66 66 goods? Vattel says positively that "effects belonging to an enemy, found on board a neutral ship, are seizable by the rights of war "* Agreeably to this long established rule of the laws of nations, France herself, in her marine laws, has directed that the merchandizes and effects belonging to her enemies, which shall be found on board neutral vessels, shall be good prize. By a former law indeed, the neutral vessels themselves, as well as the effects of her enemies on board, were declared to be good prize. Valint remarks, however, that this regulation was peculiar to France and Spain; and that elsewhere, the goods of the enemy were alone subjected to confiscation. And in the treaty of France with the City of Hamburg, in 1769, it was stipulated that "All effects, provisions and merchandize whatso66 ever, belonging to her enemies, and found on board the vessels of Hamburg, should be confiscated." Mr Adet remarks, that one of his predecessors, in July 1793, applied on this subject to the government of the United States, but was unsuccessful. He must refer to M: Genet's letter to Mr Jefferson, dated July 9th 1793 [the subject was resumed in terms still more extraordinary in his letter of July 25th 1793] to which Mr Jefferson answered on the 24th declaring §" his “belief that it cannot be doubted but that by the general law of "nations, the goods of a friend found in the vessel of an enemy are "free, and the goods of an enemy found in the vessel of a friend, are lawful prize."—"It is true that sundry nations, desirous of avoid(6 ing the inconveniences of having their vessels stopped at sea, ransacked, carried into port and detained, under pretence of having enemy goods on board, have in many instances introduced, by their special treaties, another principle between them, that enemy bottoms shall make enemy goods, and friendly bottoms friendly goods; "but this is altogether the effect of particular treaty, controlling in special cases, the general principle of the law of nations, and there"fore taking effect between such nations only as have so agreed to "control it." And it is plain, that it was to avoid the inconveniences resulting from this general rule of the law of nations that France and the United States stipulated in the 23o article of their commercial treaty. "That free ships should give freedom to goods; and "that everything should be deemed free which should be found on "board the ships belonging to the subjects of either of the contracting parties, although the whole lading, or any part thereof, should "appertain to the enemies of either, contraband goods being always excepted." It is also plain that this stipulation was intended to operate (indeed it was its sole object and otherwise could have no 66 66 66 66 66 66 Valin, p. 250, Reg. Octr 21, 1744 art. 5. [Footnote in file copy.] operation at all) when one of the parties should be at war with a nation or nations with whom the other should be at peace. France therefore, has now no right to complain if the goods of her enemies find protection on board American Ships, or to pretend, that in order "To restore the balance of neutrality to its equilibrium," she may seize on such goods; the just equilibrium between her and the United States will be restored when we are at war and she at peace; at which time the goods of our enemies will find protection on board the vessels of her citizens. 2a It is alledged that we have abandoned the modern public law on contraband, and by our treaty with Great Britain granted to that power exclusively the free carriage of articles for the equipment and armament of vessels. Here, as in the former case, the question recurs,-what is the law of nations on the point in dispute? *Vattel defines contraband goods to be "commodities particularly used in war-such are arms, "military and naval stores, timber, horses, and even provisions in "certain junctures, when there are hopes of reducing the enemy by "famine." In the treaty between France and Denmark, concluded on the 23 of August 1742-† "Tar was declared contraband, together with rosin, sails, hemp, cordage, masts, and timber for ship "building." "Thus, on this account (says Valin) there would have "been no cause for complaining of the conduct of the English, if they had not infringed particular treaties; for of right these things "are now contraband, and have been so since the beginning of this "century, which however, was not the case formerly." "The modern public law on contraband," mentioned by M Adet and his predecessors, probably refers to the principles declared by the armed neutrality, during the American war. This transaction is too remarkable to be passed unnoticed. 66 66 During that war, Great Britain and the other belligerent powers, exercising the rights assured to them by the law of nations, made prize of enemies property on board neutral vessels, and of contraband goods belonging to neutrals. Eager as neutral nations must be to seize the opportunity which war presents, of becoming the carriers for the belligerent nations, whose ships and mariners are wanted for military operations, it was perfectly natural that the former should desire to establish as a rule, that free ships should make free goods; or in other words, that neutral bottoms should protect the goods on board, to whomsoever these belonged; and it was equally natural for them to desire to diminish the list of contraband. In respect to the latter, it must have been particularly interesting to the three northern * Book 7, § 112. [Footnote in file copy.] maritime powers, from whose dominions chiefly the other maritime nations of Europe received supplies of timber and naval stores, to strike these from the list of contraband, or by some means to exempt them from capture. With these dispositions, the Empress of Russia in February 1780, made public the principles on which she would maintain the commerce of her subjects. It is necessary here to recite only two of them. 1. That all the effects belonging to subjects of the nations at war should be free on board neutral vessels; contraband goods excepted. 2. That the articles of contraband, should be regulated by the 10th and 11th articles of her treaty of commerce with Great Britain, extending the regulations of those articles to all the belligerent powers. To inforce the observance of these principles, she gave orders for equipping a considerable part of her marine. 66 In July of the same year, Denmark acceded to the principles of the armed neutrality, and entered into a Convention with Russia, for maintaining them, assuming for her rule in determining what articles should be deemed contraband, her treaty of commerce with Great Britain, concluded the 11th of July 1670. In the 3a article of this treaty, the description of contraband goods is in general terms; “Any provisions of war, as Soldiers, arms, machines, cannon, ships, or "other things of necessary use in war." But, by a Convention concluded at London on the 4th of July 1780, between Great Britain and Denmark, "to explain the treaty of commerce of 1670 between the "two powers," the articles deemed contraband are particularly enumerated; and among them we see "timber for ship-building, tar, "rosin, copper in sheets, sails, hemp and cordage, and generally "whatever serves directly for the equipment of a vessel, unwrought "iron and fir-planks excepted." It is remarkable, that these are the very articles admitted as contraband in the 18th article of our treaty of commerce with Great Britain; and for which admission, Mr Adet declares all the commercial relations between France and the United States are entirely broken. But it is further to be noticed, that this Convention between Russia and Denmark, concluded in the midst of the American war, for maintaining the principles of the armed neutrality, and to which other European powers acceded, is explicitly declared, in the 9th article, to have been concluded and agreed on for the time that war should last;* though it was to serve as a basis to future engagements, which circumstances might render necessary, on account of new naval wars in Europe. and with the latter view, the King of Sweden manifested the utmost solicitude lest the war should be closed without the intervention of the neutral powers. He therefore was urgent that * Hist: arm: neut; p. 77 Mart: treat: vol: 2. p. 103. [Footnote in file copy.] the Empress with all the parties to the maritime Convention, "should propose to the belligerent powers the establishing of a "Congress in which the different concerns, both of the powers at "war, and of the neutral states, should be examined and termi66 nated." " And these concerns he afterwards mentions to be "the "pacification, and the settling of a maritime code of laws;" objects truly important, and meriting all the solicitude manifested on the occasion by the King. But these steps of the King of Sweden serve as additional proofs that the principles of the armed neutrality were not considered by the parties to the maritime Convention, as sanctioned by the existing law of nations. For permanently to establish those assumed principles, by introducing them into a maritime Code, was obviously the influential motive with the King for desiring a Congress, at which such a code might be settled with the assent of all the nations of Europe. But this project did not succeed; no Congress was formed: the belligerent powers made peace at different periods; and with that war ended the maritime Convention. This no nation has more reason to regret than our own, as well because the principles in question respect some very valuable portions of our exports, as because our disposition and our policy preserving us in peace, such an extended liberty of commerce would prove highly advantageous to us as carriers for the powers at war. We have seen then, that the law of nations, the marine laws of France, her own treaties as well as those of other nations, and even the system of the armed neutrality, incontestably establish these principles, That enemy goods on board neutral vessels are rightful subjects of capture and condemnation, and that timber and other articles for the equipment and armament of ships, are contraband of war: and therefore, that the admission of these principles, in the treaty between the United States and Great Britain, not being a grant to her of any right (for in what sense could we be said to give what she before possessed?) furnishes no just ground of offence to France. In what sense too can the United States be said. to have "refused to other nations a right " which they and we voluntarily and mutually agreed to renounce? Or how are we chargeable with “partiality in favour of England" because we do not take up arms to compel her also to renounce it? But Mr Adet still resting on the idea that not to compel Great Britain to renounce, is to grant her a right, seems to imagine that we shall attempt to obviate his complaints by saying "that France hav"ing the right by her treaty of 1778, to enjoy all the advantages in "commerce and navigation which the United States have granted to * Hist: armed neut: p. 147. 150. [Footnote in file copy.] 66 "England, is not injured by the stipulation of the treaty of 1794 "(with Great Britain) relative to contraband of war; as they become common to her." But we shall say no such thing. The 29 article to which he refers has no relation to this subject. Had we granted any particular favour to Great Britain, or to any other nation, in respect to commerce and navigation, we readily admit that by this article, France would be immediately entitled to the same. But in regard to contraband of war, we have granted nothing, and therefore, under that article France can claim nothing. 66 Under the influence of present and temporary interests, the very nature of the stipulations between France and the United States, on the subject of free Commerce, and the limitation of contraband, seems to be forgotten. They took for the basis of their treaty "the most 'perfect equality and reciprocity: "-Would they then conspire to their own hurt? Would they voluntarily and mutually stipulate for injuries? or for advantages? Certainly the latter; and both considered the agreement reciprocally advantageous which secured to each in its turn the freedom of commerce provided by the rules, that free ships should make free goods, and that timber and naval stores should be excluded from the list of contraband. 66 66 Connected with this subject is what concerns the article of provi sions. Mr Adet says that, "after having assured to the English "the carriage of naval stores, the Federal Government wished to assure them that of Meals; in a word it desired to have commerce only with England. Thus it stipulates by the 18th article, that "the American vessels laden with grain, may be seized under the frivolous pretext, that it is extremely difficult to define the cases wherein provisions and other articles, which are generally ex"cepted, could be classed in the list of contraband of war." 16 There are so many extraordinary assertions in Mr Adet's Notes, those in the above paragraph excite no surprize. The Federal Government is constituted of citizens who have a common interest with their fellow citizens of the United States, that common interest has a peculiar relation to commerce, on the freedom and extension of which the public revenue and the general prosperity of our Country chiefly depend. Will it then be believed that the Government wished this commerce to be restrained, particularly the commerce in meals, which compose the most valuable part of our exports? Especially will it be believed that the Government desired that our citizens might have commerce only with England? Let the general sense of our fellow citizens answer these charges. Let the great mass of our commercial brethren answer-they whose enterprize traverses every sea, and explores every region of the globe, to extend their gainful. trade; citizens whose commercial adventures to France and her Colonies have risen annually to many millions; adventures by which |