fect nullity, in giving only the privilege of consulting with our minister about the best mode of making a contract to procure ships or ship timber; and, moreover, the Reis Effendi said that if the President was not disposed to sign the article, it would be of no consequence, and the treaty would be ratified without it; but added that it would be pleasing if the whole are accepted, in order to lay them before the Sultan at the final ratification.'

Captain Biddle and Mr Offley to

the President. Constantinople, June 8, 1830. SIR: We have the honor to transmit, herewith, a copy of a treaty signed by us in French on the part of the United States, with the Sublime Ottoman Porte, together with a separate secret article. As there exists a difference of opinion between us respecting the secret article, we shall make, as to it, separate communi

cations to the honorable the Secretary of State. We also transmit the original in Turkish, signed by the Reis Effendi on the part of the Porte.

The presents made by us will be covered by the sum authorized to be expended upon effecting a treaty. The whole expense incurred, will exceed the sum authorized. The excess, however, will be of trivial amount.

We have the honor to be, with great consideration and respect, your most obedient humble servants, JAMES BIDDle. DAVID OFFLEY.

TO ANDREW JACKSON,

President of the United States.

Mr Rhind declines signing the above. He disagrees with us as to the propriety of forwarding these documents by a public vessel of the United States, and informs Mr Offley that he intends to protest in the British chancellery against our doing so. We, therefore, forward this communication without his signature.

Extract of a letter from Mr Clay to Mr Wheaton, Chargé d'Affaires at Copenhagen, dated

May 31st, 1827.

The President having, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, appointed you Chargé d'Affaires to the King of Denmark, and you having notified the department of your acceptance of the appointment, and

that you will be ready to depart on your mission by the middle of next month, I transmit, herewith, your commission, together with a letter of credence, to be presented by you to the Danish Minister of Foreign Affaires, on your first interview with him. You will proceed to Denmark by such conveyance, at your own expense, as may be most agreeable to you.

On your arrival at your post, it will be your duty, generally, to take care of the interests of the United States, and of their citizens; in the discharge of which, you will be governed by such instructions as may now or hereafter be given to you; and where these are silent, by the public law applicable to the particular case calling for your interposition.

The extent and importance of the relations which exist between the United States and Denmark, perhaps required, at an earlier period, that we should have a representative at the court of his Danish Majesty; but considerations of economy had heretofore delayed the appointment. The treaty recently concluded at Washington between the United States and Denmark, and the great value of the commercial intercourse between the two countries, which it is hoped that treaty may serve still further to strengthen and increase, did not appear to the President to admit of longer delay in instituting a permanent mission to Denmark. You will accompany these explanations with an assurance, to the Danish Government, of his wish to see the amicable relations between the two countries long preserved and invigorated.

Among other means of effecting that desirable object, a satisfactory arrangement of the claims of American citizens for injuries committed on their commerce during the late European war, would have the happiest tendency. These aggressions were inflicted during the years 1808, '9, '10, and '11, on various pretexts.

The amount of property of which American citizens were unjustly deprived, was very great, and the interruptions to our lawful trade in the Baltic, were very numerous and highly vexatious.

Early in the year 1811, the President of the United States determined on a special mission to Denmark, to arrest the progress of capture and condemnation of our vessels, then threatening the total destruction of our trade in the Baltic and adjacent seas, and to demand indemnity for the past. Mr G. W. Erving was selected for the service, and proceeded to Copenhagen.

His mission was attended with only partial success. He was able to prevail on the Danish Government to repress some irregularities, and to check the condemnation of most of our vessels whose cases were then pending, or which were captured and brought into port after his arrival; but he was not able to procure satisfaction in case of erroneous or unjust condemnation by the Danish tribunals. At the close of his mission, he was, however, assured by Mr De Rosenkrantz, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the King of Denmark, in an official note under date the 8th day of May, 1812, that if his Majesty could be persuaded, that, in particular cases, it should happen that appearances might have prevailed in the examination of some causes, to the detriment of some American citizens who might not have been able to demonstrate, sufficiently, that their enterprises of commerce were legitimate, he would assuredly be led to redress

6

just complaints, as he has, on several particular occasions, given proofs of his favorable disposition towards the American vessels which circumstances have conducted to the ports of his kingdom. The King wishes, therefore, to give, himself, proofs to the Government of the United States, of the sentiments of justice with which he is animated. The undersigned flatters himself that the President of the United States will easily be persuaded, that, during so hard a contest as that which Denmark now sustains against the Government who so evidently disavows the rights of nations engaged in navigation, the moment is not favorable to bring anew, under consideration, the reclamations which the Government of the United States may find it convenient to make, at that period, in relation to the objects in discussion.'

Copies of the instructions which were given to Mr Erving, together with his correspondence during his mission, are now furnished you, and your attention is particularly directed to his note addressed to Mr De Rosenkrantz, under date the 4th November, 1811, with the statement accompanying it, as exhibiting, in detail, most of the claims of American citizens upon the Danish Government, for indemnity, and the grounds on which they depended.

From the period of those instructions and correspondence, you will perceive the nature of our claims, and the objections which were urged against the allowance of them by the Danish Government. The discussions

which occurred between Mr Erving and Mr De Rosenkrantz, are so full as to render unnecessary any other than a few observations which I have to offer.

The allegations on which the seizure and condemnation of American vessels and their cargoes, were made, and attempted to be justified, were principally three.

1. The possession of false and simulated papers, by which, it was alleged, an American character was stamped on British property.

2. Sailing under British convoy, whereby, it was alleged, our vessels lost the immunities of our flag, and subjected themselves to be treated as British property; and,

3. The possession of French consular certificates of origin, after the French consuls were forbidden to give them, except to vessels sailing direct to French ports.

With respect to the first ground, supposing a British vessel, by means of false and fraudulent papers, to have assumed the guise of an American vessel, there can be no doubt that she could not, in virtue of these same papers, justly escape condemnation on trial before a Danish tribunal. That there were instances of such fraudulent assumptions of the American flag during the late wars in Europe, is undeniable. The American Government far from affording them any favor or countenance, would have been the first to denounce and punish them. In cases of that sort, the question is not as to the principle of con

demnation, but as to the fact. And as the cupidity of the Danish cruisers was stimulated to make out real Americans to be British vessels covered by American papers, and as, by means of the force which they commanded, they possessed themselves of vessel and cargo, and persons and papers on board, and were, thereby, enabled to shape the evidence to promote the interests of the captors, many condemnations, it is believed, took place of genuine American vessels. Compensa tion is claimed by the Government of the United States, in cases where the property of the American citizen has been thus sacrificed.

The right of the Danish Government to capture and condemn American vessels, because they had been protected by a British convoy, cannot be admitted. It is denied whether the protection was, as to the protected vessels, voluntary or involuntary. In point of fact, in several instances, they were compelled by superior force to join the convoy. In cases of that description, it is manifest that they did not subject themselves to lawful condemnation, when captured by Danish cruisers, unless the monstrous principle is to be maintained that the illegal application of superior force by one belligerent to the property of an innocent neutral, creates, in consequence thereof, a right in another belligerent to that property, whenever he can violently seize it.

But supposing the convoy to have been voluntarily sought by the American vessel, the right of

capture on the part of the Danish cruiser is still denied. Why should such a penalty be incurred for such an act? It is said, that, by placing themselves under the British protection, they took sides with the enemy of Denmark, and, thereby, entitle her to consider them as inimical. But for what purpose was the protection assumed? Surely in the ravages to which neutral commerce was exposed in every sea, and from every European nation in that disastrous period, an innocent motive may be presumed on the part of a neutral who should endeavor, under the cannon of one, to guard himself against the wrongs of all; in the case supposed, the American vessels did not join the British convoy to combat Denmark, or any other power, but for the justifiable purpose of innocently pursuing their lawful commerce, and avoiding all unjust assailants. They were unarmed, and in no condition to fight any one. By accepting the protection of the British convoy, they neither added to the strength of the British arms, nor increased the weakness of Denmark. The effect, in fact, of their joining the convoyed fleet, was to weaken rather than strengthen the British force, since it expanded the sphere of its protecting duty. If a friend's goods found on board. an enemy's vessel are not, (as undoubtedly they are not) liable to condemnation, why should a friend's vessel, consorting with an enemy's fleet of merchantmen, which are the protection of a public vessel, be deemed subject to seizure and condemnation?

The property of the friend and the belligerent is much more intimately blended in the former case, than in that of a ship of a friendly nation accidentally taking refuge, for a short time, among a number of merchant vessels enjoying the protection of a public ship belonging to the enemy of another nation.

The third ground of capture and condemnation of American vessels assumed in Denmark, that of their being possessed of French consular certificates of origin, after the French consuls were prohibited to issue them, except to vessels bound directly to French ports, was not true in point of fact. It seems that the French consuls were accustomed to give those certificates to any American vessel applying for them, without regard to their port of destination, except that it was a port of France, or of a neutral, or an ally of France. The French Government forbade the granting of these certificates to any other vessels than those bound directly for the ports of France; but the orders to that effect did not reach the French consuls in America until the 13th November, 1810, prior to which those certificates bore date, which were made the pretext for the seizure of American vessels by the Danish cruisers. Even if the certificates had not been genuine, as was supposed contrary to the fact, that would have been no justifiable cause for the capture and condemnation of a vessel under Danish authority. It might have warranted the detention of the vessel, and, possibly, her condem

nation in a French tribunal as to Denmark, a French certificate of origin, genuine or false, was a paper altogether unimportant and superfluous.

Upon these and other grounds, a large amount of American property was condemned by the Danish tribunals; and, in many cases of acquittal of American vessels, they were not only not indemnified for the detention and losses incident to their capture, but were sometimes obliged themselves to pay costs and damages.

It is due to the Danish Government to state, (and the acknowledgment is made with satisfaction) that, after the arrival of Mr Erving, an efficient interposition of its authority was made in most instances, to prevent additional condemnations of our vessels, and to prevent further excesses of the Danish cruisers. I regret that the truth of the case does not authorize a similar testimony to the justice of his Danish Majesty, in redressing, at that period, wrongs which had been perpetrated under his authority. Nor were the reasons assigned by his minister, for withholding satisfaction, such as could be deemed sufficient, or could communicate any consolation to the American sufferers, for the sacrifice of their property.