disputes, inseparable from this state of things may be amicably adjusted, and the evils are therefore so obvious, that able commentators upon national law have proposed that special treaties be formed between nations, whenever practicable, in order to regulate these embarrassing questions, and thus obviate in some degree, dangers which in war must be always imminent. The United States have adopted this policy, and have omitted no favorable opportunity of carrying it into effect. They have entered into conventional arrangements with most of the other independent States of America, viz:, with Brazil, Chile, Venezuela, Ecuador, New Granada, Guatemala, San Salvador, Peru, and Mexico, and with some of the principal commercial powers of Europe, for the better regulation of these difficult questions; and in all cases it has been their object to circumscribe as much as possible the catalogue of prohibited articles, and to provide by specific enumeration against the recurrence of abuses, which have given so much just cause of complaint. But these partial arrangements, though useful as far as they go, are yet a very inadequate remedy for the evil, because they establish no uniform rule, each treaty prescribing its own regulations, and because they apply only to the parties themselves, leaving their relations in this respect with other powers, to be governed by the Code, which has proved itself so unworthy of confidence.

The dictum upon which this whole doctrine rests, is, that a neutral nation ought not to supply a belligerent Power with articles which may serve him in the direct prosecution of hostilities. If this prohibitory declaration had been confined to arms and munitions of war there would have been little difficulty in the fair adjustment of the questions which might arise under it. But it presents no such tangible limit on the one hand, while on the other, it is conceded that it does not embrace various articles, as clothing, and, I may add, provisions, which are as essential to the efficiency of the soldier as the arms he bears into battle. What, then, must be the effect of any article upon warlike operations, to authorize its classification as contraband of war, is a question which has provoked as much angry discussion as any other with which modern nations have had to deal. Besides the difficulty arising out of the want of precision in the terms employed, and probably not less out of the absence of any generally fixed views, there is yet another, which adds farther to the embarrassment, and requires the immediate consideration of the parties to the law of nations.

This question of contraband is a shifting one, as Lord Erskine expressed it, embracing new articles from time to time as they become. applicable to military purposes, when the law shifts to accommodate itself to these progressive improvements in the implements or means

of destruction. But still the nature of such improvements, and the just title of the articles contributing towards them to take their places in the list of contraband is a subject of controversy which is liable to be followed by the most serious consequences. The discussion which at this time is going on respecting the military character of coal, and whether it is now excluded from general commerce as contraband of war is a striking illustration of the tendency to enlarge this power of prohibition and seizure, and of the necessity of watching its exercise with unabated vigilance. Here is an article, not exclusively nor even principally used in war, but which enters into general consumption in the arts of peace, to which indeed it is now vitally necessary. It has become also important in commercial navigation. It is a product of nature, with which some regions are bountifully supplied, while others are destitute of it, and its transportation, instead of meeting with impediments, should be aided and encouraged. The attempt to enable belligerent nations to prevent all trade in this most valuable accessary to mechanical power has no just claim for support in the law of nations; and the United States avow their determination to oppose it so far as their vessels are concerned.

It adds to the complications arising out of the uncertainty in which this subject is involved, that there is no common tribunal, empowered to decide between the Independent parties when a belligerent nation, interested in the measure, undertakes to add a new article to the catalogue of contraband, upon the assumption that it has changed its character from a peaceable to a warlike one, in consequence of a change in the objects to which it may be applied, either by a revolution in the mode of conducting war, or by improvements in the implements used in its prosecution. The pretension of a prerogative on the part of sovereigns, whether in peace or war, if, indeed, any such exist, to decide these questions, except so far as relates to their own subjects, is utterly repudiated by the United States. They claim the right to decide for themselves, what is the law of nations, and they yield the same privilege to other Independent Powers. If positions are assumed by other nations which affect injuriously the rights of this Country, and which it believes are in contravention of the code of International law, its remedy is well defined, and depends upon itself. A just deference is due to those differences of opinion which may honestly arise in the vast variety of subjects involved in the intercourse of nations, and they should be considered in a spirit of reasonable forbearance. But that limit passed, duty and honor equally enjoin resistance.

I am [etc.]

LEWIS CASS

116

The Secretary of State (Cass) to the Chargé in France (Calhoun)1 WASHINGTON, December 31, 1859.

SIR: The approaching assemblage of the Representatives of several of the Powers of Europe at Paris, in Congress, may afford favorable opportunities to ascertain the prevailing sentiment respecting the measures proper to be adopted with a view to limit as well as to define more accurately the rights of belligerents and to correct the abuses which time has introduced and by which the commerce of neutral nations is interrupted and seriously injured during war. The views of the United States upon this subject have been made known to the Commercial States of Europe, and their coöperation in this important work has been invoked. The breaking out of the late war furnished at once a motive and a proper opportunity for this proceeding on our part, but the peace unexpectedly intervened before the views of this Government reached our Diplomatic Agents in Europe, and though presented by them as soon as received to the respective Governments to which they were accredited, still the then existing state of things did not require that immediate action which a general war would have demanded. Our propositions, however, have been received with a good deal of favor, though no definite arrangement has yet been made with any power. But I anticipate with great confidence, that they will ere long receive general assent, and will become the law of the world. They are so correct in themselves and so much called for by considerations of justice and of the general welfare, that this result is almost inevitable, and in the mean time, we have reason to believe that this declaration of them promulgated as it has been will have a tendency to direct general attention to the subject as well as to lead to its favorable consideration.

You will have observed that there are two different objects embraced in my letter to Mr Mason; one is the assertion by this Government of certain principles which in its opinion make part of the law of nations, and to which therefore it will adhere, and the other is the reference to unjust and injurious proceedings, unnecessarily interfering with neutral commerce allowed indeed by existing usage, but which ought to be essentially modified or abolished. The former class of cases are referred to merely to make known our views and intentions with respect to them, but with no desire or design to render our action dependant upon the concurrence of other Powers in

1 MS., Instructions, France, vol. xv, pp. 455-458.

the positions we have assumed. But with respect to the latter, the ground we occupy is essentially different. While the injuries. to which we are subjected are equally injurious and unncessary, and while we are desirous of an efficient remedy, yet we do not deny that general usage may be urged in their support, and we therefore invoke the concurrent action of all commercial powers in the effort to put an end to them.

We have no intention to take part in the discussion or decision of any European Congress upon this or any other question. But so far as the measures proposed by such an assemblage may be in accordance with our views, we shall cheerfully assent to them, and we are prepared at all times to enter into a mutual understanding with any of the powers disposed to cooperate with us.

It may be in your power by informal communications with the Statesmen convened at Paris essentially to promote this object by explaining fully the views of the United States, and the reasons, which, in their opinion demand this general movement, in the true interests of the commercial World. Your course must be guided by a sound discretion, taking advantage of opportunities for conversation as they present themselves, rather than seeking them. I should be pleased to hear from you on the subject and to learn as definitely as possible the views which are entertained of our propositions by the representatives of the different powers in Paris. I have reason to believe, that almost all, if not all the Continental States regard this subject as we do tho from various motives no definite action has taken place. The provision in the protocol of the Paris Conference of April 16 1856 which undertakes to deprive Sovereign States, parties to that proceeding of the power "to enter into any arrangement with regard to the application of the right of neutrals in time of war," which does not at the same time recognize the four principles laid down by that Conference, has had a tendency to delay the desired action of some of the powers.

2159100

That provision was an invidious one and ought not to have been adopted, directed as it was principally against the United States but the a attempt to restrict the rights of Sovereign States to concur in proposed meliorations of the laws of nations cannot be successful. Our reports from St. Petersburg, and Berlin and Stockholm and Lisbon and Naples, the result of free conversations held by our The Paffed to Ministers, at those places are encouraging, but from England we have received nothing on diw jument of the dti enoita I commit the subject to you asking your attention to it, and desirous of receiving all the information it may be in your power to communicate 861-661 qq ‚VX Jov 95(BTI 2noitogrdeal „PM ↑ LEW CASS

I am [etc.]

117

Proclamation Regarding the Blockade of Ports of Certain Southern · States, April 19, 1861 1

1

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

WHEREAS an insurrection against the Government of the United States has broken out in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, and the laws of the United States for the collection of the revenue cannot be effectually executed therein conformably to that provision of the Constitution which requires duties to be uniform throughout the United States:

And whereas a combination of persons engaged in such insurrection, have threatened to grant pretended letters of marque to authorize the bearers thereof to commit assaults on the lives, vessels, and property of good citizens of the country lawfully engaged in commerce on the high seas and in waters of the United States:

And whereas an Executive Proclamation has been already issued, requiring the persons engaged in these disorderly proceedings to desist therefrom, calling out a militia force for the purpose of repressing the same, and convening Congress in extraordinary session, to deliberate and determine thereon:

Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, with a view to the same purposes before mentioned, and to the protection of the public peace, and the lives and property of quiet and orderly citizens pursuing their lawful occupations, until Congress shall have assembled and deliberated on the said unlawful proceedings, or until the same shall have ceased, have further deemed it advisable to set on foot a blockade of the ports within the States aforesaid, in pursuance of the laws of the United States, and of the law of Nations in such case provided. For this purpose a competent force will be posted so as to prevent entrance and exit of vessels from the ports aforesaid. If, therefore, with a view to violate such blockade, a vessel shall approach, or shall attempt to leave either [sic] of the said ports, she will be duly warned by the Commander of one of the blockading vessels, who will endorse on her register the fact and date of such warning, and if the same vessel shall again attempt to enter or leave the blockaded port, she will be captured and sent to the nearest convenient port, for such proceedings against her and her cargo as prize, as may be deemed advisable.