Nachtrag (1) zur Sammlung officieller Actenstücke in Bezug auf Schiffahrt und Handel in Kriegszeiten. 1857. No 207-212, nebst Entscheidungen der Prisen-Gerichte. XX-YY. (Grong) Adres Loctbeer Hamburg. Nolte & Kühler. 1857. 9 Inhalt. M 207. Auszug aus der Botschaft des Präsidenten der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika an M 208. Auszug aus einer Depesche des Grafen Walewski an Graf Sartiges, französischen Ge- sandten in Washington, Mai 1856. (Ibid. pag. 31.).... M 209. Englische Uebersetzung der Erklärung des Pariser Friedens-Congresses vom 16. April 1856 in Bezug auf das Seerecht in Kriegszeiten. (Ibid. pag. 32.). . . . . . M210. Englische Uebersetzung eines Auszuges des 24. Protokolls des Pariser Friedenscongresses. Seite. M211. Depesche des Staats- Secretairs Marcy an den Minister - Residenten der Vereinigten Staaten in Brüssel, vom 14. Juli 1856. (Ibid. pag. 33.). . . . . . . Entscheidungen des Gerichts-Ausschusses des Geheimenraths in London. (X. X.) The Ariel; March 21, 1857. Claim of restitution of ship and freight. (Times. No 207. Auszug aus der Botschaft des Präsidenten der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika an den Congress, vom 2. December 1856. Soon after the commencement of the late war in Europe, this government submitted to the consideration of all maritime nations, two principles for the security of neutral commerce: one, that the neutral flag should cover enemies' goods, except articles contraband of war, and the other, that neutral property on board merchant vessels of belligerents should be exempt from condemnation, with the exception of contraband articles. These were not presented as new rules of international law; having been generally claimed by neutrals, though not always admitted by belligerents. One of the parties to the war Russia as well as several neutral powers, promptly acceded to these propositions; and the two other principal belligerents, Great Britain and France, having consented to observe them for the present occasion, a favorable opportunity seemed to be presented for obtaining a general recognition of them both in Europe and America. But Great Britain and France, in common with most of the states of Europe, while forbearing to reject, did not affirmatively act upon the overtures of the United States. While the question was in this position, the representatives of Russia, France, Great Britain, Austria, Prussia, Sardinia, and Turkey, assembled at Paris, took into consideration the subject of maritime rights, and put forth a declaration containing the two principles which this government had submitted, nearly two years before, to the consideration of maritime powers, and adding thereto the following propositions:,, Privateering is and remains abolished," and ,,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;" and to the declaration thus composed of four points, two of which had already been proposed by the United States, this government has been invited to accede by all the powers represented at Paris, except Great Britain and Turkey. To the last of the two additional propositions that in relation to blockades there can certainly be no objection. It is merely the definition of what shall constitute the effectual investment of a blockaded place, a definition for which this government has always contended, claiming indemnity for losses where a practical violation of the rule thus defined has been injurious to our commerce. As to the remaining article of the declaration of the conference of Paris,,,that privateering is and remains abolished,“ I certainly cannot ascribe to the powers represented in the conference of Paris, any but liberal and philanthropic views in the attempt to change the unquestionable rule of maritime law in regard to privateering. Their proposition was doubtless intended to imply approval of the principle that private property upon the ocean, although it might belong to the citizens of a belligerent state, should be exempted from capture; and had that proposition been so framed as to give full effect to the principle, it would have received my ready assent on behalf of the United States. But the measure proposed is inadequate to that purpose. It is true that if adopted, private property upon the ocean would be withdrawn from one mode of plunder, but left exposed, meanwhile, to another mode, which could be used with increased effectiveness. The aggressive capacity of great naval powers would be thereby augmented, while the defensive ability of others would be reduced. Though the surrender of the means of prosecuting hostilities by employing privateers, as proposed by the conference of Paris, is mutual in terms, yet, in practical effect, it would be the relinquishment of a right of little value to one class of states, but of essential importance to another and a far larger class. It ought not to have been anticipated that a measure, inadequate to the accomplishment of the proposed object, and so unequal in its operation, would receive the assent of all maritime powers. Private property would be still left to the depredations of the public armed cruisers. SO I have expressed a readiness on the part of this government, to accede to all the principles contained in the declaration of the conference of Paris, provided that the one relating to the abandonment of privateering can be so amended as to effect the object for which, as is presumed, it was intended, the immunity of private property on the ocean from hostile capture. To effect this object, it is proposed to add to the declaration that ,,privateering is and remains abolished," the following amendment:,,And that the private property of subjects and citizens of a belligerent on the high seas, shall be exempt from seizure by the public armed vessels of the other belligerent, except it be contraband." This amendment has been presented not only to the powers which have asked our assent to the declaration to abolish privateering, but to all other maritime states. Thus far it has not been rejected by any, and is favorably entertained by all which have made any communication in reply. Several of the governments, regarding with favor the proposition of the United States, have delayed definitive action upon it, only for the purpose of consulting with others, parties to the conference of Paris. I have the satisfaction of stating, however, that the Emperor of Russia has entirely and explicitly approved of that modification, and will co-operate in endeavoring to obtain the assent of other powers; and that assurances of a similar purport have been received in relation to the disposition of the Emperor of the French. The present aspect of this important subject allows us to cherish the hope that a principle so humane in its character, so just and equal in its operation, so essential to the prosperity of commercial nations, and so consonant to the sentiments of this enlightened period of the world, will command the approbation of all maritime powers, and thus be incorporated into the code of international law. Washington, December 2, 1856. Franklin Pierce. N 208. Extract from a despatch of his Excellency Count Walewski to Count de Sartiges, May, 1856. The plenipotentiaries assembled in the congress of Paris have come to an agreement on the terms of a declaration intended to settle the principles of maritime law in so much as it concerns neutrals during war. Herewith I have the honor to transmit to you a copy of that act, which fully meets the tendencies of our epoch, and at once puts an end to the useless calamities which a custom equally reprobated by reason and by humanity, superadded to those which fatally result from a state of war. The congress have not overlooked the fact that their work, in order that it may prove complete, must secure the assent of all the maritime powers, since such governments only as shall have acceded to the arrangement can be mutually bound by it. On this score, we attach peculiar value to the concurrence of the United States, that will not consent, we confidently trust, to hold off from a concert of action which defines a new and essential progress in international relations. The determination of the congress at Paris defines the object which it is intended to attain. The clashing constructions given to the rights of neutrals have, up to the last war, proved |