Slike strani
PDF
ePub

city with British exclusions of American articles of export. 3d. Because, as a commercial measure, discriminating in time of war, between British and other nations, it has examples in British practice. It deserves attention also, that a discrimination was made, and under another name still exists, in the amount of convoy duty imposed on the trade between Great Britain with Europe, and with America. 4th. Because the measure cannot be ascribed to a partiality towards the enemies of Great Britain, or to a view of favouring them in the war, having for its sole object the interest of the United States, which it pursues in a mode strictly conformable to the rights and the practice of all nations.

In fine the act may truly be represented as so far from derogating from the amicable dispositions of the United States towards Great Britain, that it has resulted solely from the inefficacy of their protracted and reiterated endeavours, otherwise to obtain a just redress, and from a hope that an appeal in this peaceable form to the reflections and interests of an enlightened nation would be more successful in removing every obstacle to a perfect and permanent cordiality between the two nations.

The instructions given to Mr. Monroe, January 5, 1804, having taken into view, and being still applicable to a great proportion of the matter now committed to your joint negotiations, it will be most convenient to refer you to those instructions as your general guide, and to confine the present to the alterations and additions, which a change of circumstances, or a contemplation of new objects, may require.

The first article of the project comprised in the instructions of 1804 relates to the impressment of seamen. The importance of an effectual remedy for this practice derives urgency from the licentiousness with which it is still pursued, and from the growing impatience of this country under it. So indispensable is some adequate provision for the case, that the President makes it a necessary preliminary to any stipulation, requiring a repeal of the act shutting the market of the United States against certain British manufactures. At the same time he authorizes yo'l, in case the ultimatum, as stated in the article above referred to, should not be acceptable to the British government, to substitute one in the terms following: “No seaman nor seafaring person shall, upon the high seas, and without the jurisdiction of either party, be demanded, nor taken out of any ship or vessel, belonging to the citizens or subjects of one of the parties, by the publick or private armed ships or men of war, belonging to, or in the service of the other party, and strict orders shall be given for the due observance of this engagement."

An article in these terms was, with the acquiescence of lord Hawkesbury and Mr. Addington, concerted between Mr. King and lord St. Vincent, on the approaching renewal of the late war. It was frustrated by an exception of the

narrow seas," inserted by lord St. Vincent; an exception so evidently inadmissible, both in principle and in practice, that it must have been intended as a pretext for evading the stipulation at that time. Perhaps the present ministry may neither be disposed to resort to such a pretext, nor unwilling to avail themselves of the precise sanction as far as it was

given by their predecessors. With respect to contraband, which is the subject of the 4th article, it may be observed, that, as it excludes naval stores from the list, and is otherwise limited to articles strictly military, it must, if admissible to Great Britain, leave but feeble objections to an abolition of contraband altogether. In the present state of the arts in Europe, with the intercourse by land, no nation at war with Great Britain can be much embarrassed by leaving those particular articles subject to maritime captures. Whilst bel. ligerent nations, therefore, have little interest in the limited right against contraband, it imposes on neutrals all the evils resulting from suspicious and vexatious searches, and from questions incident to the terms used in the actual enumeration. It is not an unreasonable hope, therefore, that, in place of this article, an entire abolition of contra. band may be substituted. Should this be found unattainable, it may be an improvement of the article, as it stands, to subjoin, for the sake of greater caution, to the positive enumeration, a negative specification of certain articles, such as provisions, money, naval stores, &c. as in no case to be deemed within the meaning of the article; with a proviso, that the specification shall not be construed to imply in the least, that any articles not specified in the exception shall, on that account, be liable to be drawn into question.

À doctrine has been lately introduced by the British courts, and at length adopted by the instructions of June, 1303, to British cruisers, which regards contraband conyeyed in one voyage, as affecting a resumed or return voyage, although the contraband shall have been previously deposted at its port of destination. It will be a further improvement of the article to insert a declaratory clause against this innovation, and the abuses incident to it.

The fourth article, besides the stipulation on the subject of contraband, relates to two other objects ; 1st, that of free ships, free goods : 2d, that of a trade with enemies' colonies.

1st. With respect to the first, the principle that a neutral flag covers the property of an enemy, is relinquished in pursuance of the example of the Russian treaty, on which the article is modelled; the relinquishment, however, being connected with, and conditioned on, the provision required in favour of the neutral right to the colonial trade. The importance of that principle to the security of neutral commerce, and to the freedoin of the seas, has at all times been felt by the United States ; and although they have not asserted it as the established law of nations, they have ever been anxious to see it made a part of that law. It was with reluctance, of course, that a contrary stipulation was authorized, and merely as a mean of obtaining from Great Britain the recognition of a principle now become of more importance to neutral nations possessing mercantile capital, than the principle of " free ships free goods." It is to be particularly kept in view, therefore, that such a contrary stipulation is to be avoided, if possible ; and if unavoidable, that the stipulation be so modified as to interfere as little as possible with the spirit and policy of any provisions in favour of the principle which may be likely to be introduced into a treaty of peace among the present belligerent powers of Europe. Should it be known that Russia as well as France mean to insist on such a provision; and that such a stipulation by the United States, however modified, will materially affect her confidence and good will towards them, the objection to the measure will acquire a force that can yield only to the consideration, shat without such a sacrifice, the provisions for the security of our seamen, and of our neutral commerce, cannot be obtained, and that the sacrifice will effectually answer these purposes.

2d. The vast importance of the colonial trade, with the circumstances and the excitement which have taken place since the date of the original instructions to Mr. Monroe, will require that the neutral right on this subject be provided for in an appropriate article, and in terms more ex. plicit than are used in the article under review. As the right in this case turns on the general principle, that neutrals may lawfully trade, with the exceptions of blockades and contraband, to and between all ports of an enemy, and in all articles, although the trade shall not have been open to them in time of peace, particular care is to be taken, that no part of the principle be expressly or virtually abandoned, as being no part of the law of nations. On the contrary, it is much to be desired, that the general princi. ple, in its full extent, be laid down in the stipulation. But as this may not be attainable, and as too much ought not to be risked by an inflexible pursuit of abstract right, especially against the example and the sentiments of great powers, having concurrent interests with the United States, you are left at liberty, if found necessary, to abridge the right in practice, as is done in the supplement of October, 1801, to the treaty of June of that year, between Russia and Great Britain, not omitting to provide that in case Great Britain should, by her treaties or instructions, leave to any other nation the right in a greater extent than stipulated to the United States, they may claim the enjoy. ment of it in an equal exient.

The abuses which have been committed by Great Britain, under the pretext that a neutral trade, from enemy colonies, through neutral ports, was a direct trade, render it indispensable to guard against such a pretext, by some express declaration on that point. The most that can be conceded on the part of the United States is, that the landing of the goods, the securing the duties, and the change of the ship, or preferably the landing of the goods alone, or with the securing the duties, shall be requisite to destroy the identity of the voyage, and the directness of the trade, and that the ordinary documents of the custom house officers shall be sufficient evidence of the facts or fact.

A satisfactory provision on this subject of a trade with enemy colonies is deemed of so much consequence to the rights and interests of the United States, and is so well understood to have been contemplated along with a like provision against the impressment of seamen, in the late act of Congress prohibiting the importation of certain classes of British manufactures, that, as was enjoined with respect to the provision against impressment, no stipulation is to be entered into, not consistent with a continuance of that act, unless the provision with respect to the colonial trade be also obtained.

In re-modelling the provision with respect to the colonial trade, you may with great propriety urge a distinction between the West India colonies and the very distant ones in the East Indies and elsewhere, and the reasonableness of limiting to the former the exception of the direct trade with their parent countries out of the general neutral right. The distinction is supported by several considerations, particularly by the greater difficulty, in the case of the more distant colonies, of previously knowing, and eventually proving, the regulations as they may have actually stood in time of peace; and by the ruinous delays and expenses attending the judicial investigations. The British courts have in fact admitted the distinction so far as to presume the lawfulness of the neutral trade with the East India colonies, as being generally open in peace as well as war; whilst they reverse the presumption with respect to the West Indies.

In addition to what is proposed on the subject of blockades in vi and vıı articles, the persevcrance of Great Britain in considering a notification of a blockade, and even of an intended blockade, to a foreign government, or its ministers at London, as a notice to its citizens, and as rendering a vessel, wherever found in a destination to the notified port, liable to capture, calls for a special remedy. The palpable injustice of the practice is aggravated by the auxiliary rule prevailing in the British courts, that the blockade is to be held in legal force, until the governmental notification be expressly rescinded, however certain the fact may he, that the blockade was never formed or had ceased. You will be at no loss for topicks to enforce the inconsistency of these innovations with the law of nations, with the nature of blockades, with the safety of neutral commerce, and particularly with the communication made to this government by order of the British

31

VOL. VI.

« PrejšnjaNaprej »