmolested, his peaceful commercial intercourse with his friend. Invidious as is its character in both these respects, it has other essential characteristics equally obnoxious. It is an uncontrolled exercise of authority by a man in arms, over a man without defence;-by an officer of one nation over the citizen of another;-by a man intent upon the annoyance of his enemy; responsible for the act of search to no tribunal; and always prompted to balance the disappointment of a fruitless search by the abusive exercise of his power, and to punish the neutral for the very clearness of his neutrality. It has, in short, all the features of unbridled power, stimulated by hostile and unsocial passions.

I pray you [etc.]

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS

71

The Secretary of State (J. Q. Adams) to the Minister in Great Britain (Rush) 1

1

WASHINGTON, July 28, 1823.

SIR: Among the subjects of negotiation which you have been authorized to propose to the British Government included in the full power recently transmitted to you, and with regard to which you have been informed that further instructions would be given you, are several points relating to the rights of maritime neutrality in time of War.

By the pervading principle of the Treaty, known under the denomination of the Holy Alliance, and by the persevering efforts of Great Britain for the suppression of the African slave-trade, the principal powers of Europe have solemnly pledged themselves to the principle, that it is among the most indispensable duties of the Rulers of mankind to combine their exertions for the general amelioration of the condition of man.

The principle is entirely congenial to the political system of the United States, and has formed one of the maxims of their external

'MS., Instructions to United States Ministers, vol. x, pp. 68-89; printed in H.Doc. 111, 33d Cong., 1st sess., vol. XIII, p. 3-16.

policy from the period of the establishment of their Independence. Among the benefits which the Christian Religion has secured to the human race and particularly to those nations by which it has been adopted as a Rule of Faith and of conduct, none have been more conspicuous than its influence in mitigating the Laws and usages of War. It is impossible indeed to examine the system of Christianity as contained in its sacred Books, without coming to the conclusion, that its main object was ultimately to abolish War upon earth, altogether-and it is equally clear that if its precepts, were universally adopted and practiced among men, War, upon earth, would cease by the fact itself. The history of the Human Race, since the introduction of Christianity has not encouraged the expectation, that this object can for many ages yet, be fully accomplished, but if this must be conceded, the same appeal to History will justify the assertion that the influence of Christianity has been marked in a signal manner by the gradual establishment of rules in the hostile conflicts of nations tending to assuage the evils of War.

It is the prevalence of pacific and benevolent sentiment which has successively expunged from the Laws of Nations as practised among Christians, that absolute control over the life of the vanquished in War, upon which the customary right of reducing him to slavery was founded. All the rights of War over the person of an enemy, are now by the usages of Christian nations reduced to that of holding him if taken as a combatant in prison; and even this usage is further relaxed by the liberation of officers upon parole. The same relenting spirit has extended to the disposal of property: and without requiring the stipulation of Treaties it has become a Law of War among Christian nations to exempt from violation the private property of individuals.

These great and cheering indications of progressive amelioration in the condition of man, effected by the influence of Christianity, have been set forth with much force and ingenuity by the English Historian of the Laws of Nations, Ward. In the introduction and establishment of these mitigations to the rigor of War, Great Britain herself, to her never fading honour, has more than once taken the lead. That the feelings in which these improvements upon the Ancient Laws of Nations originated are strong in the breasts of her statesmen of the present age is proved not only by the spirit and perseverance with which they are pursuing the abolition of the African Slave-trade, but by the stipulations in the tenth, and twentysixth Articles of her Treaty of 19 November 1794 with the United States. To these principles, and feelings therefore it is believed that an earnest, and confident appeal may be made as to the foundation of the proposals which you will now be instructed to make.

In the conversations with Mr S. Canning before he left this City in which a general idea was given of the negotiation which it was intended to propose to the British Government, the remark was made that with the exception of the arrangements respecting Colonial Intercourse and the suppression of the Slave Trade, all the other subjects concerning which instructions would be furnished to you, might be connected with the negotiation, or omitted from it, at the option of Great Britain. Your instructions would direct that you should express the earnest wish of the President that they should all be discussed between the two Governments; from a strong conviction that the adjustment of them would have an auspicious effect upon the future peace, and harmony of the two nations, and from a belief that the present is a period peculiarly favourable for a strong exertion to obtain that adjustment. With regard especially to the debateable points of maritime Law, and the relative rights of belligerent and neutral nations, I observed that we should not be discouraged by the failure of our endeavours and offers at the negotiation of Ghent and of the Convention of 1818. We saw that ever since the latest of these dates, the political aspect of Europe and of America has undergone a total change. The European Alliance, so far as Great Britain was a party to it, might be considered as virtually dissolved. She and the great Continental Powers, parties to that alliance, were now publickly pledged to principles, hardly reconcileable together; and their policy was as much at variance as their principles. With regard to the War which appeared to be opening between France and Spain, the principles and the policy of the United States coincided with those of Great Britain, and not with those of the European Continental Allies. They disapproved a War made for the avowed purpose of dictating to a foreign Nation the terms of her internal constitution. They disapproved especially a War declared upon the avowed principle by a King of France, that Spain could receive a legitimate Constitution only from the hands of her King. The general maxim however of abstaining from interference in the quarrels of other nations, would still govern the policy of the United States, on this occasion; their relation to the War would be like that of Great Britain, neutrality. The condition of every part of America, the United States excepted had also changed, since the conclusion of the Convention of October 1818. The Independence of all Spanish America on these Continents was no longer problematical. It had been formally acknowledged by the United States; and so far by Great Britain that she had maintained to the extent of issuing reprisals, the right of her subjects to trade with the emancipated Colonies. To the War between Spain. and them, the United States and Great Britain were also both

42179-34--21