The New York Herald Newspaper, May 21, 1859, Page 2

te 7 to constract such an instrument with the King of THE RIGHTS OF NAUTRAUS ON THE SEA. pees they accomplished, and signed on be the Oth of Angust, 1785, Here, also, the rights of . 2 Pr sted by the following ar Free Ships, Free Goods—Progress of the Question | 4 neutral fag are protected by the fo . A 443, ticle:—- « Jon eee ts s biel | «Hf one of the contracting parties should be en- United Statec—Treaties with Trussia ax } gaged im war with sme panel the foe Ba i : course & 0) ret e subjects or Brenge-Feyiend Avoids the aang: ne the. oar pee rentral wi the belligerent Armed Neutrality of 178C—Tho Quint :ple Povyers shall not be interrupted. On the contrary, Alliance—The Ashburton and We>‘er in that case as in full peace the vessels of the neu- Correspondencc—The Faris Conference and Mr, Marcy—The Right of Search tral party may newigain freely to and from the Exercised in the Gulf—Diplomatic orts and on the coasts of the haliaeren§ My Correspondencc—The Claim Not arties, i free goods, insomuc! + all ree re eselt ee af caged hee aiden shall ‘be 00 Abandoned by England—The Latest News on the Subject, board any vessel belonging to the neutral party, me, &o, ‘though ‘such things belong to an enemy of the other; and the ane freedom shall be extended to persons who shall be on board a free vessel, al- though they should be enemies to the other party, unless they be soldiers in actual service of such enemy. This article, it will be seen, embodies the doc- trine for which this country has been and is con- tending, that free ships, free goods, should be intrepreted in the fullest sense; that the neu- tral flag should protect the merchandise of friend and enemy alike; that the bulwarks of | an American ship are like the frontiers of American territory, beyond which no foreign Power should b rmitted to pass for the purpose of seizing the ko. In view of the opening war in Burope, which may be a protracted and general contest, end which must in any event throw inte the hands of the American merchant marine a large portion of the carrying trade, as well as seatter ever the ocean a vast amount of our property, the question of the maritime rights of neutrals becomes an important ‘cone, That question, as far as the relations between this country and England are concerned, ts still un- settled. With other maritime Pewers we have from time to time made treaties regulating it; but England has persistestly avoided an understand- ing, preferring to leave the matter open and r ly upon her alleged supremacy of the si We propose here to give a sketch of the pr eas of } the question, in which this country took a prominent | vere question of the rights of neutral flags, which ‘Das been so long the subject of discussion among | maritime nations, and more especially between this | eountry and England, may be said to cag ake tho | Rego Pert ee Aveo de mera aaa caret following points:—I. Does the neutral flag pro- | tc ccent an article providing that neutral proper- tect enemies’ property? 2. Is neutral property | ty jn enemy's vessels should be free, but that ene- subject to confiscation under an enemy's flag? | my’s property in neutral vessels was liable to cap- Q ri of bellig P ‘sex- | ture. sibly he made this proposal without any . i eo coe ee # ne One | expectation that it would be accepted. Certain it tend to sear “a e is sailing Y vy of an enemy, The exigencies of the difterent belligerent nations, however, and the cir- cumstances which affected their interests in the several wars which have occurred since that doc- trine was first enunciated by, ns, have prevented its realization, in practice, with other Powers. In- | deed, so much did it operate against the interests of the United States in consequence of its viola- tion hy other nations, that when the treaty with Prussia of 1785 expired by limitation in’ 17 John Quiney Adams, who was then at Berlin, re- ceived instructious from this government not to seek for arenewalofthe article, “tree ships, free goods | in the new treaty of commerce and navigation he about to make with Prussia, A long and com- ated confe’ @ therefore ensued between the negotiating parties, several propositions coming is that the negotiators did not agree upon the point, without a convoy? 4. What is contraband of | and after several Bropoaieiiaie aniomasees neat vha the rights of capters with | tions the following amended article was adopted:— war at sea, and yet 9 ‘ vapid s aie tena’ “Experience having found that the principle adopt- respect to it? 5. How far does the right extend oq in the twelith article of the treaty of 1755, to declare places in astate of blockade? 6. Have | according to which free ships make free gooda, has neutrals the right to carry on a trade in time | not been sufficiently respected during the last two fi which they were prohibited wars, and especially in that which still continues, ef sie sige deep 1, 5 3 the two contracting parties propose, after the re- in time of peace with one belligerent without dis- | turn of a general peace, to ay ree, either separately turbance from another ?—or may neutrals carry on | between tl Die or joint) Mf pioe sims are 2 eli; v its coloni alike interested, to concert with the great maritime eke aiehioei Migaredt absciben & pemeet Powers of Europe such arrangements. and such @uring a war from which they were excluded in | }ermanent principles as may serve to consolidate time of peace? On all these questions the policy | the liberty are safety of er reve: ation Great Britain was at variance with those of nen- | and commerce in future wars. And if in the in- meine Sor he had always endeavored to | terval either of the contracting parties should be wal nei anne, ann ® os Lad engaged in a war to which the other should remain wrge belligerent pretensions to which neutral Pow- | neutral, the ships-of-war and privateers of the bel- ere were continually offering remonstrance and re- _ligerent Power shall conduct themselves towards sistance g | the merchant vessels of the neutral Power as fa- ae le that “ free shi ke fi as” | vorably as the course of the war then existing may ‘The principle that “free ships make free goo ermit, observing the principles and rules of the has received more than one interpretation. Ithas law of nations generally acknowledged.” ij 3 ee y, in 1828—th been contended that the neutral fag absolutely | iste of tay cweltn artic of tho treaty of 1788 covers the merchandise of friend and enemy, while, bai povived: with the addition of a clause agreeing on the other hand, it has been claimed that the | to establish further pro cig om tie anid ctat some "s flag exposes the goods of a friend to ca future period. Our relations with ssia, in this =~ ee . re | respect, stand as above up to the present time. ‘The primitive law,” says Wheaton, “indepen. | _) ABMED NEUTRALTFY OF 1780. dently of international compact, rests on the simple The views held by England with reference to Principle that war gives a right to capture the | the rights of neutrals, and the right of search, had Re goods of w fiend, * = The neutcal tag | Deen repeatedly objected to, and had heen the sub- eonstitutes no protection to an eneuly’s property, | ject of remonstrance by other Powers, and the belligerent flag communicates no hostile | Prussia in 1740, and the Netherlands in 1762; eaeente penal penn eee See otis eee was not until the year 1780, just towards the clese jis simple and natural prince h ° z ie PAM Pay 60 5 nations by matual set in whole or in part, | of the American Revolutionary ‘War; When England according as they believe it to be for their interest; | was harassed by the fleets of France and Spain, but the one maxim that cae ships make free goods that the Northern or Baltic powers of Europe took = a aoa inks testis beats Pree pote a resolute stand against the practical operations was decided by the Supreme Court of the United of those doctrines. In that year Russia, Den- States in a case where it was claimed that, under | mark and Sweden formed the celebrated the treaty between this country and Spain, made in a K; " 4785, the goods of a Spanish aubjectfound on board confederacy: Sage. 198 ene pis neue: the vessel of an enemy of the United States were | They entered into a treaty which declared Hable to capture and confiscation. The Court de- that free ships make free goods; that the flag cided that, ef eo) genet) ew. of ere a ee covers the merchandise; and that a blockaded port ser ge Pradieioc ed ay A peaetios soobeniat sto be understood only when such a force is sta- this principle, affirming that the goods of a friend _ tioned at its entrance as venders it dangerous to en- found in the vessel of an enemy were free, ter, or Seer en pacer eas pian ti to This confederacy, attacking the darling doctriae the established belligerent rights of nations; of England, created some alarm in the latter coun. but our government has been ever endeavor- | try; but being then grievously embarrassed with ing, to introduce the principle that, free slips many enemies, the Cabinet of his Majesty had no This interpretation has been put upon the clause in | a protest against the declarations whic! ack so all the treaties in which it has been inserted. formidable a blow at the claims and 3 England leas never admitted the just principle of | England upon the seas. Russia, Denmark, S Which the United States have procured the recog- | Holland, Prussia, Austria, Portugal, Naples, Prat nition from other maritime Powers by treaty. On and Sao all joined tne armed neutrality. The the contrary, that nation holds to the opimon, and | confe Rae was first proposed by the Empress Ca- earries it out practically, that she has aright to therine of Russia to the other mar ec Powers, visit and search the merchant vessels of neutral na- | and we believe the idea was suggested to her by tions not only in time of war, but in time of peace, | Benjamin Franklin, who was then at the Court of although it has been established by her own jurisis were! asa bold plan to weaken the power of i, arch is a belligerent right ex- | England. ar i aa ae a Unfortunately, it happened that the Northern jusively. 1 with diese remarks we proceed to giveanacconnt | Powers did not always adhere to the principles they of the various treaties this country has ‘made with had proclaimed, in their own cases. ‘Thus Cathe- a view to establish our neutral rights on the ocean, | rine herself, in 179: and the attempts to procure a recognition by some of the French rep ‘ ef the great maritime Powers of the doctrines , trality, and made a treaty with England on the which the United States have been anxious to intro- | very opposite principles, and urged a similar course @uce in their intercourse with other nations. snecessfully upon Denmark. In 1800 the Emperor FIRST TREATY WITH FRANCE. Paul of Russia revived the principles of the armed ‘ ie " neutrality, and was joined by Sweden and Denmark, The first treaty which the United States entered | pyjssia cubseqnently coming into the confederacy, into embracing the subject of the mavitime rights | Poul at the same time issued a ukase, in which of neutrals was made with France in 1778, two | he cted that all the English effects seized larati f Independence. This | i2 his States, either by the sequestration of goods years after the Declaration o <i vos ils on Jand or the embargo on goods afloat, should be treaty was signed onthe 6th of February, 1778, by | .sold,and their product divided among all Russians Benjamin Franklin, Silas Deane and Arthur Lee, having claims on English subjects. He also de- the American Commissioners in France. The Con- | clared by proclamation that, having been disap. vention regulated terms of amity, comm | pointed in his expectations of the protection of | commerce by the pertidious etiterprises of a great mavigation between the United States and France, and embraced the f. ‘owing article declaring the Power (England) which had sougiit to enchain the liberties of the seas, ee ebepen eens of me iain * Northern Powers appeared to him to be open! Principle that free ships make free gooda:— | menaced; he ‘consequently considered it » measure “Itis hereby stipulated that free ships shall ‘ips ' ofnecessity to have eg tga pl afreedom to goods, and that everything shallbe the success of which was acknowledged in the deemed to be free and exemptwhich shall be found | time of the American war. The treaty was signed on board the ships belonging to the citizens of | by Russia, Denmark and Sweden on the 16th of either of the contracting parties, although the | December, 1800, and Prussia acceded to its terms whole lading or any part thereof should appertain | on the 19th. The principles of the confederacy to the enemies of either—contraband goods being | were the same as those of the armed neu- always excepted. It is also agreed in like manner, | trality of 1780, with a more minute specification that the same liberty be extended to persons who | of what should be deemed contraband of war, are on board a free ship, with this effect, that | It was stipulated that the effects which belong to although they be enemies to either party they are | the subjects of belligerent Powers in neutral ships, not to be taken out of that free ship, unless the with the exception of contraband goods, shall be are soldiers and in actual service of the enemy.” | free; that no harbor shall be deemed blockaded Thus before the close of the Revolutionary War | unless the disposition of the Power by which it is this country established the doctrine that free | invested shall be such as to render it apparently ships make free goods and free persens. The | hazardous to enter; that the declaration of the treaty of 1778 was annulled by act of Congress in | captains of ships of war having convoy that the 1798, and anew one contracted on behalf of the | convoy has no contraband goods shall be deemed United States on the 30th of September, 1800, by | sufficient; that the contracting parties, if disquiet- Chief Justice Ellsworth, N. R. Davieand Wm. Vana | ed or attacked for this convention, shall make Murray, and on the part of France by Bonaparte. | common cause to defend each otier, and that The French Directory, in their surge to England, | these principles shall apply to every maritime war had previously violated the spirit of the former by which Europe may be disquieted. treaty by laying an embargo upon all Ameri- England, being at that period not so much em- can, Danish and Swedish ships carrying English | barrassed as in 1780, took active eteps to compel a goods to and from any port. This’ flagrant act | recognition of her favorite policy on the ocean, of ane to American commerce was an: | and accordingly laid an embargo upon the vessels swered by the act of Congress referred | belonging to all the Powers of the confederacy, to, declaring America liberated from the | and issued letters of marqne for the cap- obligations of the treaty of 1778 by this | ture of these vessels, and with such effect eonduct on the partof France. The First Consul, however, anxious to preserve friendly relations | with the young Western republic, caused the em- | bargo to be removed from our vessels; and send- ing for the American Commissioners, Ellsworth, Davie and Murray, he had an interview with them at Morfontaine on the 30th of September, 1800, | where the new treaty was signed. it embraced the article of “free ships, free goods,” as embodied in the former treaty, but with the addition of another | article stipulating that whatever shall be found to * be laden by the citizens of either party on any shi belonging tothe enemies of the other or their citi- zens shall be confiscated without distinction of goods, contraband or not contraband, in the same manner as if it belonged to the enemy, except the goods were put on board before the declaration of war or before the shippers had knowledge of it. This stipulation, therefore, established the prineiple of enemy's ship, enemy's goods, as well aw free ship, free goods. In the subsequent treaty of commerce and navi- gation made,with France by John. Adams in 1823, | ho article referring to this subject was inserted. England was the consequence, which resulted in OUR TREATIE® WITH PRUSSTA, | the famous expedition of Lord eas Foie Soon after Franklin had consumated the treaty | of March, 1802, the daring passage of the Englis! of 1778 with France, an offer was made to estab- Peston re bate Tray 2 peter bom lish relations of amity, commerce and navigation The war thus began was rapidly concluded by with Brnasia, thon'e) consldérable maritime Power, | the death of the, Muspetor, Hay snd the aocgselog For this purpose Franklin, John Adams and Thos. | Of Alexander, who conse ynade and signed June Jefferson—all of whom then represented this coun- | bag Bieter i! it ary ab diderpus Dpropean ccurti—were sop oweres that nearly half the ships of the Northern Pow- ers then at sea were captured and carried into British ports. Negotiations were then entered into; England claiming that the treaty of 1793 bound Russia to sustain the English view of neu- tral rights, and avowing her intention to maintain her system at all hazard. It was answered by Prus- | sia that England was endeavoring to ep @ sove- reignty over the seas in antagonism to the grinciples of the laws of nations, to which the neutral sove- reigim were not disposed to submit, and that it was consit®red the best course to form a naval confede- racy to oppose the attempt, and that as far as Prua- sia was concerned, it recognized jts own principles in the declarations of that confederacy. Hostile measures immediately followed the vain negotia- tions, Prussia marched an army across the frontier into Hanover, seized the English possessions there, and closed the navigation of the Elbe and r against English vessels, so that, says the his- torian, the OS of England was excluded from every harbor from North Cape to the Straits of Gibraltar. A declaration of war on the part of 17, 1601, which was claimed to ve highly satifactory to that Power, and which Nepolepg etigmatised ag sar, admitting as it be in the hands of itish P By this treaty it was stipu- lated—“ That, ching merchant ships belonging to the of one of the contracting Powers, and na ler a ship of war of the same Power, i ¥. be exercised by ships of war of the bellig and sha!l never ex- tend to the fitters gers or other vessels which do not pperial or royal fleets of their hich their subjects shall have fitted on that the effects on board neutral ships ¢! with the exception of contral of enemy's property; and it is a not to in the latter the mer- h or manufacture of should have been ac- e neutral Power, and eir account. That m be deemed a block- only is given to such he disposition of the fith ships stationary or sufficiently near, danger in entering.” Six years later, r, this treaty was an- nulled by Alexand armed neutrality re- yived. Alluding to y of 1801, Allison says: “The Convention ‘of June fixed the mari- time question up basis; it arrogated no pecullar privile Britain, subjected to no exclusive hum the neutral States, but rescribing one -rale for all belligerent Bowers, and imp ‘one equal oblization upon all neutrals, settled ch and block- ade upon that equitable foot like obliga- just ever remain the law of the seas, while ambition and re- venge continue to desolate the world.’ 8 AND THE WAR OF 1812. The war of 1812, it is well known, originated in the attempt of Great Britain to exercise the right of visitation and search with respect to our mer- chant ships, in a mode wl even her position as a belligerent did not ji » It been remarked that, as a belligerent, the right of England to visit and search was never controverted by the United States. This right of visitation and: search is one conceded by all the writers on the law of nations to a belligerent. Previous to the war of 1312, while we recognized the belligerent right of visitation and search of. merchant vessels upon the high seas, we insisted that this being a right originating in and deriving its very existence from the law of nations, it was necessarily limited and restricted to objects over which that law had cog- nizance. That law, so far as relates to this subject, had reference to the relative rights and duties of belligerents and neutrals. It had nothing to do with the merely municipal Jaws or institutions of any particular nation. It authorized this visita- tion and search for the purpose of ascertaining whether the vessel or her cargo was neutral or hostile; whether there were on board contraband goods or persons who were ene- mies. To this extent we always acknowledged the right of a belligerent to examine, and the cor- responding obligation of the neutral to submit to euch an examination. These principles, not admitting of doubt or dis- pute on either side, have never been the sub- ect of controversy. Our difficulty with Eng- Pan anterior to the war of 1812, was of a different character. The British authorities insisted that the right of visitation and search en- titled their cruisers to board a merchant vessel; ana being once rightfully on board, their officers might continue the search, not only for the purpose of ascertaining whether the vessel or her cargo was neutral, and whether she had on board any- thing or had done any act which injured the rights of the belligerent, but whether she bad also on board any persons who, under the local or municipal law of England, owed allegiance to her, or were bound to military service under her. This claim obviously involved some most serious questions. The one was whether the belligerent right of visitation and search, being det exclusively from the law of nations, was limited to subjects and objects over which that law could operate. Second: Whether this right could le- gitimately be made the instrument or afford the fa- cilities for the enforcement of any purely munici- rt laws of the country of the belligorent. Third: Whether, When the Pen laws of the bellige- | rent which claimed the right, and those of the neu- tral upon whom it was to be exercised, were in an- tagonism, the former or the latter should prevail on board the neutral vessel. Upon these points the two governments differed. Independently of the argument on the part of the United States on the abstract question of right, the abuses and outrages, the insults and manifold personal injuries resulting from the actual exercise of the right claimed by England, were insisted upon and strongly urged. It was shown that, under color of this belligerent right of visit and search, the most gross outrages had been perpetrated, for which no or a very in- sufficient compensation had been made to the in- jured party. It was further insisted on that this Yight, to. whatever extent it might be justificd or allowed by the law of nations, conferred no authority to enforce the peculiar laws of the bel- ligerent power, and therefore none, under any cir- cumstances, to seize even an acknowledged subject of the British crown. That no individual could be arrested or taken on board an American vessel for a violation of English law, or to compel obedi- ence to English institutions; and still further, that, as the United States, under her constitution and laws, allowed the subjects or citizens of any and every foreign government to become citizens of this ‘country, and as such to be entitled to all the rights, privileges and protection afforded to those who were native born, the rights of such were as perfect on board our own vessels as on our own territories. Thus we denied m toto the right of impressment on board an American ship; and such were the matters in controversy between Great ates and the United States preceding the war of 1812. Immediate collision between the two nations was brought about by the operation of the retaliatory measnres against England, Berlin and Milan decrees of Napoleon, and the British Orders in Council which followed them. |In 1806 the British government, then at war with e, declared the coasts of France and Holland in blockade. Napo- leon retaliated by issuing the|famons Berlin and Milan decrees, authorizing the \seizure, wherever found, of all vessels carrying goods of British pro- duce or manufacture. In the following year far- ther retaliatory measures were resorted to by Eng- land, and the “Orders in Counql” were issued, de- claring all the ports of France and her colonies in blockade, and all vessels carrying goods the produce of France ami her colonies lawful prize. As the na of England covered the seas, and as the Américan marine was then doing the pee carrying trade of the world, these measures fhaterially affected our com- merce. In this eemeneney it became necessary for our government to take some steps for relief. Jeffer- son, who was then President, agcordingly laid a general embargo upon all vessels in American har- bors, while this stringent measure was followed up by the passage through Congress pf the Non-inter- course act, prohibiting all commetcial transactions with either belligerent Power, but at the same time empowering the President to revew such inter- course by proclamation as soon these Powers revoked the obnoxious decrees and _ orders. The feeling in this country toyards England at this time was extremely hostile, and that feeling was augmented by an untoward incident which occurred between a British and an American frigate off the Virginia coast on the 234 of June, 1807, The American frigate Chesapeake, which chanced to have on board some English deserters, was overhauled and fired into by the British frigate Leopard, and, being unprepard for action, she was beaten, and surrendered. ‘fhe deserters were ta- ken off and carried to Halifax by the Leopard, where one of them was hanged. This successful assertion of the right of search on the part of Eng- land greatly exasperated the American people; but the British government, unwilling pro- yoke hostilities, disavowed tae action of the Commander of the Leopwd and de- spatched Mr. Erskine on a special mission to this country to conciliate our administration. After some conference Mr. Erskine promised, on behalf of his government, that the Orders in Council would be revoked. Upon this assurance, coming from an accredited plenipotentiary, Mr. Jefferson withdrew the Non-intercourse act by proclamation, and our merchant marine, thus reledged, forthwith in hundreds for various British ports. e govern- ment of England, however, disavowed the action of tLeir own envoy, and, refusing to recall the Orders in Council, ordered Mr. Erskine home, and sent out another diplomatic agent, Mr. Jackson, to patch up the differences, The new envoy was less successful than his predecessor, and Mr. Madison, who had been elected President in the interval, was compelled te re-establish the Non-intercourse act. Neither France nor England would abandon their position, and our government necessarily could not yield, At this juncture matters became more compli- cated by another alleged attempt on the part of England to enforce the right of search. On the i6th of May, 1811, the British ship-of-war Little Belt and the American frigate President came into collision off our coasts, though both nations were at peace, and the former was compelled to strike her colors. It was a matter of dispute which ves sel commenced the action, but in the existing state of feeling against the arrogant assumptions of aoe land on the ocean, the blame was naturally laid apon the commander of the British vessel. Thi incident, irriteting ag it pndoubtedly was in | the then ex" sting condition of affairs, was not abso- lutely nec’ assary to the demolition of peaceful rela- tions be* ween the two countries, yet it hatsened the gonsuv jmation to which both were rapidly tending. In the, followin, year, therefore, war was formally dec) ared by Congress—a war the circumstances whereof it is not essential to record here; suffice it Vo say that its results demolished the idea of Eng- jand’s naval supremacy, and established the fact that Britannia did not “rule the waves.” In connection with our subject, however, it may be remarked that on the restoration of peace by the poset Ghent, in 1815, England did not relinquish her claim to the right of seareh, or abandon her poliey with ar to the privileges of a neutral lag, as we shall see by the subsequent events to which we have now to recur. THE QUINTUPLE TREATY OF 1842, An attempt was made by England, in 1842, to obtain a recognition of her favorite doctrine of the right of search, and an abrogation of the privileges of neutral vessels on the high seas, on the part of the great maritime nations of Europe. With this view, she proposed the famous quintuple alli- ance; but, through the instrumentality of the United States, the scheme was never completed. General Cass, then American Minister at Paris, having learned what was on foot, wrote an able pamphlet against the measure, which was pul- lished in English and French, and extensively cir- culated. The pamphlet appeared opportunely at the juncture when the Duke de Broglie had actually signed the treaty on behalf of France, in London, but while it was yet not ratified by the Chamber of Deputies, Mr. Cass also wrote an ofti- cial letter on the subject to M. Guizot, then Minis: ter for Foreign Affairs, from which we give an ex. tract below. The pamphlet referred to was laid before the members of the Chamber of Deputies simultaneous. ly with the official letter to M. Guizot of the 13th .February, 1842, and had the effect of Salling poblie attention to the provisions of the treaty affecting the maritime rights of independent Powers, until then unknown to the Deputies, and had great weight in producing such a state of public opinion as made it impossible for the French government to ratify what was called the quintuple treaty. It was ratifled by the four Powers subsequently, but not by France. This pamphlet was translated into Dutch, and published in Holland, by a former Go- vernor General of India, who thought the arguments therein conclusive as to the correctness of the position of the American government. The following extracts from the correspondence of Gen. Cass with Daniel Webster, Secretary of State, will show the position which the former took on the question of the treaty:— Lacanon ov Tum Unrrep States, Parse, February 15, 1842. } Hon. Danre, Wenersn, Secretary of State, Washington:— se * * * * * But I have jast taken a etep which renders necessary a full and free report of the condition of things here, anc of the reasons which have led me to adopt this measure. My letter of the 13th inst. to the Minister of Foreign Af fale, & copy of which I enclose, will make knowa to you my general sentiments concerning the re lation in which we are placed with the French government by the signature of the quintuple treaty for the suppression of the slave trade, and by the declarations of Lords Palmerston and Aber. deen concerning the measures which they claim to be in- fe rer its execution. I need add nothing upov we subject I heetiaica at first respecting the true course to be Adopted. That it was proper to bring officially to the no- tice of the French government the declaration of that of Great Britain, that the conclusion of these treaties created an obligation, and conferred right, to violate the flag of the United States, I did not entertain doubt, or as to w! ‘was true of the duty of each of them. Either, therefore, the claim of Great Britain was well founded, and in that event the government of France was about to contract new obligations which might bring it into collision with the United States—a result I was certain it did not oontemplate—or the claim was un- just, and in that event the treaty was about to be made the pretext of a direct attack upon our rights and honor, by one of the parties assuming to be governed by the ob ligations it had contracted towards the other agsociated Powers; @ state of things which gave us a right to cali upon them to disavow such pretensions, and cither to withdraw from an arrapgement which was becoming 50 menacing to us, or to declare by # solemn act that it was not gusceptible of such a conetruction, and should not, with their consent, be employed for such a purpose. My firet impression was to present a formal protest against the ratitication of the treaty. But considering that Thad no instructions to take go decided a measure, and ‘that it would be more respectful to the French govern- ment, of whose friendly disposition to the United States I have bad numerous evidences, and probably quite as useful, to state generally the bearing of the whole matter upon the United States, without claiming any specific action, I fivally determined to take this couree, and the letter fo Mr. Guizot ie the consequence. * The discussion in the Chamber of Deputies and the almoet uvanimeus condemnation of the treaty will have indicated to you the true state of feeling here. And you will not fail to bape? the importance of the emphatic declaration of Mr. Guizot during the debates, that the Americans were right, and that France in the same cir- cumstances would do the seme thing. The value of this testimonial to the justice of our cause, made by such a stotesman in the face of Europe, can hardiy be over- rated. eg eg tog eg: naan The quintup'e treaty has not yet been ratified by France, nor will it be, I think, without tome eseential alterations, It is understood that the English government are much dis. satisfied at this determination. The Queen’s speech, how- ever, at the opening of the session, and Sir Rabert Peel's re- marks last week in answer to a question of Lord Palmer. ston, seem to take for granted the French ratification. But, ceriainly, when the British Premier made those re: marke, he kew the discussion in the Chamber of Deputies and the state of public opinion here, and he ought to have known thata constitutional ministry would hesitate before they would incur the responsibility of such an act. Se Wee You may naturally think that this is not a very diplo- matic despatch. It is not so certainly, 80 far as diplomaey | consists in mystery eitber of thought or expression. I have felt strongly, and ¥ have attempted to epeak plainly. Ido not belong to the school of that well known French statermoan who eaid thet Ianguage was given to conceal thovgbts. If neceseary, I must claim your indulgence for my candor in consideration of my motives, 1 see tho difficult position of my country, and most anxious am I that it ekould be geen and’ appreciated at home. That done, I havo no fear for the result. If the senti- ments I have expressed are not those of the government and people of my country, then I have lived a stirring life and mixed with my countrymen in every situation with- cut baving learned the American character. You will perceive tbat in my letter to Mr. Guizot, I have taken upon myself the responsibility of my interposition. Your course is perfectiy free to avow or to disavow my conduct. The President will decide as the pubtic interest requires. Ido not shut my eyes to the gravity of the circumstance in which I am placed. In the unforeseen emergency which presented iteelf, I have pursued the course that appeared to me to be dictated by the honor and interest of our country, and T have the satisfaction to believe that my measures Will not be wholly without beneficial results. It ig now for the government to judge what ig its own duty, and to determine whether my conduct ehall be approved or disapproved. Jam, sir, very respectfully, your obe- dient servant, LEWIS CAS3. ‘MR. CASS TO MR. GUIZOT. [Extract.] Lecanion oF THe Unirep StaTEs, Panis, Feb. 13, 1842. Sai Excellency Mx. Guizor, Minister of Foreign ir8— (OT Ree iar Nasr vers § MORO RS It appears to me, sir, that in asking the attention of his Majeety’s government to the subject of the Quintuple preg aview to ite reconsideration, I am request- ing not! Dg on eof ow of the United States inconsistent with the duties of France to other Powers. If, during the couree of the discussions upon this treaty, preparatory to the arrangement of its provisions, England has asserted the pretenvion she now asserts, as a necessary conse- quence of ite obligations, I cannot be wrong in presuming that France would not have signed it without guardi Against this impending difficulty. The views of Foglanc have become known since the signature of the treaty, but fortunately before its ratification, And this change of cir- cumstances may well justify the French government ia interposing such a remedy as it may think is demanded by the grave interests involved in this queation, * * * Tavail myself, &c., 1 [Private.) Panis, Feb. 20, 1842. Hon. Danrei Wupsrer, Secretary of State, Washington:— Dear Sin— * * * * * * As I wrote you in my confidential letter of the 13th just. the delivery of A letter to Mr. Guizot was postpon ‘until Thureday. that day I sought an interviow with him; after his detention at the Chamber of Deputies, he could not see me, but appointed the next day, Friday, for an interview. I, however, delivered my letter, agreea- bly to the previous understanding, as that day being the 17th, and the period fixed for the ¢: of the ratifications being the 20th, a longer delay would have been inconsistent with the object I had in view. On Friday, however, I called upon him, and we hed « very full conversation upon the whole affair. He told me the treaty was not ratified; but, adding nothing to this declaration, I did not think proper to put to him any quoe- tion respecting it. He told me, also, that my letter would be laid before the King and Council on Sunday, when I suppose the matter will be discussed, and some definite btep ‘adophed. i é us * The step adopted was the refusal of the Cham. bers to ratify the treaty, and the project of England was thus far defeated. THE ASHBURTON TREATY—IMPRESSMENT OF SEAMEN OUT OF NEUTRAL VESSELS, The long disputed contest about the North- eastern boundary line between the United States and the British Possessions, which caused so much trouble with the people of Maine and Massachu- setts, was definitely settled by a treaty signed by Daniel Webster, Secretary of State, and Lord Ash- burton, British Plenipotentiary, on the 9th August, 1842. This treaty, commonly known as the Ash- burton treaty, embraced two other subjects besides the boundary question, namely—the suppression of the African slave trade in accordance with the 10th iS CASS, article of the treaty of Ghent, by the employment of @ squadron op the coast of Africa, and the mutual extradition of criminals and fugitives from justice in certain cases. Though neither of these issues involved our maritime rights, Mr. Webster availed himself of the opportunity of Lord Ashburton’s presence on @ special mission to bring the question of the right of search and the impreasment of seamen out of American merchant vessels to final settlement. From the period of the French Revolution to the breaking out of the war in 1812, repeated remon- strances had been made by the @anerican govern- ment against the practice of British cruisers board- ing andsearching our merchant chips for the pur Ose (impressing into the British service seamen whom it was claimed were subjects of the crown. Eng- land claimed the right of visiting our merchant ships and deciding Wy the judgment of her naval officers who were British subjects, and carryiug them off from under the jurisdiction of the Ame- rican flag, on the principle maintained both then aud now by England—“ once a subject always a subject”—a most absurd and despotic dogma, Mr. Webster took issue upon this question, and in bis final communication to Lord Ashburton de- clared as the ultimatum that the American govern- is prepared to say that the practice of im- ‘ipg seamen from American vessels cannot fter be allowed to take place. id Mr. Webster, “is founded on principles tice, which it does not recognise, and is invariably at- tended by consequences so unjust, so injurious, and of such formidable magnitude, as cannot be sub- mitted to, In the early disputes between the two governments on this so long contested topic, the distinguished person to whose hands were first en- trusted the seals of this Department declared that the simplest rule will be that the vessel being Aime- rican shall be evidence that the seamen on board are such. That rule announces, he continues, what will hereafter be the pencible maintained by this government., In avery regularly documented American merchant vessel the crew who navigate it will find their protection in the flag which is over them.” Lord Ashburton, in reply, stated that the settle- ment of this question was no part of his mission; but he promised to forward Mr. Webster's cor- respondence to his government, assuring him at the same time that the practice of impressment had been abolished in England, and, could not, under present circumstances, be renewed. This declara- tion, however, was no abandonment of England's claim to the right of search and the privi cre to violate a neutral flag or the ships of a non-bellige- rent Power. Yet when that right was disputed by our government in 1857 and ’58, and was the subject of a long diplomatic correspondence between Gen. Cass and Lord Malmesbury, Lord Aberdeen took occasion to state in Parliament that he had vir- tually relinquished the claim in his correspondence with Mr. Webster. Moreover, it happens that at the very time in which, according to Lord Aber- deen, England had relinquished the right—namely, 1842—that nobleman, in conjunction with Lord Palmerston, was making the Quintuple Treaty, which asserted the right, as we have shown above. The fact is, that the subject of the right of search was not, end speaking, discussed by Mr. Web- ster and Lord Ashburton, nor did the treaty directly affect it. It was first presented diplomatically in 1841, in a correspondence between our Minster, Mr. Steven- son, and the British government. In January, 1843, however, a despatch from Lord Aberdeen wascom- municated by Mr. Fox, the British Minister to this country, to the Department of State. That des- atch was founded upon an interpretation which faa been placed upon a brief paragraph in the last preceding annual message of the President to the two houses of Congress. While commenting upon the construction which this paragraph had received in England, his lordship takes occasion distinctly to avow that his government claimed the right to visit merch ships for certain purposes, in time of peace, and that this right it can never surrender. PROPOSITION OF THE PARIS CONFERENCE—MR. MAR- CY'S REPLY. The plenipotentiaries who assembled in Paris on the 30th of March, 1856, at the close of the Russian war, representing England, France, Russia, Austria, Prussia, Sardinia and Turkey, made a declaration regulating maritime law in time of war. Through M. Walewski and the Count de Sartiges, a proposal ‘was made to our government to join in the decla- ration, which was as follows :— 1. Privateering is, and remains abolished. 2. The neutral flag covers enemy’s goods, with the exception of contraband of war. 3. Neutral goods, with the exception of contra- band,of war, are not liable to capture under enemy's flag. Z Blockades, in order to be binding, must be ef- fective ; that is to say, maintained by a force suffi-- cient really to prevent access to the coast of the enemy. When Count Sartiges presented this declaration to Mr. Marcy, the latter promptly declined to accede o it, unless it was agreed that if privateering was abolished the private property of the citizens of all the contracting parties should be respected in time of war by the naval forces of each. Mr. Mar- cy took occasion to review the maritime rights of neutrals, and to remind the French Minister that two years previously the President had submitted to all the maritime nations a declaration which contained eld similar to the second and third of the Paris declaration; that four great Powers had acceded to the President’s plan, and that the proposition now made would necessarily LF the pending negotiations with the United States. Mr. Marcy furnished copies of his correspondence to the Ministers from Russia, Austria, Prussia and Sardinia. Baron Stoeckl, the Russian Envoy, re- plied by stating that the Czar entirely agreed with the views of the American government, and de- clined to sign the declaration. Mr. Marcy also ad- dressed a circular to the American Ministers at Ma- drid, Brussels, Naples, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Lisbon, Nicaragua, Mexico, bogota, Caraccas, Rio Janeiro, Buenos Ayres, Santiago de Chile, Lima, Quito, La Paz and Hawaii, directing them to induce the respective governments to which they were ac- credited to hesitate before acceding to so injuri- ous a proposition. Many of the small interior States of Europe, who have no navy nor marine in any shape, joined in the declaration, which was de- signed, by abolishing privateeing, to leave this country, and all others with a small navy, at the mercy of England and France. The scheme, how- ever, did notsucceed, in consequence of the United States and Russia refusing to participate in it. THE BRITISH OUTRAGES IN THE GULF IN 1858—suT" TLEMENT OF THE DIFFICULTY, BUT THE RIGHT OF SEARCH NOT ABANDONED BY ENGLAND. Just one year ago, in May, 1858, the American public was somewhat startled and excited by the intelligence that several of our merchant vessels had been fired into, boarded and searched by Bri- tish cruisers in the Gulf and among the West India islands: an assertion of the right of visitation and search onthe part of England so gross and fla. grant that it created the utmost indignation amongst our people. No less than forty-four Ame” rican vessels were fired into, boarded and searched by British ships-of-war and gunboats, so near our own coasts as almost to be in American waters. The British ship-of-war Styx boarded and searched the American bark W. H. Chandler, of Providence, R.I., and ten other Amefican merchant vessels in the harbor of Sagua la Grande. The brigs Wingold 8. Thurston, Robert Wing, John Taylor, Geo. Stockham, C. F, O’Brien, Martha Gilchrist, Eliza Merrithrew, A. A. Chapman, Brownsville, New Era, Samuel Churchman; the ships Claren- don, Grotto, Escort, Tropic Bird and Sour and Al- bert; the barks Clara Windsor, Glenburn, Samos, John Howe, and the sehopmers Cortez, N. B. Bor- den, Mobile, Marcia Tr¥peu, and several other ves- sels sailing under American colors, amounting in all to forty-four, were effher fired into, overhauled or searched by British cruisers, within a few weeks, wee the assumption that they were engaged in the slave trade, though in no instance wis tsi any evidence that they were not employed in regular commerce. This insolent exercise of the right of search, in time of peace, on the part of England natarall provoked a very hostile feeling in this country. It elicited a warm expression of opinion in’ Con- | in defence of the national honor. Senators ‘combs and Crittenden spoke boldly and patri- otically on the question. Both houses declared in favor of sustaining the President in any measures he might undertake for the protection of our flag and putting a stop to the outrages of the Bri- tish ships of war on our mérchant marine. The Se. nate Committee on Foreign Affairs sent in a report protesting against the claim of England to search vessels sailing under the American flag, and de- claring that resistance to such an act was a prin- ciple of the United States which admitted of no re- serve or qualification, to be maintained at any cost. They declared further that our government admit. ted no right of visitation, far less of search. Mean- time the Executive despatched to the Gulf a squadron composed of the frigates Water Witch, Arctic, Preble; the steamers Colorado, Fulton, Wabash and Despatch ; the sloope-of-war Jamestown and Savannah, and the brig Dolphin—the whole carrying an armament of 14] guns—to protect our merchant vessels from the assaults of the British cruisers. Mr. Cass opened a correspondence with Lord Napier on the subject, and wrote to our Minister London, Mr. Dallas, directing him to demand of government a disavowal of the conduct its naval officers, and the issue of erempt orders to stop their offensive proceedings in West India seas. On the 11th of June lexpatel were received by our henereemee from the Bri Cabinet to the effect that orders had been sent the officers of the West India squadron to ce their attacks upon our vessels, and intimating reparation would be made for any damages di Sir Houston Stewart, the Admiral of the Brit squadron in the West Indies, sent a special senger from Bermuda to Lord Napier to assure h that no general orders had been issued by hi: vernment to molest vessels salling under the A: rican flag, and informing him that he had iss orders to his subordinates to stop the obnoxi proceedings | raraes pine These conciliatory steps in a measure ‘abated excitement, and the question was looked upon made by the Cabinet of St. James for the outr: Upon our flag; but at the same time he tirmly held the opinions of the country on the question the right of search in times of peace, in the foll ing communication to Lord Napi “The President of the United States, in his nual message to Congress, in December, 1841, nounced this pretension to detain and’ exau which have pa since this authoritative declaration, marked as t} have been by verenied remonstrances against t! aggressions, while they have added nothing to strength of the claim, have served but to con! the government in their determination to oppor No change of name can change the illegal chara; of the assumption. Search or visit, it is equal] assault upon the independence of nations. Webster, in a despatch in which he F that subject, correctly observed that what in G: Britain and the United States is known by the of search is called ky continental jurists the rig) and then added, ‘There is no such distinc e British government inaintains between and search.’ And he further remarked, ‘that] visitation of a vessel, to answer any valuable pose, must often and necessarily lead, not me} to the sight of papers, perhaps carried with a to deceive, and produced on demand, but search for other papers, and an inspection of log book, showing the previous course and ev} of the voyage, to an examination into the lang and genera! appeggance of the crew, into the c: aboard and the rnal fitment and equipmen: the vessel. These matters, it is obvious, he ¢ nues, ‘can only be ascertained by rigorous sear “And the reasons originally urged by the B: ‘overnment for the assertion and prosecutio) this pretension furnish by their very naturea erful argument ee its validity. “Jt was contended in its support, that witho: exercise the stipulations of certain anti-slave t| treaties (to which the United States were n appy concurrence of the States of Christendo} this great object (the suppression of the trade) not merely justifies, but renders indi sable, the right now claimed and exercised b: British government.’ And it was also conte! that without it ‘even the laws of England mig! set at defiance by her own subjects.’ And considerations were formally presented to thi vernnent by the British government in "heb of this attempt to change the maritime law of world. But they are rejected by the United St who claim inviolability for their vessels, and on to that great code whoze integrity it is the rest of the strong as well as the weak to sit and defend; and they deny the right of any Pi or of any partial combination of Powers, to polate into it any new principle, however c nient this may be found. And they derive ne| confidence nor consolation from the assni ‘iven to their Minister in London, by an emi ritish statesman at the head of the Foreign that their vessels are not entered as their ve; ‘nor is it as American that such vesselg are visited.’ The immunity of these merchant v depends upon the rights of the United Sta‘ one of the independent Powers of the worl not upon the purposes or the motives of the fo} officers by whom it is violated. A merchant upon the high seas is protected by her nation: racter. He who forcibly enters her, does so his own responsibility. Undoubtedly if a vess sume a national character to which she is not tled, and is sailing under false colors, she can protected by this assumption of a nationalit which she has no claim. As the identity of son must be determined by the officer beari| process for his arrest, and determined at of such officer, so must the national identi vessel be determined at a like hazard to hi! doubting the flag she displays, searches her certain her true character. “There no doubt may be circumstances would go far to modify the complaints a 1 would have a right to make for such a violat its sovereignty. Ifthe boarding officer had grounds for suspicion, and deported himself propriety in the performance of his task, doi injury and peaceably retiring when satisfied o| error, no nation would make such an act the | ject of serious reclamation. It is one thing tc deed avowedly illegal and excuse it by the a ing circumstances, and it is another and quite ferent thing to claim a right of action, and the also of determining when and how, and to extent, it shall be exercised. And this is no b distinction so far as the interest of this cour involved, but it is closely connected with an « dear to the American people—the freedom of citizens upon the great highway of the world. In the debate in the English'House of Lords} ever, it was by no means manifested thi British government were disposed to ahandon claim to exercise the right of search. Th cussion on the parts of Loi Malmesbury an rendon, the present and the past Secretaries fi reign Affairs, was equivocal and unsatisfa) ‘They assumed that the recent outrages were part of the compact to suppress the African trade, and were therefore, ina measure, justi whereas the issue raised by our governme distinctly upon the right of search by a no: gerent Power, without any reference ti slave trade or any other ion 0} of that. The allegation that our fiag was in and our vessels were molested on the supp¢ that they were engaged in the slave trade mere pretext. The orders to the West India : ron were issued by Lord Palmerston durir administration of afthirs, and were immediat yoked on the remonstrance of our goyernmc his successor, Lord Derby. But it must 1 means be assumed that because amends sa tory to our administration were accepted f, outrages in the Gulf in 1858, that the Britis yernment had abandoned the right of + finally and absolutely. No such express decla has been made on the part of that govern there are no existing treaties guaranteeing nity to our flag, and, as far as treaty stipnl with England can secure us, our feespre4 bi is just as nae expored 1 yierraption © ocean now as it was duri 1° the war of 1812. ~ ici THE LATEST NEWS ON THE SUBJECT. It must be admitted that some concessic the eubject of the right of search were ma the British government in the diplomatic ¢ pondence which ensued upon the outrages} referred to, though they have not assuméd th of any binding instrument. Therefore, in to neutral rights, the United States have a: to no change, but still stands upon the law) tions, that the flag covers the goods, except} contraband of war—a universal exception, reference to the right of search, we stand pri where we have always done; no arrangeme: mitting its exercise having been made by ti vernment. The matter, however, has no’ abandoned. It is still under censideration administration, and may soon reach some si ory settlement. France, it may be rem agrees with our views on the subject, and is voring to fix a basis for the permanent adju: of the whole matter. With regard to the vii Mr. Marcy, as expressed in the correspor with Count Sartiges, it may be said that the p administration has not endorsed them, and alt some negotiations have been carried on r tubject of privateering and the right of nothing definite has been agreed to between vernments of Great Britain and the United | up to the present time. eomaresarnar ‘ t THE VERY LATEST. } On the eve of Count Sartiges’ departur; Washington the other day, a most important ration was made by the French Minister i versation with a distinguished ex-Governor 0 York. A remark was made that it was hop¢ impending war in Europe would not in an affect our commercial relations. Count S¢ replied that he @d not understand how the dif could be avoided, as he had no doubt, in the , of an European war becoming general, th) trine of the right of search would be reit! and enforced. Count Sartiges perhaps refei!’ the prohable policy of Fnglind, for he bos) ee es