66

Mexican ports. In answer to M Calderon's complaints upon this subject, I assured him emphatically in a note, dated 9th October last, that the Government of the United States will carry fairly into execution, the fifteenth and sixteenth articles of the Treaty of 1795, with Spain." That I was "only surprised that the Government of Spain should have intimated any doubts on this subject. The United States have never, under any circumstances, violated the faith of Treaties; and least of all would they feel inclined to do so towards Spain, after she has used such laudable efforts to execute, in good faith, the 14th Article of the same Treaty

By the same note I informed him, that I would immediately cause to be transmitted to Commodore Conner, the Commander of the Naval Forces of the United States in the Gulf of Mexico, a copy of the complaints which he had submitted against the conduct of that officer: and when his answer was received, I should have the honor of again addressing Mr Calderon on the subject.

The answer of Commodore Conner was received at the Department on the 23rd February last, and very soon after was read to Mr Calderon. It is of a character so convincing,-it proves so conclusively that the complaints on the part of Spain were not only without the least foundation, but that Spanish vessels had been treated with marked indulgence, that M Calderon at the time, had not a word of objection to urge against it. I regret that a copy of it, with the accompanying documents, cannot now be made for you before the closing of the foreign mail to be sent by the Cambria. I transmit, however, a copy of Mr Calderon's note to me of the 24th March last; from which you will perceive, how difficult he has found the task, even after a month's delay, of stating an objection to Commodore Conner's triumphant vindication.

66

In this note, Mr Calderon, as you will perceive, objects to the interpretation given by Commodore Conner to the 15th and 16th Articles of the Treaty of 1795; because, under his construction, 'they would be of no use, as they would have no other signification than to recall to mind a principle of national right generally recognized, to wit: the free trade of neutrals with the ports of enemies not blockaded." The answer to this objection is easy. These articles recognize the principle, that free ships shall make free goods; and under their stipulations, a vessel under the Spanish flag enjoys the right to carry the property of the enemy to any Mexican port not blockaded. This could not be done by English or French vessels, or by those of any other neutral nation to which a similar right has not been secured by Treaty.

I am [etc.]

JAMES BUCHANAN

99

The Secretary of the Navy (Mason) to the Appointed Commander of the Naval Forces in the Pacific (Jones)1

SIR:

WASHINGTON, October 28, 1847.

The policy of our government has been, from the beginning of the war with Mexico, to interfere, in as small a degree as possible, with neutral commerce. The interests of the inhabitants of California, present and prospective, will be promoted by a liberal encouragement of trade in her ports occupied by us; while the best service which the navy can render is by lawful blockade to exclude from Mexican ports, not so occupied by us, all foreign supplies, and especially of munitions and articles contraband, which will enable the enemy to protract the war. No present advantage, however, should induce us to depart from that liberal interpretation of the laws of nations which we have always contended for as protecting the interests of neutrals against the violent claims of belligerents. For the views of the department on the law of blockade, I refer you to my letter to the commander of the Pacific squadron, of the 24th of December last.

I am [etc.]

100

J. Y. MASON

The Secretary of State (Marcy) to the Minister in Great Britain

No. 35

(Buchanan) 2

WASHINGTON, April 13, 1854.

SIR: The course indicated to you by Lord Clarendon as that which Great Britain had determined to pursue in the event of an European war in regard to neutral commerce is entirely satisfactory to this Government as to the two main points.

The propositions submitted to you, the same, I presume, which Mr. Crampton has confidentially submitted to me, are, 1st, that Free ships make free goods, except articles contraband of war, and 2nd, that neutral property, not contraband found on board of enemies ships is not liable to confiscation. The United States have long favored the doctrine that the neutral flag should protect the cargo, and en

2

Senate Documents, 30th Cong., 1st sess., vol. 1, pp. 1304–1306.

MS., Instructions, Great Britain, vol. xvi, pp. 285–290; printed in H.Doc. 103, 33d Cong., 1st sess., vol. XII, pp. 12–13.

deavored to have it regarded and acted on as a part of the law of nations. There is now I believe a fair prospect of getting this sound and salutary principle incorporated into the international code.

There can be, I presume, no doubt that France cheerfully concurs with Great Britain in adopting this principle as the rule of conduct in the pending war. I have just received a despatch from Mr. Mason in which he details conferences he has had with the French Ministers on the subject of neutral rights, but it does not appear from the accounts he has given of them that the French Government had intimated to him the course it intended to pursue in regard to neutral ships and neutral property on board of enemies' ships. I have no doubt, however, that France has more readily acquiesced in the indicated policy than Great Britain.

Both Great Britain and France, as well as Russia, feel much concerned as to the course which our citizens will take in regard to privateering. The two former powers would at this time most readily enter into conventions stipulating that the subjects or citizens of the party being a neutral who shall accept commissions or letters of marque and engage in the privateer service, the other party being a belligerent, may be treated as pirates. A stipulation to this effect is contained in several of our treaties but I do not think the President would permit it to be inserted in any new one. His objection to it does not arise from a desire to have our citizens embark in foreign belligerent service, but on the contrary, he would much regret to see them take such a course. Our laws go as far as those of any nationI think further, in laying restraints upon them in regard to going into foreign privateer service. This Government is not prepared to listen to any proposition for a total suppression of privateering. It would not enter into any Convention whereby it would preclude itself from resorting to the Merchant marine of the country in case it should become a belligerent party.

The declaration which Her Britannic Majesty's Government proposes to issue is distinct in interdicting to neutrals the coasting and Colonial trade with the belligerent if not enjoyed by them previous to the war. In regard to this trade you are aware that Great Britain asserted principles in the wars resulting from the French Revolution before she issued her obnoxious orders in Council, which this country held to be in violation of the law of nations. Should she still adhere to those principles in the coming conflict in Europe and have occasion to apply them to our commerce, they will be seriously controverted by the United States, and may disturb our friendly relations with her and her allied belligerents. The liberal spirit she has indicated in respect to the cargoes under a neutral flag, and neutral property which may be found on board of enemies ships,

gives an implied assurance that she will not attempt again to assert belligerent rights which are not well sustained by the well-settled principles of international law.

In some respects, I think the law of blockade is unreasonably rigorous towards neutrals, and they can fairly claim a relaxation of it. By the decisions of the English Courts of Admiralty-and ours have generally followed in their footsteps--a neutral vessel which happens to be in a blockaded port is not permitted to depart with a cargo unless that cargo was on board at the time when the blockade commenced or was first made known. Having visited the port in the common freedom of trade, a neutral vessel ought to be permitted to depart with a cargo without regard to the time when it was received on board.

The right of search has heretofore been so freely used and so much abused to the injury of our commerce that it is regarded as an odious doctrine in this country, and if exercised against us harshly in the approaching war, will excite deep and wide spread indignation. Caution on the part of belligerents in exercising it towards us in cases where sanctioned by usage, would be a wise procedure. As the law has been declared by the decisions of courts of Admiralty and elementary writers, it allows belligerents to search neutral vessels for articles contraband of war, and for enemies' goods. If the doctrine is so modified as to exempt from seizure and confiscation enemies property under a neutral flag, still, the right to seize articles contraband of war on board of neutral vessels implies the right to ascertain the character of the cargo. If used for such a purpose and in a proper manner, it is not probable that serious collisions would occur between neutrals and belligerents.

A persistent resistance by a neutral vessel to submit to a search renders it confiscable according to the settled determinations of the English Admiralty. It would be much to be regretted if any of our vessels should be condemned for this cause unless under circumstances which compromitted their neutrality.

I am [etc.]

101

W. L. MARCY

The Secretary of State (Marcy) to the Russian Chargé (Stoeckl)1 :-WASHINGTON, April 14, 1854.

The Undersigned Secretary of State of the United States, in addressing Mr. de Stoeckl at this time thinks that there can be no

1

1MS., Notes to the Russian Legation, vol. vi, pp. 53–55.

42179-34-25

doubt that Great Britain and France have become parties to the existing war between Russia and Turkey. A war in which maritime powers are engaged necessarily affects in some respects favorably and in others injuriously the commerce of neutrals. This country having altogether the most extended foreign trade of any nation which will remain neutral in the approaching conflict among the principal powers of Europe, is deeply interested in the policy which is likely to be pursued by the belligerents towards neutral commerce. In the general wars which have heretofore taken place in Europe, nations not involved in them have had just cause to complain of the invasion of their well established rights and the practical assertion of novel principles of international law harrassing to their trade and ruinous to the interests of their merchants.

The Undersigned has good reason to believe that Great Britain and France have had the subject of neutral rights under consideration, and in respect to them have determined to adopt in the impending war with Russia a more liberal policy than has been hitherto observed by belligerents. Russia has always been foremost among the maritime European Powers to respect neutral rights, and this government does not entertain a doubt that she will in the present conflict maintain the liberal spirit which has hitherto distinguished her conduct towards neutral powers. In the earliest period of this republic attempts were made to procure the recognition of the doctrine that "Free ships make free goods" as a principle of international law; but those attempts were unavailing, and up to this time enemies' property on board of a neutral vessel has been held liable to seizure and confiscation. Russia has the merit of having favored the liberal view of this question; France has been willing to concede the doctrine, but Great Britain strenuously resisted. Her maritime ascendency has inclined her to maintain extreme doctrines in regard to belligerent rights. It may now be regarded as a settled principle of maritime law that a neutral flag does not protect all the property under it. Notwithstanding this rule it is now quite certain that both Great Britain and France in the war in which they are likely to be engaged will consent to refrain from the seizure of any property which may be found under the flag of a neutral nation except articles that are contraband of war. They will also respect the property if not contraband, of a neutral owner found on board of an enemy's ship. This however is no concession to neutrals for the international code protects their property thus situated.

The Government of the United States does not doubt that the Emperor of Russia will act upon the same principles and in due time apprize neutral powers of his determination to do so. The application of this principle that free ships make free goods, to a single war and as a mere relaxation of an admitted belligerent right does not