pation from the distant European control of Great Britain; second, popular desire for an enlargement of the political rights of the individual members of the State upon the acknowledged theory of the natural rights of man; third, the want of union among the States to secure safety, tranquillity, aggrandizement, and fame.

The revolution attempted in 1861 is a spasmodic reaction against the revolution of 1776. It combines the three ideas which were put down, but not extinguished, in that great war, namely: First, European authority to regulate political affairs on this continent; second, the aggrandizement and extension of human slavery; third, disunion, dissolution, anarchy.

Any impartial thinker can see that an attempt at a revolution so unnatural and perverse as this could never have been embraced by any portion of the American people, except in a moment of frenzied partisan disappointment; that it has no one element of success at home, and that it is even more portentous to all other Governments than to our own. It is painful to see faction stalking abroad in one's native land. But faction is incident to every State, because it is inherent in human nature. We prefer, if it must come, that it come in just its present form and character. It will perish by simply coming to confront the American people, for the first time brought to meet that enemy of national peace and safety in arms. The people are aroused, awakened, resolute, and determined. The danger is, therefore, already passed. We no longer fear-indeed, we hardly deprecate—the disaster of civil war brought upon us without fault. We now see that it may be regarded as a necessary trial to preserve the perfection of our constitution, and to remove all remaining distrust of its durability and its adaptation to the universal wants of mankind.

Mr. Marsh had repeated interviews with Baron Ricasoli on the subject of the revolution, and he gave full assurance that no agent of the Confederated States would be recognized at any Italian port. Negotiations were then opened on the subject of the declaration of Paris, but in consequence of the objections started by Great Britain and France, the question was set aside.

SWITZERLAND.

To Mr. Fogg, at Berne, Mr. Seward wrote:-Tell the Swiss Republic, then, that with God's blessing, we will preserve this model of federal republican government by which they have reformed their institutions, and we invoke them to retain their own with no less fidelity. So Switzerland and the United States shall in after ages be honoured as the founders of the only true and beneficent system of human government-a system that harmonizes needful authority with the preservation of the natural rights of man. Every free citizen of Switzerland who comes here, so long as he remains, is practically a citizen of the United States. He goes in and out everywhere unchallenged. Nevertheless, the American citizen in Switzerland is a stranger, and the reiterated demand for his passport at every angle in his course reminds him painfully that he is suspected. His least elevated motive for going there is trade and commerce; but the objects of most of our citizens in visiting Alpine countries are health and study of the more sublime and inactive features of nature, and a fervent admiration for the free people who dwell among them. In the United States there is not one man base enough to do or wish an injury to the enlightened government or to the people of Switzerland. Why, then, should not the government of

that country make us conscious of its confidence by allowing us the enjoyment of national hospitality while we are sojourning in their beautiful country?

Mr. Fogg had an interview with the President of the Confederation on the subject, and, in reply to Mr. Fogg's address, President Knüsel said: The Swiss Confederation has always taken a lively interest in everything concerning the great sister republic beyond she Atlantic. How could it be otherwise? The similarity of the democratic federate institutions, the independence and liberty which both enjoy, and which they had to obtain by force of arms, has necessarily led to a mutual approach, however great the distance be which separates the old world from the new. In this may be found, perhaps, a principal reason why for a long series of years numerous Swiss families emigrated to the United States, where they sought and found a new home, and why the names of Swiss cantons and towns are now to be found where for thousands of years uncultivated and unpopulated forests and prairies existed. The intercourse between the two nations has since steadily increased: the produce of one country finds its market in the other, and numerous points of connection develop themselves ever more and more.

This harmony of political principles, sympathies, and interests has, for its consequence, a steadily increasing approach of both nations, which has already, on different occasions, shown itself by marks of mutual cordiality. Names like that of William Tell, so dear to Switzerland, were given to sea vessels by citizens of the United States. The federal council responded to that salutation by hoisting the Swiss flag on the mainmast of those ships. To the colossal monument which the United States erected in memory of their liberator, the immortal Washington, Switzerland has contributed a stone with an inscription. Many more similar marks of mutual esteem might be enumerated; suffice it to add the remark that a treaty of friendship and commerce, concluded a few years ago, has but strengthened the relations between the two countries.

Switzerland, from the sincere sympathy which she has for the welfare of the Union, looks with anxiety upon the issue of the events which now shake that country. Switzerland passed through a similar erisis fourteen years ago, which threatened to tear asunder the then loose connection of the twenty-two cantons. But renewed rose the present confederation from that tempest; strengthened internally and abroad, she now stands there, esteemed by the nations. May God grant that the connexion of the States of the United States of America may also emerge renewed and strengthened out

of this crisis.

The President of the Swiss Confederation presents his best thanks, through your excellency, to the President of the United States for his assurances of friendship and sympathy. He hopes that the new minister resident will thoroughly acquaint himself with our relations and laws. That would render the more possible for him a strict performance of his duties; the protection of the rights and interests of American citizens, and the preservation of a good and ever friendly understanding with the Swiss Government, which wishes to unite loyauté with their maintenance of authority. The President of the Confederation may add that he thinks the retiring minister resident has learned to esteem Switzerland, her authorities, and nation, and he may give to Mr. Fay the plain assurance that he has acquired the esteem and the love of the country and her magistrates. The

President of the Confederation doubts not a moment the relations between the Federal council and the present representative of America will always be of the most friendly character.

NETHERLANDS.

On the 16th May, 1861, Mr. Seward wrote to Mr. Pike, the American minister at the Hague, both as regards the passport system, the state of relations with Japan, and the subject of maritime law. In consequence of this, Mr. Murphy, the successor, sent a despatch to the Minister for Foreign Affairs asking the Netherlands Government to continue to be neutral on the subject of non-intervention. It seemed, however, that though the Government would lend no aid to the revolution, public sentiment in the Netherlands was favourable to the seceding States. The arrival of the Sumter at the port of Curaçoa gave occasion for some correspondence, she having been allowed to enter the port and to replenish her exhausted stock of fuel and supplies. A demand having been made by the American Government, Baron Von Zuylen sent the following despatch to Mr. Pike, laying down the state of the law on the subject:

The Hague, September 17, 1861. SIR,-The department of the colonies has just communicated to me the information, transmitted by the governor of Curaçoa, concerning the affair of the ship Sumter, and I hasten to bring to your notice the following observations, by way of sequence to the preliminary reply which I had the honour to address to you on the 2nd of this month. According to the principles of the law of nations, all nations without exceptions may admit vessels of war belonging to a belligerent State to their ports, and accord to them all the favours which constitute an asylum. Conditions are imposed on said vessels during their stay in the port or roadstead. For example, they must keep perfect peace with all vessels that may be there; they may not augment their crews, nor the number of their guns, nor be on the lookout in the ports or roadsteads for the purpose of watching after hostile vessels arriving or departing, &c. Besides, every state has the right to interdict foreign vessels of war from entrance to ports which are purely military. Thus it was that Sweden and Denmark, in 1854, at the time of the Crimean war, reserved the right to exclude vessels of war from such or such ports of their dominions.

The neutral power has also the right to act like France, who, by her declaration of neutrality in the war between the United States and the Confederate States, under date of 9th June last (Moniteur of 11th June), does not permit any vessel of war, or privateer, of one or the other of the belligerents, to enter and remain with their prizes in French ports longer than twenty-four hours, unless in case of refuge under stress.

In the proclamation of the month of June last, which was communicated to you with my despatch of the 13th, the Government of the Netherlands has not excluded vessels of war from her ports.

As to privateers, the greatest number of the maritime nations allows them the privilege of asylum upon the same conditions nearly as to vessels of war.

According to a highly-esteemed author on the law of nations (Hautefeuille, Droits et Devoirs des Nations Neutres, i. p. 139), privateers may claim entrance into the ports of nations which have consented to accord asylum to them, not only in cases of pressing dangers, but even in cases in

which they may deem it advantageous, or even only agreeable, and for obtaining rest or articles of secondary necessity, such as the refreshments they may have need of.

The terms of the proclamation of the Netherlands Government, which admits privateers into Netherland ports only in cases of distress, harmonize with this doctrine.

Moreover, according to the information received from the governor of Curaçoa, the Sumter was actually in distress, and that functionary could not, therefore, refuse to allow the said vessel to enter the port.

Strong in its amicable intentions, the King's Government does not believe itself bound to confine itself to the defence of the conduct of one of its agents in the particular case under discussion. It is not ignorant that it can or may hereafter be a contested question in such cases as to the reality of the distress in which such vessel or other would be, and that thus the subject of the admission generally of the Confederate States vessels would rest untouched. I therefore, sir, think it opportune to look into the question to determine whether the Sumter should have been admitted at Curaçoa

outside of the condition of well-assured distress.

It is evident that the reply to be made is dependent on another question— that is to say, was this vessel a man-of-war or a privateer?

In the latter case, the Netherlands Government could not, except in case of a putting in compelled by distress (relâche forcée), admit the Sumter into the ports of its territories.

It is not sufficient to dispose of the difficulty by the declaration that the Sumter is, as is stated in your despatches, "a vessel fitted out for, and actually engaged in, piratical expeditions," or " a privateer steamer." Such an assertion should be clearly proved, in accordance with the rule of law, affirmanti incumbit probatio.

After having poised, with all the attention which comports with the weightiness of the matter, the facts and circumstances which characterize the dissensions which now are laying desolate the United States, and of which no Government more desires the prompt termination than does that of the Netherlands, I think I may express the conviction that the Sumter is not a privateer, but a man-of-war-grounding myself on the following considerations :

---

In the first place, the declaration of the commander of the vessel given in writing to the governor of Curaçoa, who had made known that he would not allow a privateer to come into the port, and had then demanded explanations as to the character of the vessel. This declaration purported "the Sumter is a ship-of-war duly commissioned by the Government of the Confederate States."

The Netherlands governor had to be contented with the word of the commander couched in writing. Mr. Ortolan (Diplomatie de la Mer, i. p. 217), in speaking of the evidence of nationality of vessels of war, thus expresses himself:

"The flag and the pennant are visible indications, but we are not bound to give faith to them until they are sustained by a cannon shot."

The attestation of the commander may be exigible, but other proofs must be presumed; and, whether on the high seas or elsewhere, no foreign power has the right to obtain the exhibition of them.

Therefore the colonial council has unanimously concluded that the word of the commanding officer was sufficient.

In the second place, the vessel armed for war by private persons is called "privateer." The character of such vessel is settled precisely, and, like her English name (privateer), indicates sufficiently under this circumstance that she is a private armed vessel-name which Mr. Wheaton gives them. -Elements of International Law, ii. p. 19.

Privateering is the maritime warfare which privateers are authorized to make, for their own account, against merchant vessels of the enemy by virtue of letters of marque which are issued to them by the State.

The Sumter is not a private vessel; is not the private property of unconnected individuals-of private ship-owners. She, therefore, cannot be a "privateer;" she can only be a ship-of-war or ship of the State armed for cruising. Thus the Sumter is designated, in the extract annexed from Harper's Weekly, under the name of " rebel ship-of-war."

Thirdly. It cannot be held, as you propose in your despatch of the 9th of this month, that all vessels carrying the Confederate flag are, without distinction, to be considered as privateers, because the principles of the law of nations, as well as the examples of history, require that the rights of war be accorded to those States.

The Government of the United States holds that it should consider the States of the South as rebels.

It does not pertain to the King's Government to pronounce upon the subject of a question which is entirely. within the domain of the internal regulations of the United States; neither has it to inquire whether, in virtue of the Constitution which rules that republic, the States of the South can separate from the central Government, and whether they ought then, aye or no, to be reputed as rebels during the first period of the difficulties. But I deem it my duty to observe to you, sir, that, according to the doctrines of the best publicists, such as Vattel, iii., c. 18, sect. 292, and M. de Rayneval, Droit de la Nation et des Gens, i., p. 161, there is a notable difference between rebellion and civil war. "When," says Vattel, "a party is formed in the state, which no longer obeys its sovereign, and is strong enough to make head against him, or in a republic, when the nation divides into two opposing parties, and on one side and the other take up arms, then it is civil war.' It is, therefore, the latter which now agitates the great American republic.

The

But, in this case, the rights of war must be accorded to the two parties. Let me be allowed to cite here only two passages; the one from Vattel (ii., c. 4, sect. 56), which reads: "Whenever affairs reach to civil war the ties of political association are broken, or at least suspended, between the sovereign and his people. They may be considered as two distinct powers; and, since one and the other are independent of any foreign authority, no one has the right to judge between them. Each of them may be right. It follows, then, that the two parties may act as having equal right. other passage is taken from the work of a former minister, himself belonging to the United States, Mr. Wheaton, who, in his Elements of International Law, c. 1, p. 35 (Am. ed., part 1, p. 32), thus expresses himself: "If the foreign state would observe absolute neutrality in the face of dissensions which disturb another state, it must accord to both belligerent parties all the rights which war accords to public enemies, such as the right of blockade, and the right of intercepting merchandize contraband of war."

As for historic evidence, it will suffice to call to mind from ancient times the struggle of the United Provinces with Spain, and from modern date