124 The Secretary of State (Seward) to the Austrian Minister WASHINGTON, August 22, 1861. The undersigned, the Secretary of State of the United States, has the honor to acknowledge the receipt of a communication from Mr. Hülsemann, minister resident of his imperial royal Majesty the Emperor of Austria, bearing date 7th August, instant. Mr. Hülsemann's letter is accompanied by an instruction sent to him by Count Rechberg, the Austrian minister for foreign affairs, calling for information on the subject of the views of this government concerning the rights of neutrals in maritime war. Count Rechberg expresses a hope that the government of the United States will give assurances that it adopts and will apply the 2d, 3d, and 4th principles of the declaration of Paris, viz: 2. The neutral flag covers enemy's goods, with the exception of contraband of war. 3. Neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are not liable to capture under enemy's flag. 4. Blockades, in order to be binding, must be effective; that is to say, maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the coast of the enemy. The undersigned has great pleasure in assuring Mr. Hülsemann that this government does adopt, and that it will apply the principles thus recited and set forth, and that its liberal views in this respect have not only been long held, but they would have been formally communicated to the Austrian government several months ago but for the delay which has unavoidably occurred in the arrival of a newly appointed minister plenipotentiary at Vienna. Of course the principles referred to are understood by the United States as not compromitting their right to close any of their own ports for the purpose of suppressing the existing insurrection in certain of the States, either directly or in the more lenient and equitable form of blockade which has already for some time been established. Mr. Motley, who proceeds immediately to Vienna as envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States, will be directly advised of this communication, while he will be 1Papers Relating to Foreign Affairs (Diplomatic Correspondence), 1861, pp. 174-175. charged with more ample instructions on the general subject involved. The undersigned avails himself [etc.] WILLIAM H. SEWARD 125 The Secretary of State (Seward) to the Minister in Great Britain (C. F. Adams)1 No. 83 [Extract] WASHINGTON, September 7, 1861. SIR: I have received your despatch of August 23, number 32. It is accompanied by a note which was addressed to you by Lord Russell on the 19th of the same month, and a paper containing the form of an official declaration which he proposes to make on the part of her Majesty on the occasion of affixing his signature to the projected convention between the United States and Great Britain for the accession of the former power to the articles of the declaration of the congress of Paris for the melioration of the rigor of international law in regard to neutrals in maritime war. The instrument thus submitted to us by Lord Russell is in the following words: "Draft of declaration.-In affixing his signature to the convention of this day, between her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland and the United States of America, the Earl Russell declares, by order of her Majesty, that her Majesty does not intend thereby to undertake any engagement which shall have any bearing, direct or indirect, on the internal differences now prevailing in the United States." Lord Russell, in his note to you, explains the object of the instrument by saying that it is intended to prevent any misconception as to the nature of the engagement to be taken by her Majesty. You have judged very rightly in considering this proceeding, on the part of the British government, as one so grave and so novel in its character as to render further action on your part in regard to the projected convention inadmissible until you shall have special instructions from this department. Long before the present communication can reach you, my instructions of August 17, No. 61, will have come to your hands. That paper directed you to ask Lord Russell to explain a passage in a note written to you, and then lying before me, in which he said: "I need scarcely add that on the part of Great Britain the engage 1 1 Papers Relating to Foreign Affairs (Diplomatic Correspondence), 1861, pp. 125-128. ment (to be contained in the projected convention) will be prospective, and will not invalidate anything already done; " which explanation I stated would be expected as a preliminary before you could proceed further in the transaction. You have thus been already prepared for the information that your resolution to await special instructions in the present emergency is approved. I feel myself at liberty, perhaps bound, to assume that Lord Russell's proposed declaration, which I have herein recited, will have been already regarded, as well by him as by yourself, as sufficiently answering the request for preliminary explanations which you were instructed to make. I may, therefore, assume that the case is fully before me, and that the question whether this government will consent to enter into the projected treaty with Great Britain, subject to the condition of admitting the simultaneous declaration on her Majesty's part, proposed by Lord Russell, is ready to be decided. I am instructed by the President to say that the proposed declaration is inadmissible. It would be virtually a new and distinct article incorporated into the projected convention. To admit such a new article would, for the first time in the history of the United States, be to permit a foreign power to take cognizance of and adjust its relations upon assumed internal and purely domestic differences existing within our own country. This broad consideration supersedes any necessity for considering in what manner or in what degree the projected convention, if completed either subject to the explanation proposed or not, would bear directly or indirectly on the internal differences which the British government assume to be prevailing in the United States. I do not enlarge upon this branch of the subject. It is enough to say that the view thus adopted by the President seems to be in harmony equally with a prudent regard to the safety of the republic and a just sense of its honor and dignity. The proposed declaration is inadmissible, among other reasons, because it is not mutual. It proposes a special rule by which her Majesty's obligations shall be meliorated in the bearing upon internal difficulties now prevailing in the United States, while the obligations to be assumed by the United States shall not be similarly meliorated or at all affected in their bearing on internal differences that may now be prevailing, or may hereafter arise and prevail, in Great Britain. It is inadmissible, because it would be a substantial and even a radical departure from the declaration of the congress at Paris. 42179-34-29 That declaration makes no exception in favor of any of the parties to it in regard to the bearing of their obligations upon internal differences which may prevail in the territories or dominions of the parties. The declaration of the congress of Paris is the joint act of fortysix great and enlightened powers, designing to alleviate the evils of maritime war, and promote the first interest of humanity, which is peace. The government of Great Britain will not, I am sure, expect us to accede to this noble act otherwise than upon the same equal footing upon which all the other parties to it are standing. We could not consent to accede to the declaration with a modification of its terms unless all the present parties to it should stipulate that the modification should be adopted as one of universal application. The British government cannot but know that there would be little prospect of an entire reformation of the declaration of Paris at the present time, and it has not even told us that it would accept the modification as a general one if it were proposed. It results that the United States must accede to the declaration of the congress of Paris on the same terms with all the other parties to it, or that they do not accede to it at all. You will present these considerations to Lord Russell, not as arguments why the British government ought to recede from the position it has assumed, but as the grounds upon which the United States decline to enter into the projected convention recognizing that exceptional position of her Majesty. If, therefore, her Britannic Majesty's government shall adhere to the proposition thus disallowed, you will inform Lord Russell that the negotiation must for the present be suspended. I forbear purposely from a review of the past correspondence, to ascertain the relative responsibilities of the parties for this failure of negotiation, from which I had hoped results would flow beneficial, not only to the two nations, but to the whole world-beneficial, not in the present age only, but in future ages. It is my desire that we may withdraw from the subject carrying away no feelings of passion, prejudice, or jealousy, so that in some happier time it may be resumed, and the important objects of the proposed convention may be fully secured. I believe that that propitious time is even now not distant; and I will hope that when it comes Great Britain will not only willingly and unconditionally accept the adhesion of the United States to all the benignant articles of the declaration of the congress of Paris, but will even go further, and, relinquishing her present objections, consent, as the United States have so constantly invited, that the private property, not contraband, of citizens and subjects of nations in collision shall be exempted from confiscation equally in warfare waged on the land and in warfare waged upon the seas, which are the common highways of all nations. Regarding this negotiation as at an end, the question arises, what, then, are to be the views and policy of the United States in regard to the rights of neutrals in maritime war in the present case. My previous despatches leave no uncertainty upon this point. We regard Great Britain as a friend. Her Majesty's flag, according to our traditional principles, covers enemy's goods not contraband of Goods of her Majesty's subjects, not contraband of war, are exempt from confiscation though found under a neutral or disloyal flag. No depredations shall be committed by our naval forces or by those of any of our citizens, so far as we can prevent it, upon the vessels or property of British subjects. Our blockade, being effective, must be respected. war. The unfortunate failure of our negotiations to amend the law of nations in regard to maritime war does not make us enemies, although, if they had been successful, we should have perhaps been more assured friends. I am [etc.] 126 WILLIAM H. SEWARD The Secretary of State (Seward) to the Minister in France No. 56 (Dayton)1 WASHINGTON, September 10, 1861. SIR: Your despatch of August 22, No. 35, has been received. I learn from it that Mr. Thouvenel is unwilling to negotiate for an accession by the United States to the declaration of the congress of Paris concerning the rights of neutrals in maritime war, except “on a distinct understanding that it is to have no bearing, directly or indirectly, on the question of the domestic difficulty now existing in our country," and that to render the matter certain Mr. Thouvenel proposes to make a written declaration simultaneously with his execution of the projected convention for that accession. You have sent me a copy of a note to this effect, addressed to you by Mr. Thouvenel, and have also represented to me an official conversation which he has held with you upon the same subject. The 1 Papers Relating to Foreign Affairs (Diplomatic Correspondence), 1861, pp. 233-235. |