New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1861-12-10
THE QUESTION OF PRIyATEERING.
FINAL REPLY OF MIR. SEWARD TO THE ACTION
OF FRANCE AND ENGLAND IN REGARD TO
THE TREATY OF PARIS.
hR. SEWARD TO MR.. DAYTON.
nzp.prnpSr nv grArE

i hR. SEWARD TO MR.. DAYTON.
i DEPARTMENT or STATE,
WhsHIsGTOY, Sept 10, 1861.
SIR Your dispatch of August % No. 35 has been
received. l learn from it that NJ. Ihouvenel Is
unwilling to negotiate for accession to the United
States 10 the declaration to the Congress OF Paris
concerning the right of neu,ras in maritime war,
except on distinct understanding that 1t Ia TO
have no bearing directly indirectly, on the ques-
ton of the domestic difficulty now existing In our
country" and that to render the matter certain Nj.
JhOuyenel proposes to make written declaration
simultaneously with bis execution Of the projected
convention for that accession.
You have sent me q copy OF a note to this effect,
addressed to you byM. Tbouvenel, and have also
represented TO me an official conversation which he
has held with you upon the same subject. The
declaration which NJ. Thouvenel thus proposes to
make is in these words
/ DRAFT OF DECLARATION.
In an1ng his signature to the convention concluded on
date o this day between France and the United states the
undersigned declares In execution Of the orders OF the EN-
peor that the Government Of his Majesty does not intend to
the ssid convention any engagements o. nature
to imposte IT, directly indirectly In the ntea conflict
now existing in the United Stas'n
/ My dispatch Of the 18th day Of August last, No.
II, Which you must have received some time ago,
will already have prepared you to expect my appro-
val Of the decision to wait for specific Instructions IN
this new emergency at which you have arrived.
The obscurity OF the text of the declaration which
NJ Thouvenel submits to us is sufficiently relieved
bv his verbal explanations. According to your re-
port Of the conversation before referred TO- he said
that both France and Great BQtain bad already an
nOunced that they would take part in our dOmes.
tic controversy, and they thought frank and open
declaration in advance Of the execution OF the pro-
iected convention might save difficulty and miscon-
ception hereafter. lie further said In the way OF
specification, that the provisions OF the convention
standing alone might bind England and France to
pursue and punish the pr1yateers OF the South az
pirates; that they are unwilling to do this, and bad
| so declared He sad, also, that we could deal with
these people as we choose, and they England and
France) could only express Their regrets on the
score of humanity If we should deal with them ~
pirates but that they could not participate in such
course. He added, that although England and
France anxious to have the adherence OF the
United States to the declaration OF Paris, yet that
they would rather dispense with it altogether than
be drawn into our domestic controversy. He in-
sisted somewhat pointedy that could take no just
exception TO this outside declaration, to be made
simultaneously with the execution Of the conven-
iion, unless we intended that they England and
France) shal be made parties to our controversy.
and that the very fact of your hesitation an adj
ditonal reason why they should insist upon making
such cotemporaneous declaration ne they proposed.
These remarks of NJ. Thouvenel are certainly dis
tnguished by entire frankness Ii shall be my effort
to reply to them with moderation and candor.
In 1856, France, Great Britain, Russia, Prussia,
Sardinia and Turkey, being assembled in Congress
at Paris, with view TO modify the law Of nations,
20 as 10 meGOrate the evils Of maritime war; adopted
and set forth declaration, which is in the following
words
/ |. Privateering is and remains abolished.
III. the neutral dag covers enemys goods, with the
exception OF contraband of war.
III. Neutral goods, with the exception OF contra
band of war; not liable to capture under the enc
my = flag.
". Biockades, in order to be binding, must be eff
ccve-that il 70 say, maintained by forces sufficient
really TO prevent access to the coast OF The enemy
The States which constituted the Congress lnu-
ually agreed TO submit the declaration 70 all other
nations and invite them 70 accede TO II. IL was TO
be submitted ms special or narrow treaty between
particular States for limited periods or special pur-
roses Of advantage under peculiar circumstances;
but, on tho contrary, its several articles were by
voluntary acceptance OF maritime Powers 10 eonetl-
tute n new chapter in the law OF nations, and each
one Of the articles 10 be universal and eternal IN
iis application and obligation. France especially In
yited the United States TO accede to these articles
An invitation was equally rendered TO all other
civilized nations, and the articles have been already
adopted by fortyone OF the Powers thus invited The
United States hestaed, but only for the purpose of
making an effort TO induce the other parties 10 en-
large the beneieen scope OF the declaration. Hav-
ing Jailed in that effort, they now, alter delay not
unusual in such great international discussions, oer
their adheison to that declaratIon pure and simple,
/ in the form, words, and manner III which 1t WAS
originally adopted and accepted by all OF the forty
sx nations which have become parties 20 il. France
declines to receive that adhesion unless she be al
| lowed to make special declaration, which would
constitute an additional and qualifying article, limit
/ the ODllghtloDh OF W Nuc tnittu Sthtto
/ 10 a narrower range than the obligations which the
! United States must assume toward France and to-
ward every other one OF the forty-sM soYerelgns
who are parties to it, and narrower than the mutual
obligations Of all those parties, including France
herself.
If we should acoede 10 that condition, il maniiestly
would not be the declaration oil the Congress- at
Paris to which we would be adbering, but diGler-
eut and special and peculiar treaty between France
and the United States only. Even az sueh treaty
Ia. nfnU NJ Ill
yenels reasoning is correct should, In that case,
/ be contracting an obligation, directly or hanectyI
10 impcate ourselves III any internal coniict that
NAV now be existing or that may hereafter occur III
France while she would be distinctly excused ny us
from any similar duty toward the United States.
| I know that France is friend and means to be
| inst and canal toward the United States. 1 must
assume therefore, that she means not 10 make an
exceptional arrangement with us, but 10 carry out
tho same arrangement in the interpretations OF the
obligations of the declaration OF the Congress OF
Paris in regard 10 other Powers. Thus carried out
the declaration of Paris would be expounded as TO
exclude all internal conflicts in States ffomthe april
cation of the articles of that celebrated declaration
Most OF the wars of modern tin es-perhaps OF all
times-bavo been insurreetionary wars, OF " inter-
/ nal conflicts" III the position now assumed by
France should thus be taken by all the other parties
to the declaration then would follow that the rst
article of that instrument, instead OF being In fact
universal and eectua inhibition OF the practice OF
privateorng would abrogate it only in wars between
foreign nations, while it would enjoy universal tole-
ration in civil aud social wars. With great deier-
ence cannot but think that, thus modified, the
declaration Of the Congress Of Paris would lose much
OF the reverence which it has hitherto received from
Christian nations If it were proper for me to pur-
sue the argument further, might add that sedion,
instruction, and treason would find III such q new
reading of the declaration of Paris encouragement
which would tend to render tho most stable and even
the most benefcent systems of government insecure.
Nor do know on what grounds it can lie contended