013 701 125 6 Hollinger Corp. pH8.5 E 469 S951 Copy 1 INTERNATIONAL^ LAW. t;Jt!^=if=i SPEECH OF ( \ CHAS. P"" OF MASSACHUSETTS, Y^ THE SEi^TATE OF THE UNITED STATES, Thursday, January 9, 1862 WASHINGTON, D. C. iCAMMELL i CO.; PRINTERS, CORNER OP SECOND k INDIANA AVENUE, THIRD FLOOR. •1862. 61505 t06 > SP'EECH. TUc hour having arrived for tlie consideration of tlie special order, ttic Senate i-rocecdod to consider tlie nuitioa of Mr. SuMXER, to refer to tbe Committee on Foreign Itela- tions the message of the President, received on the 6th instant, relative to tbe recent removal of certain citizens of the United !~tatts from the British mail steamer Trent, by order of Captain Wilkes, in command of the United States ^■ar steamer San Jacinto. Mr. SUMNER said : Mr. President, every principle of iaterna- tioual law, when justly and authoritatively settled, becomes a safeguard of peace and a landmark of civilization. It constitutes a part of that code which is the supreme law, above all municipal laws, binding the whole com- monwealth of nations. Such a settlement may be by a general congress of nations, as at Mun- ster, Vienna, or Paris ; or it may be through the general accord of treaties ; or it may be by a precedent established under such conspicu- ous circumstances, with all nations as assent- ing witnesses, that it shall at once become iu itself a commanding rule of international con- duct. Especially is this the case, if disturbing pretensions long maintained to the detriment of civilization are practically renounced by the Power which has maintained them. With- out any congress or treaties, such a precedent has been established. Such a precedent ought to be considered and understood in its true character. In un- dertaking to explain it, I shall speak for myself alone ; but I shall speak frankly, according to the wise freedom of public debate, and the plain teachings of history on the question involved, trusting sincerely that what I say may con- tribute something to elevate the honest patriot- ism of the country, and perhaps to secure that tranquil judgment which will render this pre- cedent the herald, if not the guardian, of in- ternational harmony. Two old men and two younger associates, recently taken from the British mail packet Trent on the high seas by order of Captain Wilkes of the United States navy, and after- wards detained in custody at Fort Warren, have been liberated, aud placed at the dispo- sition of the British Government. This liaa been done at the instance of that Government,* courteously conveyed, and founded on the assumption that the original capture of these men was an act of violence which was an affront to the British flag, and a violation of international law. This is a simple outline of the facts. But in order to appreciate the value of this precedent, there are other matters which must be brought into view. These two old men were citizens of the United States, and for many years Senators. One was the author of the fagitive-slave bill, and the other was the chief author of the fiUi- bustering system which has disgraced our na- tional name and disturbed our national peace. Occupying places of trust and power in the service of their country, they conspired against it, and at last the secret traitors and conspirators became open rebels. The present rebellion, uot? surpassing in proportions, and also in wicked- ness, any rebellion in history, was from the be* ginning quickened and promoted by their untir- ing energies. That country to which they owed love, honor, and obedience, they betrayed, and gave over to violence and outrage. Treason, conspiracy, and rebellion, each in succession, have acted through them. The incalculable expenditures which now task cur national re- sources, the untold derangement of affairs, not only at home, but also abroad, the levy of armies, almost without an example, the devasta- tion of extended regions of territory, the plun- der of peaceful ships on the ocean, and the slaugher of fellow-citizens on the murderous battle-field ; such are some of the consequences proceeding directly from them. To carry for- ward still further the gigautic- crime of which they were so large a part, these two old men, with their two younger associates, stole from Charleston on board a rebel aieamer, and under cover of darkness and stjrm, running the blockade, and avoiding the cruisers in that neighborhood, succeeded in reaching the neu- tral island of Cuba, where, with open display a^d the knowledge of the British consul, they j Haralet was armed with the rapier of Lasrtes embarked on board the British mail packet, i and Laertes was armed with the rapier of Ham- the Trent, bound for St. Thomas, whence they let. And now on this sensitive question a sim- were to embark for England, in which king- [ ilar exchange has occurred. Great Britain is dom one of them M'as to play the part of am- | armed with American priuciplca, while to us bassador of the rebeliion, while the other was ; is left only those British principles which, to play the same part in France. The original j throughout our history, have been constantly, treason, conspiracy, and rebellion of which j deliberately, and solemnly rejected, they were so heinously guilty, were all con- j Lord Russell, in his dispatch to Lord Lyons, tinued on this voyage, which became a prolon- { communicated to Mr. Seward, contents himself gation of the original c;-ime, destined to still j by saying that '"it appears that certain individ- further excess, through their ambassadorial ! uals have been forcibly taken from on board pretensions, which, it was hopecT, would array two great nations ag&inst the United States, and enlist them openly in behalf of an accursed slaveholding rebellion. While oa their v/ay, the ambassadors were arrested by Captain Wilkes, of the United States steamer San Ja- cinto, an accomplished officer, .already* well known by his scientific explorations, who, on this occasion, acted without instructions from his Government. If, in this arrest, he forgot for a moment the fixed policy of the Republic, which has been from the beginning like a frontlet between the eyes, and transcended the law of nations, as the United States have al- ways declared it, his apology must be found in the patriotic impulse by which he was in- spired, and the British examples which he could not forget. They were the enemies of his coun- try, embodying in themselves the triple essence of worst enmity — treason, conspiracy, and re- bellion ; and they wore a pretended ambassa- dorial character, which, as he supposed, ac- cording to high British authority, rendered them liable to be stopped. If, in the ardor of an honest nature, Captain Wilkes erred, he might well say : " Who can be wise, amazed, temperate, and furious, Loy;il auQ neutral, in a moment? No uian. The expedition of my violent love Outran the pauser. reason. " Who could refrain That had a heart to love, and in that heart Courage to make Ills love known ? " If this transaction be regarded exclusively in the light of British precedents ; if we follow the seeming authority of the British ad speaking by its greatest voice ; and es it we accept the oft-repeated example of jLj^ioi&u i -.• . j i .. ^ -v . .. i :l i i • ^^ ,-o^,., ;,^i,^iri u„ tu^ -Rv-r- u Vi ^ vitiated by the lailure to take the packet into cruisers, upheld by the Britisn Government] , r -^ i ^- m.- r -i u u^ ^„;, ct fV>«%.ft ,.o,,^^t„j r,,.^+~,.t-„ ^e ^i, TT •. - ' port for conaemnation-. ihis failure has been aga\ust the oit-reneatea protests oi the Unitea i . • , ,• • i u- e ,<-„„ ^„ o-h„ii ,tf fi.,;i ff A;ffi^ n « • j- *. ^-Qe occasion oi much unprofessional objurga- biates, w.e shall not nnd it Gimcult to vindicate '• i •* t, i i <.• u ?j •*■ ^l „ o^*. K«„^,. „„ „(.-^ IT 1 I I tion ; and it has been emphatically repeated it. ihe act becomes questionable only when j ,, ,'-^ • -i i . ^ ^ ,^ \ »i 1. ^ „!,+ +^ fi,^ t^,-,.v,c<.^,\ ^f+i-,^„^ ri 1 • I that it was impossible to consent tnat the cus- brought to the touchstone ot these liberal prin- 1 . ■■ i-^i ■ j- -i i • .• u i.i k« • 1 u;^\. f^^.-.-. -lU^ ^r. r i. *• ^ Li. tody 01 the individuals in question should be cipies, which, Irom the earnest times, the i ^-^ • i u i>- i • t^^ A • p^^„ t- u„„ ^ 1 J -, determined bv a navy ofncer on his quarter American Government has openly avowed ana ' - - ■' -■ > , sought to advance, and which other European ibly a British vessel, the ship of a neutral Power, while such vessel was pursuing a lawful and innocent voyage — an act of violence which v/as an affront to the British flag, and a violation of international law." Here is a positive assertion that the ship, notoriously having on boar.^. the rebel emissaries, was pursuing a lawful and in- nocent voyage ; but there is no specification of the precise ground on which the act in ques- tion is regarded as a violation of international law. Oi course, it is not an aflVont : for an ac- cident can never be an affront to an individual or to a nation. But public report, authenticated by the con- curiing testimony of various authorities, Eng- lish and continental, forbids us to continue igno- rant of the precise ground on which this act is presented as a violation of international law. It was admitted that a United States man of- war, meeting a British mail steamer beyond the territorial limits of Great Britain, might subject her to visitation and search ; also that the United States ship-of-M'ar might put a prize crew on board the British steamer, and carry her off to a port of the United States for adju- dication by a prize court there; but that she would have no right to remove the emissaries, who were not apparently officers in the military or naval service, and carry them off as prison- ers, leaving- the ship to pursue her voyage. Under the circumstances, in the exercise of c^ belligerent right, the British steamer, with all on board, might have been captured and car- ried off j> but according to the British law o!fi- ',: '■' - cers, on whose professional opinion the British '^/„^.' Y I Cabinet has acted, the whole proceeding was 3t Uritish i •,•■, J 1 ,, n ■< ^ ^ ^ U ,„i„^- t„ nations have accepted with regard to the sea. Indeed, Great Britain cannot complain except by now adopting those identical principles ; and should we undertake to vindicate the act, it can be done only by repudiating those iden- tical principles. Our two cases will be reversed. In the struggle between Laertes and Hamlet, the two combatants exchanged rapiers ; so that deck, so as to supersede the adjudication of a prize court. This has been confidently stated by an English writer, assuming to put the case for his Government, as follows : "It is not to the right of search that we ob- ' ject, hut to the following seizure, without pro- ' cess of law. What we deny is, the right of a ' naval officer to stand in place of ajirize court, ' and adjudicate, sword iu hand, with a sic tola ' sicjuief) on the very deck which is a part of ' onr territory." Thus it appears that the present eomplaiut of the British Gov(?rnment is not founded on the assumption by the American wai* steamer of the bellij^orent ritjht of search ; nor on the ,G;round that this right was exercised on board a neutral vessel between two neutral ports ; nor that it was exercised on board a mail steamer, sustained by a subvention from the Crown, and officered In part frorn the rojal navy; nor that it was exercised in a case where the" penal cies of contraband conkl not attach ; but it is founded simply and precisely on the idea that persons other than apparent officers iu the military or naval service, cannot be taken out of a neutral ship at the mere will of the officer who exercises the ri.srht of search, and without any form of trial. Therefore, the law of nations Jias been violated, and the conduct of Captain Wilkes must be disavowed, while men, who are traitors, conspirators, and rebels, p.'l in one, are allowed to go free. Surely, that criminals, though dyed in oruilt. .'lould go free, is better fliau that the law of nations should be violated, esj^cially in any rule by wliich war is restricted and the mood of l-'eaee is enlarged ; for the law of nations cannot be violated without overturning the pro- tection of the ir.noce'it as well as the guilty. On this general principle there can be no ques- tion. It is but an illustration of that iraporiaut maxim, recorded in the Latin of Fortescae, '■ Better that many guilty should escape than one innocent man siiould suffer," with this dif- ference, t^iat in the present case a few guilty escape, waile the innocent everywhere on the sea obtain new security. And this security beconies more vrvluable as a triumph of civili- zation, when it is considered that it was long refused, even at the cannon's mouth. Do not forget, air, that the question involved in this coniroversy is strkth/ a question of law — precisely iike a question of trespass between two neighbors. Ttie Bi'ilish Cabinet began pro- ceedings by taking the opinion of their law ad- visers, precisely as an individual begins pro- ceedings in a suit at law by taking tiie opinion of his attorney. To make such a question a case of w^r, or to suggest that war is a proper mode of deciding it, is simply to revive, in co- lossal propoitions, the exploded ordeal by bat^ tie, and to imitate those dark asros when such proceeding was openly declared toTbe the best and most honorable mode of deciding even au abstract point of law. '"It was a matter of doubt and dispute," says an early i^istorian, "whether the eons of a son cught to be reckon- ed among the children of the family, 'and suc- ceed equally with their uncles, if their lather happened to die while their grandfather was alive. An assembly v/as called to deliberate OD this point, and it was trie gen* ral opinion that it ought to be remitted to the examination and decision of judges. But the Eniperor, fol- lowing a better course, and desirous of dealing honorably with his people and nobles, appoint- ed tb? m&tter to bo decided by battle between two champions." In similar spirit has it been latterly proposed, amidst the amazement of the civilized world, to withdrav/ the point of law, now raised by Great Britain, from peaceful ad- judication, and submit it to trial by combat. Bat the irrational anachronism of such a prop- osition becomes more flagrant from the incoa- sisiency of the party which makes it; for it can- not be forgotten that, in times past, on this iclcnfical point of laio, Great Britain persistent- ly held an opposite ground from that which she now takes. The British complaint seems to have been narrowed down to a single point ; but it is not to be disguised that there are yet other poinds on v/hich, had the ship been carried into port for adjudication, controversy must have arisen. Not to omit anything important, let me say that the three following points, among others, have -been presented in the case: 1. That the seizure of the rebel emissaries, without taking the ship into port, was v/rong, inasmuch as a navy officer is not entitled to sub- siitnie himself for a judicial tribunal. 2. That had the ship been carried into port, it would not have been liable on account of the rebel emissaries, inasmuch as neiitral ships are free to carry all persons not apparently in the military or naval service of the enemy. » 3. Are dispatches contraband of war, so as to render the ship liable to seizure? 4. Are neutral ships, carrying dispatches, liable to be stopped between two neutral ports? These matters I shall consider in their order, giving special attention to the first, which is the pivot of the British complaint. If in this dis- cussion I shall expose grievances which it were better to forget, be assured it is from no willingness to revive the buried animosities they once so justly aroused, but simply to ex- hibit the proud position on this question which the United States early and constantly main- tained. A question of international law should not be presented on any mere argunientum ad hom- inem. It would be of little value to show that Captain Wilkes was sustained by British au- thority and practice, if he were condemned by international law .as interpreted by his own country. It belongs to us now, nay, let it be our pride, at any cost of individual preposses- sions or transitory prejudices, to uphold that law in all its force, as it was often declared by the best men in onr history, and illustrated by national a-cts ; and let us seize the present oc- casion to consecrate its positive and unequivo- cal recognition. In exchange for the prison- ers set free, we liceive fiX)m Great Britain a practical assent, too long deferred, to a princi- ple early propounded by our country, and, stand- ing forth on every page of our history. The same voice which asks for their liberation, re- 6 nounces ib the same breath an odious preten- eion, for whole generations the scourge of peace- ful commerce. Great Britain throughout her municipal his- tory has praotically contributed to the estab- lishment of freedom beyond all other nations. There are at least seven institutions or princi- ples which she has given to civilization: first, the trial by jury ; secondly, the writ of habeas corpus; thirdly, the freedom of the press; fourthly, bills of rights ; tifthly, the representa- tive system ; sixthly, the rules and orders of de- bate, constituting parliamentary law ; and sev- enthly, the principle that the air is too pure for a slave to breathe — long ago declared and first made a reality by British law. No other na- tion can show such peaceful triumphs. But while thus entitled to our gratitude for glorious contributions to municipal law, we turn with dissent and sorrow from much which she has sought to iasten on international law. In mu- nicipal questions. Great Britain drew inspira- tion from her own native common law, which was instinct with freedom; but especially in maritime questions arising under the law of nations this Pov.-er seems to have acted on that obnoxious principle of the Roman law, posi- tively discarded in municipal questions, Quod principi j^^acuit legis vlyorem habet, and too often, under this inspiration, to have imposed upon weaker nations her own arbitrary will. The.time has been when she pretended to sov- ereignty over the seas surrounding the British Isles, as far as Cape Finisterre to the south, and Vanstaten, in Norway, to the north. Bat driven from this pretension, other pretensions, less local but hardly less offensive, were avowed. The boast of " Rule, Britannia, rule the waves,'' was practically adopted by British courts of ad- miralty, and universal maritime rights were subjected to the special exigencies of British interests. In the consciousness of strength, f>Ed with a navy that could not be opposed, this Power has put chains upon the sea. The commerce of the United States, as it began to whiten She ocean, was cruelly deci- mated by these arbitrary pretensions. Ameri- can ships and cargoes, while, in the language of Lord Russell. " pursuing a lav/ful aud inno- cent voyage," suffered from the British admir- alty courts more than from rock or tempest. Shipwreck was less frequent than confiscation; and when it came it was easier to bear. But the loss of property stung less than the outrage of irapreasment, by whicli foreigners, under the protection of the American flag, and also American citizens, without any form of trial, and at the mere mandate of a navy officer, who for the moment acted as a judicial tribunal, ■were dragged away from the deck which should have been to them a sacred altar. This outrage, which was feebly vindicated by the municipal claim ,of Great Britain to the services of her own subjects, was enforced arrogantly and perpetually on the high seas, where municipal law is silent and international law alone pre- vaiJs. The belligerent right of search, derived from international law, was employed for this purpose, and the quarterdeck of every British cruiser ^vas made a floating judgment-seat. The practice began early, and was continued constantly; nor did it discriminate among its victims. It is mentioned by Mr. Jefferson, and repeated by a British writer on international law, that two nephews of Washington, on their way from Europe, were ravished from the protection of the American flag, without any judicial proceedings, and placed as common seamen under the ordinary discipline of British ships-of-war. The victims were counted by thousands. Lord Castlereagh himself admit- ted, on the floor of the House of Commous, that an inquiry instituted by the British Gov- ernment had discovered in the British fleet three thousand five hundred men claiming -4,0 be impressed Americans. At our Department of State six thousand cases were recorded, and it was estimated that at least as many more might have occurred, of which no information had been received. Thus, according to this official admission of the British minister, there was reason to believe that the quarter-deck of a British man-of-war had been made a floating judgment-seat three thousand five hundred times, while, according to the records of our own State Department, it had been made a floating judgment-seat six thousand times and upwards; and eaca time an American citizen had been taken from the protection of his flag without any form of trial known to the law. If a pretension so Intrinsically lawless could be sanctioned by precedent. Great Britain would have succeeded in interpolating it into the law of nations. Protest, argument, negotiation, correspond- ence, and war itself — unhappily the last reason of republics as of kings — were all employed in vain by the United States to procure a renunci- ation of this intolerable pretension. The ablest papers in our diplomatic history are devoted to this purpose ; and the only serious war in which we have been engaged, until summoned to en- cottnter this rebellion, was to overcome by arms this very pretension, which would not yield to reason. Beginning in the last centurj, the cor- respondence is at last closed by the recent reply of Mr. Seward to Lord Lyons. The long-con- tinued occasion of conflict is now happily re- moved, and the pretension disappears forever — to take its place among the curiosities of the past. But I do not content myself with asserting the persistent opposition of the American Gov- ernment. It belongs to the argument, that I should exhibit this opposition and the precise ground on which It was placed — being identi- cal with that now adopted by Great Britain. j And here the testimony is complete. If you I will kindly follow me, you shall see it from ' the beginning in the public life of our country, and iu the authentic records of our Govern- ment. This British pretension aroused and startled the Administration of Washington, and the pen of Mr. Jefferson, his Secretary of State, ■was enlisted against it. In a letter to Thomas Pinckney, our Minister at London, dated June 11. 1792, he said: " The simplest rule will be, that the vessel ' being American shall be evidence that the ' seamen on board her are such."' In another letter to the same minister, dated October 12, 1792, he calls attention to a case of special outrage, as follows: "I inclose you a copy of a letter from Messrs. * Blow and Melhaddo, merchants of Virginia, ' complaining of the taking away of their sail- ' ors on the coast of Africa by the commander ' of a British armed vessel. So many instances * of this kind have happened that it is quite ne- ' cessary that their Government should explain ' themselves on the subject, and be led to dis- * avow and punish such conduct." — State Pa- pers, vol. 3, p. 574. The same British pretension was put forth under the Administration of John Adams, and was again encountered. Mr. Pickering, at that time Secretary of State, in a letter to Rufus King, our Minister at London, dated June 8, 1796, after repeating the rule proposed by Mr. Jefferson, says : " But it will be an important point gained, ' if on the high seas our fag can protect those * of whatever nation who shall sail under it. ' And for this humanity, as well as interest, ' powerfully plead." — State Papers, vol. 3, p. 439. And again, at a later day, during the same Administration, Mr. Marshall, afterwards the venerated Chief Justice of the LTnited States, and at the time Secretary of State, in his in- structions to Rufus King, at London, dated September 20, ISOO, says : " The impressment of our seamen is an in- ' jury of very serious magnitude, which deeply ' affects the feelings and the honor of the na- ' tion," * * ^ * .( Alien sea- ' men, not British subjects, engaged iif our ' merchant service, ought to be equally exempt ' with citizens. Britain has no pretext of right ' to their persons or to their service. To tear ' theyn from our possession is at the same time ' an insult and an injury. It is an act of vio- ' lence for which there exists no palliative." — State Papers, vol 2, p. 489. The same British pretension showed itself constantly under the Administration of Mr. JefferSon. Throughout the eight years of his Presidency, the repeated outrages of British cruisers never for a moment allowed it to be forgotten. Mr. Madison, during this full period, wj»3 Secretary of State, and none of the varied productions of his pen are moi'e masterly than those in which he exposed the tyranny of this pretension. In the course of this discussion he showed the special hardship found in the fact that the sailors were taken from the ship at the mere will of an officer, without any form of ju- dicial proceedings, and thus early presented against the pretension of Great Britain the pre- cise objection which is now adopted by her. Here are his emphatic words, in his celebrated instructions to Mr. Monroe, at that time our Minister at Loiidon, dated January 5, 1804: " Taking reason and justice for the tests of ' this practice, it is peculiarly indefensible, be- ' cause it deprives the dearest rights of persons ' of a regular trial, to which the most incon- ' siderable article of property captured on the ' high seas is entitled, and leaves the destiny to ' the will of an officer, sometimes cruel, often ' ignorant, and generally interested, by want of ' marinerSjinhis own decisions. Whenever prop- ' erty found in a neutral vessel is supposed to ' be liable, on any ground, to capture and con- ' demuation, the rule in all cases is, that the ' question shall not be decided by the captor, ' but be carried before a legal tribunal, where ' a regular trial may be had, and where the ' captor himself is liable to damages for an ' abuse of his power. Can it be reasonable, ' then, or just, that a belligerent commander ' who is thus restricted, and thus responsible ' in a case of mere property of trivial amount, ' should be permitted, without rcciuring to any ' tribunal whatever, to examine the crew of a ' neutral vessel, to decide the important rpiesiion ' of their respective allegiances, and to carry ' that decision into execution by forcing every ' individual he may choose into a service ab- ' horrent to his feelings, cutting him off from ' his most tender connections, exposing his ' mind and his person to the most humiliating ' discipline, and his life itself to the greatest 'danger? Reason, justice, and humanity ' unite in protesting against so extravagant a ' proceeding." — State Papers, vol. 3, p. 84. Negotiations, on this principle, thus distinct- ly declared, were intrusted at London to James Monroe, afterwards President of the United States, and to William Pinckney, the most ac- complished master of prize law which our country has produced. But they were unsuc- cessful. Great Britain persisted. In a joint letter dated at London, September 11, 1806, the plenipotentiaries say : " That it was impossible that we should ac- ' knowledge in favor of any foreign Power iJie % ' claim to such jurisdiction on board our ves- ' sels found upou the main ocean, as this sort ' of impressment implied — a claim as plainly ' inadmissible in its principle, and derogating ' from the unquestionable rights of our sover- ' eignty, as it was vexatious in its practical * consequence^." — State Papers, vol. 3, p. 134. In another joint letter dated at London, No- vember 11, 1806, the same plenipotentiaries say : "' The right was denied by the British com- ' missioners, who asserted that of their Govern- 8 ' meni to seize its subjects on hoard neutral • viercliant vessels on the hvjh seas, ajid who ■ also urged that the relicquishment of it at • this time would go far to the overthrow of • their naval power, on which the safety of the ' State essentially depended." — State Papers, vol. 3, p. 133. In still another letter, dated at London, April 22, 1807, Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney say of the British comfnissioners : " They stated that the prejudice of the navy ' and of the country geceraliy was so strong in \favor of their pretension that the ministry • could not encounter it in a direct form ; and ' that in truth the support of Parliament could ' not have been relied on in such a case." — State Papers, vol. 3, p. 160. The British comniiesioners were two excel- lent persons, Lord Holland and Lord Auck- land ; hut though friendly to the United States in their declarations, and Liberals in politics, they were powerless. At home in the United Sts-tes the question continued to be discussed by able writers. Among those whose opinions were of the high- est authority, was the late President, John Adams, who from his retirement at Quincy ■^cnt forth a pamphlet, dated January 9, 1809, in which the British pretension was touched to the quick: and again the precise objection was presented which is now urged by Great Britain. Depicting the scene when on'e of our ships is encountered by a British cruiser, -he says : " The lieutenant is to be the judge, the mid- ' shipmau is to be clerk, and the boatswain sher- ' iff or marshal." ***-:* "It is impossi- • ble to figure to ourselves, in imagination, this ' solemn tribunal and venerable judge without ' smiling, till the humiliation of our country ' comes into our thoughts, and interrupts the ' sense of ridicule by the tears of grief or ven- ' geance." — Johi Adams's Works, vol. 9, p. 322. At last all redress though negotiation was found to be impossible ; and this pretension, aggravated into multitudinous tyranny, was openly announced to be one of the principal reasons for the declaration of war against Great Britain in 1812. In his message to Congress, dated June 1, of that year, Mr. Madi- Eon, who was now President, thus exposed the offensive character of this pretension ; and his '^ words, directed against a persistent practice, are now echoed by Great Britain in the single instance which has accidentally occurred : '• Could the seizure of British subjects in ' such cases be regarded as within the exercise ' of a belligerent right, the acknov/ledged laws ' of war, which forbid an article of captured ' property to be adjudged without a regular in- ' vestigation before a competent tribunal, worJcZ ' imperiously demand the fairest trial lohere ' the sacred rights of persons tvere at issue. ' In place of such a trial, these rights are sub- \iected to th6 will of ever ij petty commander " — Statesman's Manual, vol'. 1, p. 294. While the war was waging, the subject was still discussed. Mr. Grundy, of Tennessee, in the House of Representatives, in a report from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, said : "' A subaltern or any other ciScer of the Brit- ' ish navy ought not to be arbiter in such a ' case. The liberty and lives of American citi- " ' zens ought not to depend on the will of such ' a party."— f nations.'' * » * -x- " The stopping of neutral vessels upon the hij?h * seas, their foueible sntrauce, a?id the overhaul- ' ing and examina^on of their cargoes, the seiz- * tire of their freight, at the ivill of a foreign. ' officer, the frequent interruption of their voy- ' ages by compelling them to change their des- * tination, ia order to seek redress; and, dhove ' all, the abuses which are so prone to accom- ' pany ilm exercise of unlimited power, where * responsibility is remote ; these, are, indsed, .se- ' rious obstructions, little likely to be submit- ' ted "to in the present st;itcf of the world with- ' out a formidable effort to prevent them." Such is an authentic history of this British pretension, and of the manner in which it has been met by our Government. And now the special argument formerly directed by us against this pretension is directed by Great Britain against the pretension of Captain Wilkes to take two rebel emissaries from a British piicket ship. If Captain Wilkes is right in this preten- sion, then throughout all these international debates, extending over at least two generations, we have been wrong. But it hag been sometimes said the steam packet having on board the rebel emissaries was on this account liable to capture, and there- fore the error of Captain Wilkes in taking the emissaries was simply an error of forui and not of substance. I do not stop to consider whether aa exerciie of summary power against -vvfiich our Government has so constantly protested can be under any circumstances an error mere- ly of form, for the-policy of our Government, most positively declared in its diplomacy, and also attested in numerous treaties, leaves no room to doubt that a ne^utrsl ship with belliger- ent passengers — not in the military or naval service — is not liable to capture, and therefore the whole procetdiug was wrong, not only be- cause the passengers were taken from the ship, but also becaiise the ship, howsoever guilty morally', Tvas not guilty legally iu;eceiving such passengers on board. If this question were ar- gued on English authorities it might be other- wise; ; but according to American principles the slaip was legally innocent. Of course, I say nothing of the moral gtliU forever indelible in that ship. . . - . In the middle of the last century, the. Swiss professor, Vattel, declared that on the breaking out of war v/e cease to be under any obligation of leaving the enemy to the free enjoyment of his rights ; and this principle he applied loosely to the transit of ambassadors. (Vattel, book 4, cap. 7, sec. 85.) Sir William. Scott, afterwards known ia the peerage as Lord Stowell, quoting this authority, at the beginning of the present century, let fall these words : " The belligerent may stop the ambassador ' of the enemy on his passage."' — I'he Aialanta, 6 Eobinson R., p. 440. And this curt proposition, though in some re- spects indefinite, has been often ripeated since by writers on the Jiaw of nations. On its face it leaves the question unsettled, whether the emissaries of an unrecognised government can be stopped ? But there is another case in which the same British judge, who has done so much to illustrate international law, has used lan- guage which seems to embrace not only au- thentic ambassadors, but also pretenders to this character, and all others who are public agents of the enemy. Says this eminent magistrate : " It appears to me on principle to be but '■ reasonable that whenever it is of ^sufiicient ' importance to the enemy that suck persons ' should he sent out on the public service and ' at the public expense, it should afford equal ' ground of forfeiture against the vessel that ' may be let out fer a purpose so intimately • connected with hostile operations." — The Or o- zemuo, 6 Robinson R., p. 4:54. Admit that the emissaries of an nnreeogaised government cannot be recognised as aipbassa- dors with the liabilities as well as Immunities of t\vi3 characfer, yet, in the face of these words, it is difficult to see how a Government bowing habitually to the authority of Sir Wil- liam Scott, and regarding our rebels as "bel- ligerents," can assert that a steam packet, conveying emi3S?ries from these belligerents, "sent out on the public service and at the ■ public expeilse," was, according to the lan- guage of Lord Russell, " pursuing a lawful and innocent voyage." At least, in this asser- tion, this Government seems to turn its back again upon its own history ; or it sets aside the facts so openly boasted with regard -to the pub- lic character of these fugitives. On this question British policy may change with circumstances, and British precedents may be uncertain, but the original American policy is unchangeable, and the American - precedents which illustrate it are solemn trea- ties. The words of Vattel, and the judgaients of Sir William Scott, were^.weil known to the statesmen of the United Sljfts; and yet, iii,^the face of these- authorities, \raich have entered so larjrely into this debate, the American Gov- erunientat an early dTiy deliberately adopted a contrary policy, to which, for half a century, it has steadily adhered. It was plainly declared i/iat only soldfers or officers could be stopped, thus positively excluding the idea of stopping ambassadors, or emissaries of any kind; not ia the military or naval service. Mr. Madison, who more than any other person shaped our national policy on maritime rights, haii stat^ed it on this question. In his remarkable dis- 10 patch to Mr. Monroe, at London, dated Janu- ary 5, 1804, he says : "The article renounces the claim to take ' from the vessels of the neutral party, on the ' high seas, any person whatever, not in ihe ^ military seroicc of an enemy; an exception 'which we admit to come within the law of ' nations, on the subject of contraband of war. * With this exception, we consider a neutral ^ flag on the high sea.^ as a safeguard to those ' sailing under it.^' — State Papers, \o\. 3, p. 83. Then, again, in the same dispatch, Mr, Mad- ison says: "Great Britain, then, must produce an ex- * ception in the lav/ of nations in favor of the ' right she contends for. lu what written and ' received authority will she find it? In what ' usage, except her own, will it be found?" * ' * ^' '' But nowhere will she find an excep- ' tion to this freedom of the seas and of neutral * flags, which justifies the taking away of any * person, not ff.n enemy in military service, * found on board a neutral vessel." — Ibid., p. 84. And then, again, in the game dispatch, he says : " Whenever a belligerent claim against per- * sons on board a neutral vessel is referred to * in treaties, enemies in military service alone * are excepted from the general immunity of * persons in that situation ; and this exception * confirms the immunity of those who are not * included in it." — Ibid., p. 84. It was in pursuance of this principle, thus clearly announced and repeated, that Mr. Mad- ison instructed Mr. Monroe to propose a con- vention between the United States and Great Britain, containing the following stipulation : " No person whatever shall, upon the high * seas and without the jurisdiction of either * party, be demanded or taken out of any ship ' or vessel belonging to citizens or subjects of ' one of the parties, by the public or private ' armed ships belonging to, or in the service of ' the other, unless such person he at the time in * tlie military service of an enemy of such other * party:'— Ibid., p. §2. Mr. Monroe pressed this stipulation most earnestly upon the British Government: but though treated courteously, he could get no satisfaction with regard to it. Loi'd Harrowby, the Foreign Secr^ry, in one of his conversa- tions, "expressedllf concern to find the United States oppcsed to Great Britain on certain great neutral questions in favor of the doctrines of the modern law, which he termed novelties^'' (State Papers, vol. 3, p. 99.) And Lord Mul- grave, who succeeded this acconiplished noble- man, persevered in the same dissent. Mr. Monroe writes, under date of 18th October, 1805: " On a review of the conduct of this Govern- ' ment towards the United States, I am inclined ' to think that the delay which has been so * studiously sought is part of a system, and ' that it is intended, as circumstances favor, to ' sSbject our commerce at present and hereaf- ' ter to every restraint in their power" — State Papers, vol. 3, p. 107. Afterwards, Mr. Monroe was joined, as we have already seen, by Mr. Pinkney, in the mis- sion 60 London, and the two united in present- ing this same proposition again to the British Government. (State Papers, vol. 3, p. 137.) It wa^ rejected, although the ministry of Mr. Fox, who was then in po^er, se^ms to have af- forded at one time the expectation of an agree- ment. While these distinguished plenipotentiaries were pressing this principle a^ London, Mr. Madison was maintaining it at home. In an unpublished communication to Mr. Merry, the British minister at Washington, bearing date 9th April, 1805, which I extract from the files of the State Department, he declared : " The United States cannot accede to the ' claim of any nation to take from their vessels ' on the high seas any description of persons, * except soldiers in the actual service of the ' enemy." In a reply, bearing date 12th April, 1805, this principle was positively repudiated by the British minister; so that the two Governments were ranged unequivocally on opposite sides. The treaties of the United States with foreign nations are in harmony with this principle, so energetically proposed and upheld by Mr. Mad- son ; beginning with the treaty of commerce with France in 1778, and ending only with the treaty with Peru in 1851. Here is the provis- on in the treaty with France, negotiated by Benjamin Franklin, whose wise forethought is always conspicuous: " And it is hereby stipulated that free ships shall also 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 subjects of either of the confederates, although the whole lading, or any part thereof, should appertain to the ene- mies of either, contraband goods being always excepted. It is also agreed in lite manner that the same liberty be extended to persons who are on board a free ship, with this effect, that although they be enemies to both or either party, they are not to be taken out of that free ship, unless they are soldiers in actual service of the enemies." — Statutes at Large, vol. 8, p. 26. The obvious effect of this stipulation is two- fold : first, that enemies, unless soldiers in ac- tual service, shall not be taken out of a neutral ship ; and, secondly, that such persons are not contraband of war so as to alfeet the voyage of a neutral with illegality. Such was the propo- sition of Franklin, of whom it has been said, that he snatched the lightning from t'le skies, and the sceptre from the tyrant. That he sought to snatch the trident, also, is attested by his whole diplomacy, of which this proposition is a part. 11 But the same principle will be found in succeed- ingr treaties, sometimes with a slicrht change of language. In the treaty with the Netherlands, negotiated by John Adams in 1782, the excep- tion is confined to " military men actually in the service of an enemy," [Ibid., p 38 ;) and this same exception will also be found in the treaty with Sweden, in 1782, [Ibid., p. 64;) with Prussia, in 1785, [Ibid., p. 90 ;) with Spain, in 1795, {Ihid.,\). 146:) with France, in 1^00, {ibid., p. 181;) with Columbia, in 1824, (Ibid., p. 312;) with Central America, in 1825, {Ibid., p. :!2S ;) with Brazil, in 1828, {Ibid., p. 393;) with Mexico, in 1531, {Ibid., p. 416 :) with Chili, in 1832, {Ibid., p. 436 ;) with Vene- zuela, in 1836, {Ibid., p. 472;) with Peru- Bolivia, in 1S3G, {Ibid., p. 490 ;) with Ecuador, in 1839, {Ibid., p. 540;) with New Granada, in 1846, (Statutes, vol. 9, p. 883;) with Guatema- la, in 1849, (Statutes, vol. 110, p. 880;) with San Salvador, in 1850, {Ibid., p."894;) and in the treaty with Peru, in 1851, {Ibid., p. 936.) Such is the unbroken testimony, in the most solemn i'orm, to the policy of our Government. In some of the treaties the exception is simply *' sohiers ;" in others it is '" officers or soldiers." It is true that among these treaties there is none with Great Britain ; !^t it is also true, that this is simply because this Power refused its assent when this principle was presented by our Government as an undoubted part of in- ternational law which it desired to confirm by treaty. Clearly and beyond r.U question, according to American principles and practice, the ship was not liable to capture on account of the presence of emissaries, " not soldiers or offi- cers ;" nor could such emissaries be legally taken from the ship. But the om])leteness of this authority is increased by the concurring testimony of the continent of Europe. Since the peace of Utrecht, in 1713, the policy of the continental States has refused to sanction the removal of enemies from a neutral ship, un- less miUtary men in actual service. And now, since this debate has commenced, we have the positive testimony of the French Government to the same principle, given with special ref erence to the present case. !i[. Thouvenel, the Minister of the Emperor for Foreign Affairs, in a recent letter communicated to Mr. Seward, and published with the papeae now before the Senate, earnestly insists that the rebel emis- saries, not being military persons actually in the service of the enemy, were not subject to seizure on board a neutral ship. I leave this question with the remark that it is Great Britain aloue whose position on it can be brought into doubt. ■ But still another question occurs. Beyond all doubt, there were '' dispatches " from the rebel belligerents on board the ship — such '' dispatches " as rebels can write. Public re- port, the statement of persons on board the ship, and the boastful declaration of JetFersoa Davis in a public document, that these emis- saries were proceeding under an appointment from him — v/hich appointment would be a " dispatch " of the highest character — seem to place this fact beyond denial.. Assuming this fact, the ship was liable to capture and to be carried off for adjudicatiou, according to British authorities — unless the positive judg- ment of Sir William Scott in the case of the Atalanta, (6 Robinson II., p 440,) and also the Queen's proclamation at the commencement ot this rebellion, where "dispatches" are enu- merated among contraband articles, are treat- ed as nullities, or so far modified in their ap- plication as to be words, and nothing more. But however binding and peremptory these authorities may be in Great Britain, they can- not be accepted to reverse the standing policy of the United States, which here again leaves no room for doubt. In order to give precision to the rights which it claimed, and at the same time accorded on the ocean, our Government has sought to explain in treaties what it meant by contraband. As early as in 1778,in the treaty with France, negotiated by Benjamin Frank- lin, after specifying contraband articles, with- out including dispatches, it is declared that — "Free goods are all other merchandise and ' things which are not comprehended and par- ' ticularly mentioned in the foregoing enume- * ration of contraband goods." — Statutes at Large, vol 8, p. 26. This was before the judgment of Sir William Scott, recognising dispatches as contraband ; but in other treaties subsequent to this judg- ment, and therefore practically discarding it, after enumerating contraband articles, without specifying "dispatches," the following pro- vision is introduced : "All other merchandises and things noicovA- ' prehended in the articles of contraband ex- ' plicitly enumerated and classified as above, ' shall be held and considered as free." — Ibid., p. 312; Treaty iviih Columbia, and later trea- ties passim. Thus we have not only positive words of enu- meration, without mentioning " dispatches," but also positive words of exclusion, so that dispatches cannot be considered as contraband. These treaties constitute the conclusive record of our Government on this question. And here let me remark, that, while decisions of British Admiralty courts on all these matters are freely cited, no decisions of our Supreme Court are cited. Of course, if any existed, they would be of the highest value ; but there are none, and the reason is obvious. These mat- ters could not arise before our Supreme Court, because under our Government they are so clearly settled by treaties and diplomacy as to be beyond question. Clearly, then, and beyond all question, ac- cording to American principles and practice, the ship was not liable to capture on account of dispatches on board. And here, again, we 12 have the couciirrincr testimony of continental Europe, and especially of the French Govern- ment, in the recent letter of M. Thonvenel. But there is yet another question v/hich re- mains. Assnniitjcr tliat dispatches may be con- traband, would their presence on board a neu- tral ship, sailing between two neutral ports, "iider the voyage illegal? The mail steamer ::.? sailing between Havana, a port of Snain, ci.d . St- Thomas, a port of De-.imark. Here, again, if we bow to British precedent, the an- swer -will be prompt. The British oracle has Hp9ken. In a well-considered judgment, Sir V7illiam Scott declares that dispatches taken on board a neutral ship, sailing from a neutral country and bound for another neutral coun- try, are contraband ; but that where there was reason to Helieve the master ignorant of their character, " it is not a case in which- the firop- erty is to be confiscated, althouoh in this, as in ev. ' ported by the subjects aiid inhabitants of ' both allies from and to places belonging to ' the enemy, excepting only the places which ' at the time shall be besieged, blocked, or. in- ' vested ; and those places only shall be held ' for such which are surrounded nearly by some ' of the belligerent Powers." — Statutes, vol. S, p. 46. If the immunity of neutral ships needed further confirmation, it would^ be found again in the concurriLig testimony of the French Gov- vernment — conveyed in the recent letter of M. Thouvenel — which is so remarkapie for its brief but compr^dtehsive treatment of all the questions i*ivolved in this controversy. I know not how others may feel, but I cannot doubt that this communication, when rightly under- stood, will be gratefully accepted as a token of friendship for us, and also as a contribution to those maritime rights for which France and the United States, in times past, have done so much, together. This eminent minister does not hesitate to declare that if the flag of a neutral Cannot completely cover persons and merchandise beneath it in a voyage between two neutral ports, then its immunity will be but a vain word. 10 And now, as I conclude what I hare to say on contraband in its several divisions, I ven- ture to assert that there are two rules in regard to it, which the traditional policy of our coun- try has constantly declared, and which it has embodied in treaty stiimlatlons with every Power which could be persuaded to adopt them: First, that no article shall be contraband unless it be expressly enumerated and specified as such by name. Secondly, that when such arti- cles, so enumerated and specified, shall be found by the belligerent on board a neutral ship, the neutral shall be permitted to deliver them to the belligerent whenever, by reason of their bulk in quantity, such delivery may be possible, and then the neutral shall, without further molestation, proceed with all remaining innocent cargo to his destination, being any port, neutral or hostile, which at the time is not actually blockaded. Such was the early fixed policy of our coun- try with regard to contraband in neutral bot- toms. It *is recorded in several of our earlier European treaties. Approximation to it will be found in other European treaties, showing our constant effort in this direction. But this policy was not supported by the British theory and. practice of international law, which was especially active during the wars of the French Revolution; and to this fact may, perhaps, be ascribed something of the difficulty which our Government encountered in its efforts to se- cure for this liberal policy the complete sanc- tion of European States. But in our negotia- tions with the Spanish- American States the theory and practice of Great Britain were less felt ; and so, to-day, that liberal policy, embra- cing the two rules already stated touching con- traband, is among all American States the pub lie law of contraband, stipulated and fixed in solemn treaties. I do not quote their texts, but I refer to all these treaties, beginning with the convention between the United States and Co- lumbia iu 1824. Of course, this whole discussion proceeds on the assumption that the rebels are to be re- garded as belligerents, which is the character already accorded to them by Great Britain. It they are not regarded as belligerents, tlien the proceeding of Captain Wiikes is indubitably Illegal and void. I'o a political offender, how- ever deep his guilt — though burdened with the undying execrations of all honest men, and bending beneath the consciousness of the ruin which he has brought upon his country — the asylum of a foreign jurisdiction is sacred, wheth^er on shore or on sea; and it is among the proudest boasts of England, at least iu re cent days, that the exiles of defeated democra- cies as well as of defeated dynasties have found a sufg protection beneath her meteor flag. And yet tliis Power has not always accorded to other ilags what slie claimed for her own. One of the objections diplomatically presented by Great Britain at the beginning of the pres- ent century to any renunciation of the preten- sion of impressment was, '* tha,t facility would be given, particularly in the British Channel, by the immunity claimed by American vessels, to the escape of tro.it or s^'' (State Papers, vol. 3, p. 8G ;) thus assuming that traitors — the com- panions of Robert Emmett, in Ireland, or the companions of Home Toook, in England — ought to be arrested on board a neutral ship ; but that the arrest coulcl be accomplished only through the pretension of impressment. But this flagrant instance cannot be a precedent for the United States, which has always maintained the right of asylum as firmly as it has rejected the pretension of impressment. If I ara correct iu this review, then the con- clusion is inevitable. The seizure of the rebel emissaries on board a neutral ship cannot be justified according to our best American pre- cedents and practice. There seems to be no single point where the seizure is not question- able, unless we choose to invoke British prece- dents and practice, which beyond doubt led Captain Wilkes into the mistake which he com- mitted. In the solitude of his iship he consulted familiar authorities at hand, and felt that in fol- lowing Vattel and Sir William Scott, as quoted and affirmed by eminent writers,' rein fort;ed by the inveterate practice of the British navy, he could not err. He was mistaken. There was a better example ; it was the constant, uniform, unhesit.ating practice of his own country on the ocean, conceding always the greatest immuui- ties to neutral ships, unless sailing to block- aded ports — refusing to consider dispatches as contraband of war — "refusing to consider per- sons-, other than soldiers or otiicers, as contra- band of war ; and protesting always against an adjudication of personal rights by the summary judgment of a quar erdeck. Had these well- attested precedents been in his mind, the gal- lant capfain would not, even for a moment, havp been seduced from his allegiance to those prin- ciples which constitute a part of our country's glory. Mr. President, let the rebels go. Two wicked men, ungrateful to their country, are let loose with the brand of Cain upon their foreheads. Prison doors are opened; but principles are es- tablished which wi;l help to free other men, and to open the gates of the sea. Never before in her active history has Great Britain ranged herself on this side. Such an event is an epoch. Novus sceclorum nascitur ordo. To the liber- ties of the sea this Power is now committed. To a certain extent this cause is now under her tutelary care. If the immunities of passengers, not in the military or naval service, as well as of sailors, a^e not directly recognised, they are at least implied ; while the whole pretension of impressment, so long the pesfrof neutral com- merce, and operating only through the lawless adjudication of a quarter-deck, is made abso- lutely impossible. Thus is the freedom of the seas enlarged, not only by limiting the number 14 of persons who are exposed to the penalties of war, but by driving from it the most offensive pretension that ever stalked upon its waves. To such conclusion Great Britain is irrevoca- bly pledged. Nor treaty nor bond was needed. It is sufficient that her late appeal can be vin- dicated only by a renunciation of early, long- continued tyranny. Let her bear the rebels back. The consideration is ample ; for the sea became free as this altered Power went forth upon it, steering westward with the sun, on an errand of liberation. In this surrender, if such it may be called, our Government does not even " stoop to con- quer." It simply lifts itself to the height of its own original principles. The early efforts of its best negotiators — the patriot trials of its soldiers in an unequal war — have at length prevailed, and Great Britain, usually so haughty, invites us to practice upon those principles wiiich she has so strenuously opposed. There are victo- ries of force. Here is a victory of truth. If Great Britain has gained the custody of two rebels, the United States have secured the tri- umph of their principles. If this result be in couformity with our cher- ished fTtinciples, it will be superfluous to add other considerations 5 and yet I venture to sug- gest that estranged sympathies abroad may be secured again by an open adhesion to those prin- ciples, which already have the support of the Continental Governments of Europe, smarting for years under British pretensions. The pow- erful organs of public opinion on the Continent are also with -us. Hautefeuille, whose work on the Law of Nations is the arsenal of neutral rights, has entered into this debate with a di- rect proposition for the release of these emis- saries as a testimony to the true interpretation of international law. And a journal which of itself is an authority, the Reque des Deux Mau- des, hopes that the United States will let the rebels go, simply because *' it would be a tri- umph of the rights of neutrals to apply them for the advantage of a nation which has ever opposed and violated them." But this triumph is not enough. The sea- god will in future use his trident less ; but the same principle which led to the present renun- ciation of early pretensions naturally conduct to yet further emancipation of the sea. The work of maritime civilization is not finished. And here the two nations, equally endowed by commerce, and matching each other, while they surpass all other nations, in peaceful ships, may gloriously unite in setting up new pillars, which shall mark new triumphs, rendering the ocean a highway of peace, instead of a field of blood. The Congress of Paris, in 1856, where were assembled the plenipotentiaries of Great Brit- ain, France, Austria, Prussia, Russia, Sardinia, and Turkey, has already led the way. Adopt- ing the early policy of the United States, often proposed to foreign nations, this Congress has authenticated two important changes in re- straint of belligerent rights; first, that the neu- tral flag shall protect enemy's goods except contraband of war 5 and secondly, that neutral goods, except contraband of war, are not liable to capture under an enemy's flag. This is much. Another proposition, that privateering should be abolished, was defective in tv/o re- spects ; first, because it left nations free to em- ploy private ships under a public commission as ships of the navy, and, therefore, was nuga- tory; and, secondly, because if not nugatory, it was too obviously in the special interest of Great Britain, which, through her commanding navy, would thus be left at will to rule the sea. No change can be practicable which is not equal in its advantages to all nations ; for the Equality of Nations is not merely a dry dogma of international law, but a vital national senti- ment common to all nations. This cannot be forgotten ; and every proposition must be brought sincerely to this equitable test. But there is a way in which privateering can be effectively abolished without any' shock to the Equality of Nations. A simple proposition, that private property shall eajoy the same im- munity on the ocean which it now enjoys on land, will at once abolish privateering, and re- lieve the commerce of the ocean from its great- est perils, so that, like commerce on land, it shall be undisturbed except by illegal robbery and theft. Such a proposition will operate equally for the advantage of all nations. On this account, and in the policy of peace, which our Government has always cultivated, it has been already presented to foreign Governments by the United States. You have not forgotten the important paper in which Mr. Marcy did this service, or the recent efforts of Mr. Seward in the same direction. In order to complete the efficacy of this proposition, and still further to banish belligerent pretensions, contraband of war should be abolished, so that all ships may freely navigate the ocean without being exposed to any question as to the character of persons or things on board. The Pbight of Search, which on the occurrence of war becomes an omnipresent tyranny, subjecting every neu- tral ship to the arbitrary invasion of every bel- ligerent cruiser, would then disappear. It would drop, as the chains drop from an eman- cipated slave ; or, rather, it would only exist as an occasional agent, under solemn treaties, in the war waged by civilization against the slave trade; and then it would be proudly recognised as an honorable surrender to the best interests of humanity, glorifying the flag which made it. With the consummation of these reforms in maritime law, not forgetting blockades under international law, war would be despoiled of its most vexatious prerogatives, while innocent neutrals would be exempt from its torments. The statutes of the sea, thus refined and eleva- ted, will be the agents of peace instead of the agents of war. Ships and cargoes will pass unchallenged from shore to shore ; and those / 15 rrible belligerent rights, under •whicli the 1 cause it could not ovt mmerce of the world has so long suffered, position of Great Brita rill cease from troublin£^. In this work our is come when this chai ountry bejran early. It had hardly proclaimed ; rights "has changed Vjs baud s own independence before it sought to secure ! pride." Welcome to this new allic similar independence for the sea. It had j ^^-^ ^^^g^^^ ^11 ^3^^^ excitement., . ardly made a Constitution tor its own Govern- ,, ^ • i • .. i ■ c ent before it sought to establish a constitu- j.^H Present trials, it only remains for us to ,p- tion similar in spirit for the government of the I liold the constant policy of «be Republic, and ^ sea. If it did not prevail at once, it was be- ' to stand fast on the ancient ways. *^ LIBRARY OF CONGRESS iiiiililillllll'lllllllllllllllllll 013 701 125 6