The western Democrat. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1852-1870, 1856-12-16

| 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 con-
traband of war; and the other. that neutral
property on board merchant vessels of bel
ligerents should be exempt from cOndemna-
ton, with the exception of contraband art
cles. These were not presented as new
rules of international law; having been
gcnerrlv claimed by ncutrals, thoudh not
always admitted by bellgerents. One of
the parties to the EMBELLISHMENTS we'll as
several neutral powers, promptly acceded
to these propositions; and the two other
principal beligerents, Great Britain and
| France, have consented to observe them
for the present occasion, favorable op-
portunity seemed to be presented for OBJ
tanning a general recognition Of them both
in Europe and America.
But Great Britain and France, III COM
mon with most of the States of Europe,
while forbearing to reject, did not atfirma-
lively act upon the oyerturcs of the United
States.
While the question was in this position
the representatives of Russia, France.
Great Britain, Austria, Prussia. Sardinia
and Turkey, assembled at Paris, Sook into
consideration the subject of maritime rights,
! and put forth declaration containing the
two principles which this government had
| submitted. nearly two years before, TO the
consideration of maritime powers, and add
ing thereto the following propositions:
| ''Privateering is and remains abolished"
and ''blockades, in order to be binding
must DE effectivc-that is to say, maintain
ed by force sufficient really to prevent ac-
| cess to the coast of the enemy and to the
declaration thus composed of four points,
two of which had already been proposed by
the United States, this government has
been invited to accede by all the powers
represented at Paris, except Great Britain
and Turkey. TO the last of the two adj
| ditiOnal prOpostions-tha in relation to
Observation-Disclosures can certainly be no OBJ
lection. 1t is merely the definition of what
shall constitute the etfectual Investment Of
| a bl0ckaded place, definition for which
this government has always commended,
| claiming indemnity for losses where prac
| teal violation of the rule thus defined has
| been in furious to our commerce. AS to
the remaining article Of the declaration of
the conference of Paris-''that privateering
is and remains abolished''-I certainly can
not ascribe to the powers represented in the
conference of Paris any butliberal and phil
anthrOphc views in the attempt to change
the unquestionable rule of 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 belligerent State. should be
exempted from capture; and had that prop
osition 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 property upon the ocean would be
withdrawn from one mode of plumber, but
| left exposed, meanwhile, to another mode,
which could be used with increased effect
| :veness. The aggressive capacity of great
| naval powers would be thereby augmented,
while the defensive ability of others would
| be reduced. Though the surrender of the
means of prosecuting hostIities by employ
| ing privatecrs, as proposed by the confer
| ence of Paris. is mutual in terms, yet, in
practical effect, it would be the relinquish-
ment of a right of little value to one class of
| States, but of essential Importance to an
| other and far larger class. 1t ought not to
have been anticipated that a measure SO
| inadequate to the accomplishment of the
| proposed object, and so unequal in its Oper-
| alton, would receive the assent of all mari
| time powers, Private property would be
| still left to the depredationS of the public
| armed cruisers.
l have expressed a readiness on the part
| of this government to accede to all the prin
| ciples contained in the declaration of the
| conference of Paris, provided that the one
| relating to the abandonment of prvateerng
| can be so amended as to effect the object
| for which, as is presumed, it was intended
the immunity of private property on the
| ocean from hostile capture. To effect this
| object. it is proposed to add to the declara-
ton that ''privateering is and remains abol-
| ished' the following amendment: "And
that the private property of subjects and
citizens of belligercnt on the high seas
shall be exempt from seizure by the public
| armed vessels of the other belligerent, ex-
| cept it be contraband." This amendment
has been presented not only to the powers
| that have asked our assent to the declara-
| ton to abolish privateering, but to all other
maritime States. Thus far it has not been
rejected by any, and is favorably entertain
ed by all who have made any communion
| ton in reply.
Several of the governments, regarding
with favor the proposition of the United
States, have delayed definite action upon
| it only for the purpose of consulting with
others, parties to the conference of Paris.
IltLN I lllG SullSldCIlOll III SIuIlUS- however,
that the Emperor of Russia has entirely
and explicitly approved of that moditcation,
and will cooperate in endeavoring to OBJ
tain the assent of other powers; and that
assurances of a similar purport have been
received in relation to the disposition of
the Emperor of the French.
The present aspect of this important
subject allows US to cherish the hope that
principle so humane in its character, so
just and equal in its operation, so essential
to the prosperity of commercial nations,
and so consonant to the sentiments of this
enlightened period of the world. will com
mand the appreciation of all maritime pow
ers' and thus be incorporated into the code
of international law.
My views on the subject are more fully
set forth i'll the reply of the Secretary If
| State, copy of which is herewith transmit
ted. to the communications on the subject
made to this government, especially to the
communication of France.