bays, outlets, and inlets, on the west coast of Mexico, south of San Diego, to be in a state of vigorous blockade, which will be made absolute except against armed vessels of neutral nations. All neutral merchant vessels found in any of the bays and harbors on said coast, on the arrival of the blockading force, will be allowed twenty days to leave."

Commodore Stockton's instructions of August 20 to the Commanders of the Warren and Cyane show that the former was to blockade the port of Mazatlán, and the latter, San Blas. The Commanders were to allow all neutral vessels found in those ports 20 days to leave, and they were to make the blockade absolute against all vessels except armed vessels of neutral nations. Nothing was said in the instructions about blockading any other ports, harbors, or bays on the west coast of Mexico south of San Diego.

THE PROCLAMATION EXPLAINED

On December 24, 1846, Secretary of the Navy Mason sent a circular letter to the commanding officers of the naval forces in the Pacific, on the subject of Commodore Stockton's proclamation." He said it was obvious that Commodore Stockton did not regard the extensive coast embraced within the limits specified as placed under blockade by the published notice, or any particular port in a state of blockade until a sufficient blockading force was actually present to enforce it. In authorizing conquest or blockade on the west coast the President had desired to subject neutral commerce to the lease possible inconvenience or obstruction compatible with the exercise of belligerent rights. The generality of the language employed by Commodore Stockton had seemed to excite alarm among neutrals in regard to shipments to Mexican ports and might have prevented such shipments. It was desirable to avoid any such interference in their commercial ventures in articles not contraband. Mason explained that the United States had at all times maintained that a lawful maritime blockade required the actual presence of a sufficient force stationed at the entrance of a port, sufficiently near to prevent communication. The officers were to give public notice that, under Commodore Stockton's general notification, no port on the west coast of Mexico was regarded as blockaded unless there was "a sufficient American force to maintain it actually present, or temporarily driven from such actual presence by stress of weather, intending to return."

1 Document 95, p. 363.

2 Document 96, p. 363.

The proclamation of Commodore Stockton was explained by Secretary of State Buchanan in a letter of December 29, 1846, to the British Minister.1 Buchanan stated that while the general language employed by Stockton might be liable to misconstruction, it was 66 yet sufficiently apparent from the whole proclamation that he did not intend to establish a paper blockade." This would have been equally unwarranted by his instructions and by the principles which the United States had maintained in regard to blockades ever since becoming an independent nation. Buchanan enclosed a copy of the whole Navy Department order of December 24, requesting that no part of it be made public except that which specified what the Government of the United States recognized and would enforce as a lawful blockade under the law of nations.

FURTHER STATEMENTS OF POLICY

In an instruction of April 27, 1847, to the Minister in Spain, Secretary Buchanan stated that the Spanish Government was the only Government which had complained of the manner in which Commodore Connor had enforced the blockade of the Mexican ports.2 Buchanan explained that articles 15 and 16 of the treaty of 1795 with Spain recognized the principle of free ships making free goods and that under their stipulations vessels under the Spanish flag enjoyed the right to carry the property of the enemy to any Mexican port not blockaded. "This," he stated, "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."

Secretary of the Navy Mason further explained the policy of the United States to the new Commander of the Naval Forces in the Pacific in an order of October 28, 1847.3 He said the policy from the beginning of the war had been to interfere as little as possible with neutral commerce; that the best service which the Navy could render was by lawful blockade to exclude from Mexican ports not occupied by American forces all foreign supplies, and especially, munitions and articles contraband, which would enable the enemy to protract the war. Furthermore, he held that no present advantage "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."

1 Document 97, p. 365. 2 Document 98, p. 365.

"Document 99, p. 367.

CHAPTER IX

THE CRIMEAN WAR

MARCY ON NEUTRAL RIGHTS

Secretary of State Marcy on April 13, 1854,1 informed minister Buchanan in Great Britain that the British Minister had confidentially told him of the course Great Britain had determined to pursue in regard to neutral commerce in the event of an European war. She proposed to follow the rules that free ships made free goods, except articles contraband of war, and that neutral property, not contraband, found in enemy ships was exempt from confiscation. Marcy said the United States had long favored the doctrine that the flag should protect the cargo, and had endeavored to have it regarded and acted upon as a part of the law of nations. There now appeared to be a “fair prospect of getting this sound and salutary principle incorporated into the international code."

Great Britain and France, he said, felt much concerned as to the course which American citizens would take in regard to privateering. The American Government was "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 the British Government proposed to issue, Marcy stated, was "distinct in interdicting to neutrals the coasting and Colonial trade with the belligerent if not enjoyed by them previous to the war." Regarding this trade, Great Britain had asserted principles in the wars resulting from the French Revolution before she issued her "obnoxious orders in council," which the United States held to be in violation of the law of nations. If she should still adhere to these principles in the coming war and had occasion to apply them to American commerce, they would be seriously controverted by the United States and might "disturb our friendly relations with her and her allied belligerents." The liberal spirit which Great Britain had indicated respecting cargoes under neutral flags and neutral property in enemy ships gave an implied assurance that she 1 Document 100, p. 367.

would not again attempt to assert belligerent rights which were not "well sustained by the well-settled principles of international law." Marcy, in a note of April 14 to the Russian Chargé in the United States,1 made some observations on these points which he forwarded on the same date to the Minister in Russia. As the United States had "altogether the most extended foreign trade" of any nation which would remain neutral in the approaching conflict, she was deeply interested in the policy which was likely to be pursued by the belligerents toward neutral commerce. Great Britain and France had determined to adopt a liberal policy during the coming conflict, and the United States did not doubt that Russia would also maintain the liberal spirit which had previously distinguished her conduct toward neutral powers.

Marcy observed that in the earliest period of the American Republic attempts were made to procure the recognition of the proposition that "Free ships make free goods," as a principle of international law. Those attempts were unavailing, and up to that time enemy property in a neutral vessel had been held liable to seizure and confiscation. Russia had favored the liberal view of the question and France had been willing to concede the doctrine, but Great Britain, whose maritime ascendency had inclined her to maintain extreme doctrines in regard to belligerent rights, strenuously resisted. Marcy said it might "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 was quite certain that Great Britain and France in the coming war would refrain from seizure of any property found under a neutral flag except articles contraband of war. They would also respect neutral property not contraband, found in any enemy ship, but, as the international code protected their property thus situated, this was no concession to neutrals. The application of the principle that free ships made free goods to a single war and as a mere relaxation of an admitted belligerent right did not fulfill the expectations of the American Government. It claimed the principle "as belonging to the international code" and wished to have it recognized by all nations and observed in all future wars. In the efforts of the United States to accomplish this object it hoped for the "powerful coöperation of the Emperor of Russia."

Marcy stated that the United States had theretofore contended for the relaxation of other severe rules enforced by belligerents against. neutral commerce contrary to the law of nations. She had asserted the right of neutrals to carry on the coasting and colonial trade of

1 Document 101, p. 369.

2 Document 102, p. 371.

a belligerent which had opened to them this trade even after the commencement of hostilities. How far such a right, if now claimed by neutrals, would be resisted by the belligerents in the coming war was not known, and perhaps there might be no occasion to define the extent of neutral rights in this respect. If the Emperor of Russia should open the coasting trade in his dominions to ships of all nations not at war with him, "a grave question would then arise as to the right of his enemies to interfere with neutrals in carrying it on at Russian ports not actually besieged or blockaded."

To neutral nations, and especially to the United States as "the principal among them," Marcy stated that the views of Russia on the subjects above mentioned would be most desirable and important information in the event of a war.

MARCY'S PROPOSAL OF A GENERAL DECLARATION

On April 28, 1854, Secretary Marcy acknowledged receipt from the British and French Ministers of the declaration of their Governments regarding the rule which for the time would be observed toward powers with which they were at peace.1 The President had directed Marcy to express satisfaction that the principle that free ships made free goods was to have a qualified sanction by the practical observance of it in the existing war by both Great Britain and France. Notwithstanding the sincere gratification which the declaration had given the President, it would have been enhanced if the rule alluded to had been announced as one which would be observed not only in the existing war, but in every future war in which these powers should be engaged. The unconditional sanction of this rule by the British and French Governments, together with the practical observance of it in the existing war would cause it to be "henceforth recognised throughout the civilized world as a general principle of international law." The American Government from its very commencement had labored for its recognition as a neutral right, and France, Russia, Prussia, and other nations had, in various ways, "fully concurred with the United States in regarding it as a sound and salutary principle, in all respects proper to be incorporated into the law of nations."

Marcy then made the important statement that to settle the principle that free ships made free goods, except articles contraband of war, and to prevent it from being called again into question from any quarter or under any circumstances, "the United States are desirous to unite with other powers in a declaration that it shall be observed by each hereafter, as a rule of international law."

The exemption of neutral property, not contraband, from seizure and confiscation when laden on board an enemy vessel, was a right

'Document 103, p. 372.