with Spain and that the United States was highly satisfied with the regulations.

The Chargé was to notify the French Government that a convention had been proposed to Great Britain for abolishing warfare against private property upon the sea. The proposition would later be communicated more in detail to the French Government, to the Russian Government, and to others, particularly if, upon the notice. of this intention, which he was to give at the earliest convenient date, it should be received with favorable disposition.

MONROE'S MESSAGE OF 1823

In his famous message to Congress of December 2, 1823, laying down the "doctrine" which bears his name, President Monroe also called attention to the declaration of the French Government at the commencement of the war between France and Spain that it would grant no commissions to privateers and that Spanish and neutral commerce would not be molested by the naval force of France except in the breach of a lawful blockade.1 Monroe stated that this declaration, which appeared to have been faithfully carried into effect, concurred with principles proclaimed and cherished by the United States from the first establishment of their independence, and suggested the hope that the time had arrived when the proposal for adopting it as a permanent and invariable rule in all future maritime wars might meet the favorable consideration of the great European powers. Instructions had accordingly been given to American Ministers in France, Russia, and Great Britain to make those proposals to their respective governments.

When the friends of humanity reflected on the amelioration of the condition of the human race which would result from the abolition of private war on the sea and on the great facility by which it might be accomplished, "an earnest hope is indulged that these overtures will meet with an attention animated by the spirit in which they were made and that they will ultimately be successful.”

PROPOSALS FOR THE PANAMA CONGRESS

In the message of President Adams to the House of Representatives, March 15, 1826, concerning the proposed Congress of Panama, he considered the subject of maritime trade in war. After calling attention to the fact that the proposed Congress expected to adopt some plan on the subject, he mentioned that the United States in 1784 had proposed a plan for treaties with the principal powers of Europe and that the only result of the negotiation for treaties in

1

1 Document 74, p. 321.

2 Document 76, p. 324.

conformity with the plan was the treaty of 1785 between the United States and Prussia. This treaty, which provided for the abolition of private war upon the ocean and contained restrictions favorable to neutral commerce, he considered "memorable in the diplomatic annals of the world, and precious as a monument of the principles, in relation to commerce and maritime warfare," with which the United States entered upon her career as an independent nation. He could not exaggerate the unfading glory with which the United States would "go forth in the memory of future ages," if by their friendly counsel, by their moral influence, by the power of argument and persuasion they could prevail upon the American nations at Panama to stipulate by general agreement among themselves, and so far as any of them might be concerned, the perpetual abolition of private war upon the ocean. If this could not yet be accomplished, as advances toward it, the establishment of the principle that the friendly flag should cover the cargo, the curtailment of contraband of war, and the proscription of fictitious paper blockades would, if successfully inculcated, "redound proportionally to our honor and drain the fountain of many a future sanguinary war."

On May 8, 1826, Secretary of State Clay gave instructions to the delegates to the Panama Congress.1 In discussing commerce in war he stated that in future European wars the policy of all American states would be the same, that of peace and neutrality. The maritime principles for which the United States had always contended were just in themselves and calculated to prevent wars, and the President wished them to bring forward these principles during the Congress at Panama. Furthermore, the delegates were to present the proposition to abolish war against private property upon the ocean. If by the common consent of nations private property on the ocean were no longer liable to capture, the principle that free ships make free goods would lose its importance by being merged in the more liberal and extensive rule. But because of the slow progress of civilization Clay thought it would be too much to indulge any very sanguine hope of a speedy, universal concurrence in a total exemption of all private property from capture. He thought some nations might be prepared to admit the limited principle who would withhold their consent from the more comprehensive one. The delegates were, therefore, also to "propose the adoption of the rule that free ships shall make free goods, and its converse, that inimical ships shall make inimical goods." He thought the one proposition seemed necessarily to follow from the other, that in their practical application there was a simplicity and certainty in both which strongly recommended them, and that both operated in favor of 1 Document 77, p. 326.

neutrality, thus presenting a "new dissuasive to Nations from rashly engaging in war." He said it would of course occur to the delegates to insert a provision restricting the operation of these principles to those nations which should agree to observe them. The delegates were authorized to propose a definition of blockade such as was inserted in the treaty with Colombia and to propose the contraband list contained in that treaty. They were also to propose the other articles of that treaty having reference to a state of war in which the contracting parties might be belligerent or neutral. They were furnished with a copy of the letter of July 28, 1823, to Minister Rush in Great Britain, and with a copy of the draft treaty of that date which Clay thought might serve as a model for any that might be agreed upon at the Congress.

CLAY'S COMMUNICATIONS TO GREAT BRITAIN

On June 19, 1826, Secretary Clay instructed Minister Gallatin regarding the renewal of negotiations with Great Britain.1 He was to state to the British plenipotentiaries that the American Government still felt the unabated force of the propositions which were proposed for negotiation in 1823; that the United States would be happy if they could be arranged satisfactorily; that the United States was deterred from making any new attempt at their adjustment because of the discouraging reception given them by the British Government; and that he was therefore now instructed to decline to bring them forward. Gallatin was authorized, however, if the British plenipotentiaries should wish to introduce them into the negotiation, to agree to all or any of the articles in the draft treaty of 1823.

Secretary Clay on June 13, 1828,2 informed the Minister in Great Britain that the United States was willing to make an arrangement on the principles which had been proposed by Rush in 1823, but after all that had passed between the two Governments the President thought that the first movement toward such an arrangement ought to proceed from the British Government.

TREATY OF 1828 WITH PRUSSIA

A treaty of commerce and navigation, between the United States and Prussia, was signed at Washington on May 1, 1828. It revived article 12 of the treaty of 1785, which had provided that in case of a war in which one of the parties was a belligerent and the other a neutral the ships of the neutral were to be permitted to "navigate freely to & from the ports and on the coasts of the belligerent

1

Document 78, p. 330. 2 Document 81, p. 333. 3 Document 80, p. 332.

parties, free Vessels making free goods." The treaty also revived article 13 of the treaty of 1799 which had included a list of contraband items limited to arms and munitions of war and had provided that those items could be purchased but not confiscated.

Article 12 of the new treaty, which contained the above provisions. also included a statement that the parties still desiring, in conformity with their intention declared in the twelfth article of the treaty of 1799, to establish between themselves, or in concert with other maritime powers, further provisions “to ensure just protection and freedom to neutral navigation and commerce, and which may, at the same time, advance the cause of civilization and humanity, engage again to treat on this subject at some future and convenient period." For 26 years after the signature of this treaty no other was concluded with an European state which contained provisions relating to neutral commerce.

CHAPTER VII

RETURN TO THE PRINCIPLES OF 1776

NEW PROPOSAL TO RUSSIA

After five years of unsuccessful effort to establish the principle of immunity of private property at sea, the United States put forward instead the principles of the plan of 1776 in relation to neutral commerce.

In acknowledging a note from the Russian Minister regarding the policy to be pursued by Russian naval commanders toward neutral commerce when enforcing a blockade of Turkish ports, the Acting Secretary of State on August 2, 1828, stated that he was directed to express the wish of the President that the Russian Government might "be disposed to adopt anew, with respect to Neutral Commerce, generally, the liberal principles it conceived, adopted and proclaimed in the years 1780, and 1781."1 A "reciprocal disposition" would be found to exist on the part of the President to favor those principles by any suitable arrangement which might be mutually agreed upon for giving them effect.

VAN BUREN ON THE LAW OF NATIONS

2

Secretary of State Van Buren instructed Minister Randolph in Russia on June 18, 1830, to negotiate a treaty concerning the rights and duties of belligerents and neutrals. To prepare Randolph for the negotiation, the Secretary felt it desirable "to cast a retrospective glance upon the course heretofore pursued."

In considering the course of early American policy, Van Buren had come to the conclusion that the principles regarding neutral commerce in the treaty plan of 1776 were in accordance with the law of nations. This position had not been assumed by earlier Secretaries of State or Presidents, although some of them had severely criticized the contrary principles as having no proper foundation. It should also be borne in mind that Van Buren's point of view was not shared by the American courts and statesmen of the Revolutionary period. The reasoning by which he supported it is here presented simply as expounded by him.

1Document 82, p. 334.

2 Document 84, p. 336.