Glasgow weekly times. (Glasgow, Mo.) 1848-1861, 1856-12-18


in consideration OF the embarrassment which
might result to her European negotiations
by an immediate adjustment of the question
with the United States. This request has
been acceded to, upon the condition that the
sums collected after the 18th of June last
and until the 10th Of June next, from ves-
sells and cargoes belonging to our merchants,
are to be considered as paid under protest
and subject to future adjustment. There is
reason to believe that an arrangement, be-
tween Denmark and the maritime powers of
Europe on the subject, will be soon conclu-
ded. and that the pending negotiation with
the United States may then be resumed and
terminated in satisfactory manner.
.,.. sPAIN-cuBA.
With Spain no new difficulties have aris-
en-. nor has much progress been made in the
adjustment Of pending ones. ..
Negotiations entered into for the purpose
of relieving our commercial intercourse with
the Island of Cuba Of some of its:'burdens,
and providing for the more speedy settle
ment of local disputes growing out of that
intercourse, have not yet been attended with
any results.
Soon after the commencement of the late
war in Europe, this Government submitted
to the consideration Of all maritime nations,
two principles for the security of neutral
commerce: one, that the neutral flag should
cover enemies goods, except articles contra
band of war. and the other, that neutral
property on board merchant vessels of bel
ligerants should be exempt from Gondemna-
ton, with the exception Of contraband arti-
cles. These were not presented as new
rules of international law, having been gen.
erally claimed by ne'Itrals, though not al
ways admitted by belligerants. One of the
parties-Russia--a well as several several
neutral powers, promptly acceded TO these
propositions, and the two other principal
beligerents, Great Britain and France, hav-
ing consent ed to observe them for the present
occasion, favorable opportunity seemed to
be presented for obtaining general recog-
milton OF them both in Europe and America.
But Great Britain and France, in common
with most of the States of Europe, while for
bearing 10 reject, did not affirmativly act up
on the overtures of the United States.
While the question was in this position,
the representatives Of Russia, France Great
Britain. Austria, Sardinia, and Turkey, as
semhled at Paris, took into consideration the
subject Of maritime rights, end put forth a
declaration containing the two principles
which this Government had submitted, near
ly two years before, TO the consideration Of
maritime powers, and adding thereto the fol-
lowing propositions: "Privateering is and
remains abolished" and "Blockades, in or
der TO be binding. must be effective, that is
10 say, maintained by force, sufficient real
ly, tn prevent access to the coast OF the en-
envy" and TO the declaration thus composed
81. four points. Two lof1which had already
been proposed by the United States, this
7eaverument has been invited 10 accede by
all the bowers representa- at Paris. except
Great Britain and Turkey. To the last Of
the two additional propositions-that in re-
lation to blockades there can certainly be
no objection. 1t is merely the definition OF
what shall constitute the effectual invest
ment of a blockaded place, definition for
which this government has always contend
ed, claiming indemnity for losses where
practical violation Of The rule thus deiied has
been injurious to our commerce.
As to the remaining article IN the decia-
ration Of the conference Of Paris, 'that pri.
Watering is and remains abolished, II GER
tainly cannot ascribe to the powers repre-
sented in the conference Of Paris, any but
liberal and philanthropic views in the at
tempt to change the unquestionahle rule oil
maritime law in regard to privateering.-
Their proposition was doubtless intended to
imply approval of the principle that private
property upon the ocean, although it might
belong to the citizens of beillgerent state,
should be exempted from capture; and had
that proposition been so framed as TO give
full effect to the principle, it would have
received my ready assent on behalf OF the
United States. But the measure proposed
is inadequate to that purpose. 1t is true
that if adopted, private properly upon the
ocean, would be withdrawn from one mode
of punder, but left exposed, meanwhile, to
another mode, which could be used with in
creased effectiveness. The aggressive ca
pacity of great naval powers would be there
by augmented, while the defensive abilities
of others would be reduced. Though the
surrender of means Of prosecuting hostihtles
by employing privateers, as proposed ny The
conference of Paris, is mutual in terms, yet
in practical effect, it would be the relin-
quishment of right Of little value to one
class of states, but of essential Importance
to another and far larger class. 1t ought
not to have been anticipated that measure,
so inadequate TO the accomplishment OF the
proposed object, and so unequal in its opera
ton, would still receive the assent of all
maritime powers. Private property would
be still left to the depredations of the public
armed cruisers.
1have expressed readiness on the part
of this government, to accede to all the prin-
ciples containad in the declaration of the
conference of Paris, provided that relating
to the abandondonment of privateering can
be so amended as to effect the object for
which, as is presumed, it was intended, the
immunity for private property on the ocean
from hostile capture. To effect this object,
it is proposed to add to the declaration that
"privateering is and remains abolished" the
following amendment. Sand that the private
l.