The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1859-05-21

NAV be a protracted and general cChtest, &nu
which must in any event throw into the hands OF
the American merchant marine large portion Of
.he carving trade as well scatter ever the ocean
n vast amount of our properly, the question of the
maritime rights of neutrals becomes an important
one. That question, as far as the relations between
this country and England are concerned IS still un
settled. With ether maritime Powers we have from
time to time made treaties regulating it; but
England has persisteatly avoided an understand
ing. preferring to leave the matter open and rely
upon her alleged supremacy of the seas We
nropose here to give sketch of the progress OF
the question in which this country took prominent
part
The question of the rights of neutral flags which
bas been so long the subject of discussion among
maritime nations, and more especially between this
country and England, may be said to involve the
following points,. Does the neutral flag pro-
tect enemies property? 2. Is neutral property
xubect to coniscation under an enemy's flag +?
3. How far does the right of belhgerent Powers ex
tend TO search neutral vessels sailing with or
without convoy? 4. What is contraband of
war at sea- snd what are the rights of captors with
respect to IL? 5. How far does the right extend
10 declare places in state of blockade? 6. Have
of war from which they were prohibited
in time Of peace with one beligerent without dis
turbance from another ?-or may neutrals carry on
trade between belligerent Power and its colonies
during war from which they were excluded in
time of peace? On all these questions the policy
of Great Britain at variance with those of neu
ral nations, and she had always endeavOred to
uge belligerent pretensions to which neutral Pow
srs were continually offering remonstrance and re-
sistance
The principle that free ships make free goods
has received more than one Interpretation. 1t has
been contended that the neutral flag absolutely
covers the merchandise Of friend and enemy while,
On the other hand, it has been claimed that the
snemys flag exposes the goods Of friend to cap
ture.
/" The primitive law says Wheaton, "indepen.
IDENTIFY of international compact, rests the simple
principle that gives right to capture the
goods Of an enemy, but gives no right to capture
the goods OF friend. The neutral flag
constitutes no protection to an enemy's property,
and the belligerent flag communicates no hostile
character to neutral property States have changed
this simple and natural principle of the law of
nations by mutual compact, in whole or in part,
according they believe it TO be for their interests
but the one maxim that free ships make free goods
does not necessarily imply the converse proposition
that enemy ships make enemy's goods" This point
was decided by the Supreme Court of the United
States in case where it was claimed that, under
the treaty between this country and Spain, made in
1885 the goods of Spanish subject found on board
the vessel of an enemy of the United States were
hable to capture and coniscation. The Court de-
cided that by the general law of nations and the
stipuatons of the treaty, they were not so LIABLE
The United States always in practice recognized
this principle, affirming that the goods of friend
found in the vessel of an enemy were free,
and the goods of an enemy found in the vessel
of friend were lawful prize, according to
the established belligerent rights of nations;
but our government has been ever endeayor-
ing to introduce the principle that free ships
make free goods in the broadest and fullest sense
that is that the neutral flag protects all property.
This Interpretation has been put upon the clause in
all the treaties in which il has been inserted.
England has never admitted the just principle of
which the United States have procured the recog
milton from other maritime Powers by treaty. On
the contrary, that nation holds to the opinion, and
carries it out practically, that she has right to
visit and search the merchant vessels Of neutral ma
lions not only in time OF war but in time OF peace,
although it has been established by her own urists
that the right Of search is belligerent right ex-
clusively.
With these remarks we proceed to give an account
of the various treaties this country has made with
q view to establish our neutral rights the ocean,
and the attempts to procure recognition by some
Of the great maritime Powers of the doctrines
which the United States have been anxious to intro
duce in their intercourse with other nations.
The first treaty which the United States entered
into embracing the subject of the maritime rights
of neutrals was made with France in 177S two
years after the Declaration Of Independence. This
treaty was signed on the 9th of February l77s, by
Benjamin Franklin, Sas Deane and Arthur Lee,
the American Commissioners in France. The Con-
venton regulated terms of amity, commerce and
navigation between the United States and France,
and embraced the TO owing article declaring the
principle that free ships make free goods:-
at is hereby stipulated that free ships shall give
a freedom to goods and that everything shall be
deemed to be free and exempt which shall be found
on board the ships belonging to the citizens Of
either of the contracting parties, although the
whole lading or any part thereof should appertain
to the enemies of either-contraband goods being
always excepted. 1t is also agreed in like manner
that the same liberty be extended to persons who
are on board free ship with this effect, that
although they be enemies to either party they are
not to be taken out of that free ship, unless they
are soldiers and in actual service of the enemy
Thus before the close of the Revolutionary War
this country established the doctrine that free
chips make free goods and free persons. The
treaty of IT'S was aHnulled by act Of Congress in
1893 and new one was contracted on behalf Of the
United States on the Both Of September 1900 by
Chief Justice Ellsworth, N. r. Davie and VIM. Vans
Murray, and on the part Of France by Bonaparte.
The French Directory, in their hostility to England
had previously violated the spirit Of the former
treaty by laying an embargo upon all Ameri-
can, Danish and Swedish ships carrying English
goods to and from any port. This fragrant act
Of wrong to American commerce was an.
swered by the act of Congress referred
to, declaring America liberated from the
obligations of the treaty of 1878 by this
eonduct on the part of France The First Consul
however, anxious to preserve friendly relations
with the young Western republic, caused the EN-.
barge to be removed from our vessels; and send
ing for the American Commissioners, Ellsworth,
Dayie and Murray, he had an interview with them
at Morfontaine on the 30th of September, 1900,
where the new treaty was signed. II embraced the
article of free ships, free goods" as embodied in
the former treaty but with the addition of another
article STIMULATING that whatever shall be found to
oe laden by the citizens of either party on any ship
belonging to the enemies OF the other or their cit
zens shall be coniscated without distinction Of
goods, contraband or not contraband in the same
manner as II 1t belonged to the enemy, except the
goods were put on board before the declaration of
war or before the shippers had knowledge Of Il.
This stipulation therefore, established the principle