[Untitled], the 28th of May, 1854

[Untitled]

Decree of the ministries of the interior, of the exterior, of justice and of trade, as well as of the commander-in-chief of the army of 25th May, 1854, by which are published the principles to be observed during the war that has broken out between England, France, and the Ottoman empire on the one side, and Russia on the other side, by the imperial authorities and subjects with reference to trade and navigation.

In consequence of the war which has broken out between England, France, and the Ottoman empire on the one side, and Russia on the other side, the following regulations are published with the consent of his Imperial Apostolic Majesty, given on the 23d May, 1854, according to which all imperial, civil, and military authorities, as well as all Austrian subjects, will have to regulate their conduct.

1. The acceptation or employment of lettres de marque under whatever form or flag, as well as every kind, share in the command, manning of, or fitting out of privateers, is prohibited to Austrian subjects. Whoever acts otherwise, has not only to expect no protection on the part of the imperial government, if he is subjected to punishment in other states, but he shall also be treated according to the existing laws for robbery, as the acceptance of lettres de marque is to be considered as an attempt at robbery.

2. Should foreign privateers provided with lettres de marque from one of the belligerent powers present themselves, the entrance into our harbors is to be refused, except in case of imminent danger from storms, and then their earliest possible departure must be insisted on.

3. It is forbidden to ships under Austrian colors to carry troops of the belligerent states, or to import into those countries commodities which, according to the law of nations, or other universally known regulations, are considered as contraband of war.

Of such commodities an Austrian ship in intercourse with these states may only carry so much as is strictly necessary for its own use or defense.

Whoever infringes on this prohibition has no protection to expect from the Austrian government in case of legitimate seizure and confiscation on the part of the belligerent states, but will be punished besides.

4. Austrian ships are forbidden to enter into such places and harbors as are besieged by one of the belligerent powers, or blockaded by a sufficient force, as otherwise they would neither have to expect to enjoy the freedom of a neutral flag, nor assistance or interference on the part of the imperial government.

5. Except in this case, Austrian merchant ships are not hindered, in spite of the existing war, in carrying on their trade and intercourse with the harbors of the powers engaged in the war, and in like manner the merchant-ships of the belligerent states may as before enter without hindrance into all Austrian harbors, remain as long as they please, get repairs, &c., &c., in so far as they observe the existing laws and regulations, and so long as their conduct is in accordance with the rules of neutrality.

With respect to the admission of foreign ships of war into Austrian harbors, the conditions of the decree of the ministry of war of the 29th of January, 1850, remain in force.

6. On the expectation that the neutral Austrian trade will be properly respected by the belligerent powers, and that the customary privileges of belligerents will be exercised with a proper observance of the laws of nations, or of any modifications of them consonant with treaties, it is herewith decreed that Austrian navigators shall not oppose themselves to visitation on the open sea on the part of foreign ships of war, but on the contrary shall, without difficulty, show the papers and documents by which their neutral capacity is proved, throw none of them into the sea, or otherwise destroy them, nor keep on board false or duplicate and secret papers.

The belligerent powers have besides officially expressed the satisfactory declaration that the property of the enemy in neutral ships, and neutral property in the enemy’s ships, with the exception of contraband of war and the enemy’s dispatches, shall be respected and not taken.

7. The captures which the belligerent powers make from the enemy may only be admitted into the harbor of Trieste, (with exception of every other Austrian harbor,) where the effects may be disembarked, deposited, administered, (in case they do not contain goods the import of which into the imperial states is forbidden,) bought, or sold, or be exported anew in the course of trade, but all under the condition that the judicial decision shall have been given by the competent authority of the power which has taken the prize as to their legitimacy. Should some goods be exposed in the mean time to injury, these may be sold beforehand, but only on sufficient security for their value being given, in case the decision should declare the liberation of the ship.

8. Should an Austrian ship, in spite of its obedience to the above regulations, be treated in an improper manner, information is to be given without delay to the nearest Austrian consular or other imperial authority, in order that the imperial government may take steps to obtain compensation and satisfaction from the foreign state, and when steps have already been taken by the injured party to support them.

9. These regulations will be put in force from the day of their publication.

BELGUIM.

(Received from her Majesty’s legation at Brussels.)

[Translation.]

1. Article 14 section IX of the Navy Regillations for 1861.

No vessel taken by captains who have a foreign commission can remain more than 24 hours in our ports and harbors, unless compelled by storms, (or unless the prize is from our enemies.

2. Article 84 of the Penal Code.

Whoever exposes the state to a declaration of war, by hostile acts not approved by the government, shall be punished by banishment, and if war ensues, by deportation.

2. Article 85 of the Penal Code.

Whoever exposes Belgians to reprisals, through acts not approved by the government, shall suffer banishment.

4. The Crimean war declaration, of the 25th of April, 1854.

Merchants are notified that instructions have been issued to the judicial, naval, and army officials, to let them know that privateers of any flag, or with any letters of marque, or any commission, shall not enter our ports with prizes, except in stress of weather; and the officials are instructed to keep watch over them, and to send them to sea as soon as possible. They are also charged not to acknowledge any commission or letter of marque from the belligerents, without the King’s permission.

Every person subject to the laws of the kingdom who arms privateers, or takes any part in such act, is liable to be treated abroad as pirates, and are amenable to the laws of Belgium.

5. The Italian war declaration, of the 8th of May, 1859.

Belgium adheres to the principles laid down in the declaration of the Paris Congress of the 16th of April, 1856.

Merchants are notified that instructions on this subject have been issued to the judicial, naval, and army officials.

Every person subject to the laws of the kingdom who arms privateers, or takes part in such act, or who violates neutrality, is liable to be treated as a pirate abroad, and to be prosecuted at home.

6. The American war declaration of the 22d June, 1861, was similar to that of 1859.

7. The Brazil-Paraguay war declaration of the 11th June, 1865, is the same.

8. The Spanish-Chili-Peru declarations of the 18th February, 1866, and the 14th March, 1866, are similar to the above.

DENMARK.

Copenhagen, April 30, 1867.

My Lord: In pursuance of the instructions contained in your lordship’s circular dispatch of the 14th of February, addressed to Sir Charles Murray, I have the honor to transmit herewith to your lordship copy of a note that has been addressed to me by Count Frys Frysenborg, transmitting copies of the Danish laws and regulations in vigor for the prevention of acts within Danish territories of which belligerents might complain as a violation of the duties of neutrality.

Inclosure No. 2 to this dispatch is a set of laws, with translation, dated May, 4, 1803, for the guidance of merchants and shipmasters in time of war between maratime powers. In the 13th article are enumerated the goods that are to be considered as contraband of war.

Very important special regulations are laid down in article 14, with a view to controlling the shipment of articles contraband of war, and to insuring their due delivery at neutral ports.

According to the 18th article, Danish owners and masters of merchant vessels who infringe the law not only forfeit their right to Danish citizenship and the protection of their government, in case of seizure by the enemy, but likewise expose themselves to prosecution by the tribunals of their country.

Various articles of the law of May 4, 1803, will be annuled by the provisions of a new law bearing date March 13, 1867, (copy of which, together with a translation, was transmitted to your lordship’s office by Mr. Consul Bridges Taylor, in his despatch of the 27th instant,) and which is to come into force in the month of October of the present year.

In it are denned the character of the ship’s papers which all Danish merchant ships will in future be required to possess in order to prove their nationality.

They will consist of a certificate of registry, the articles of agreement, custom-house clearance, charter-party, and bills of lading.

The ancient Latin passports are abolished.

By a set of regulations embodied in an ancient circular of the Royal Danish Chancellerie, dated May 20, 1823, (enclosure No. 4 in this despatch, with translation,) privateers are forbidden to enter Danish ports, except on account of stress of weather or pursuit by an enemy. They are bound, however, to quit their place of refuge so soon as the danger be past.

An injunction is likewise laid on foreign vessels of war, as well as privateers, from sending their prizes to or selling them or their cargoes in Danish ports, and Danish subjects are strictly forbidden to purchase any prize brought into Danish ports.

The 6th inclosure to this dispatch is a copy of circular, together with translation, which was addressed, during the Crimean war, to the commanders of vessels stationed in Danish waters, and points out the course they were directed to pursue in order to maintain the neutrality of Danish territory, and to prevent the commission of any act that might give umbrage to either of the belligerents at that time engaged in hostilities.

I have likewise the honor to inclose herewith to your lordship copy of the 76th article of the Danish Penal Code of February 10, 1866, fixing the penalties to be inflicted on persons who, without royal authorization, should enlist soldiers in Denmark to serve in a foreign war.

I have the honor to be, with the highest respect, my lord, your lordship’s most obedient humble servant,

FRANCIS CLARE FORD.

The Lord Stanley, P. M., &c., &c., &c.

[Translation.]

Copenhagen, April 26, 1867.

Sir: After consulting the proper ministers about Sir Charles Murray’s note of the 19th of February last in regard to the provisions of the law intended to prevent violations of neutrality towards foreign belligerent nations on Danish soil, I inclose to you—1. One copy of the ordinance of the 4th of May, 1803, containing instructions to captains and owners of vessels in regard to their conduct during a naval war in which Denmark takes no part. 2. The copy of a circular from the royal Danish cabinet, dated 20th May, 1823, specifying the conditions under which foreign war vessels and privateers of belligerent nations may enter Danish ports, during a war in which Denmark is not interested. 3. A circular addressed to commanders of the royal navy in Danish waters during the Crimean war, prescribing neutrality according to laws in force, and prohibiting acts offensive to either belligerent power. 4. A French translation of article 76 of the penal code of 10th of February, 1866, specifying penalties incurred by persons recruiting soldiers on Danish soil, for the military service of a foreign power, without the King’s consent.

In calling your attention to these ordinances and circulars, I deem it my duty to give you a brief analysis of the provisions of the ordinance of 4th May, 1803.

The articles from 1 to 13 contain forms of the papers necessary to prove the nationality of a Danish trading vessel, in a naval war between foreign powers. In reference to these provisions I must inform you that, as Latin passports are no longer required on trading vessels, in accordance with existing treaties between Denmark and Great Britain, (see Lord Russell’s note of 29th June, 1861, to our minister in London,) the government has repealed the ordinance of 4th May, 1803, in relation to such passports; and, by a new law of the 13th March past, many other articles have been rescinded or modified. Article 2 of the said law only requires, as proof of the nationality of a trading vessel, the paper called “a certificate of nationality or registry,” showing that the ship is on the list of those vessels having a right to carry the Danish flag. According to the same article, every registered vessel is only required to carry a crew-list, the cargo papers, and a custom-house clearance, in times of war or peace.

To prevent a misuse of the Danish flag in covering articles contraband of war, intended for belligerent powers or their subjects, article 13 of the ordinance of 4th May, 1803, gives a list of articles considered as contraband.

Article 14 forbids captains of trading vessels to carry those articles, unless he gives security that they are to be delivered at a neutral port. In such case, the master and freighters are obliged to observe certain formalities to prove that the goods were actually delivered at the neutral port.

Article 15 commands masters of trading vessels to observe the royal proclamations in relation to a blockaded port of either belligerent power. If masters are ignorant of such blockade, and near the blockaded port, they are required by this same article to heed a notice given by the blockading squadron at the port.

By article 18 of the same ordinance, freighters and masters who violate this law forfeit the protection of the government, and make themselves liable to prosecution in the courts.

Hoping these remarks may prove satisfactory in answer to your questions, I take the opportunity to express my esteem and consideration.

FRYS FRYSENBORG.

To Mr. Ford, Her Britannic Majesty’s Chargé d’affaires.

Rules for the guidance of merchants and ship-masters in time of hostilities between maritime powers.

We, Christian VII, by grace of God, King of Denmark and Norway, the Goths and Vandals, Duke of Sleswig Holstein, Stormarn, Ditmarch, and Oldenburg:

Make known—Although we, by several previous resolutions, fixed the rules according to which our traders and seafaring subjects should be guided when war broke out between foreign maritime powers, we have, nevertheless, found it necessary under the present circumstances to make one condensed enactment, imbodying those parts of these former resolutions, that they may hereafter serve as a rule of guidance for these our subjects, and become publicly known; and also so that no Danish subject shall plead ignorance of his duties in these respects, it is our gracious will that the following enactments hereafter shall alone be followed and accurately conformed to by all and every one who wishes to share in the advantages which our neutral flag in time of war will give to their lawful trading and maritime speculations; and to this end we hereby annul and declare void all our former enactments. We order and command as follows:

Article I. Those our trading and seafaring subjects who wish to send any of their ships to sea to any foreign places to which the effects of the war have or may reach, shall be bound (always in conformity with the rules and regulations laid down in the following law) to acquire a royal Latin sea-pass or permit, as well as the other ship’s documents and papers exacted by law. To this end, on the breaking out of hostilities between foreign powers, it will be necessary to decide and make known for what places it is considered necessary that ships should be provided with our Latin sea-pass.

Art. II. The pass cannot be obtained before the owner of the ship for which it is required has provided himself with the necessary ship’s certificate in proof of his lawful right of ownership.

Art. III. No man can obtain a ship’s certificate who is not our subject either by birth in our kingdoms and countries, or who before the breaking out of hostilities between any of the maritime powers of Europe was in full possession of the rights of citizenship, either in our or other neutral states. In all cases the owner of a ship for which a certificate is demanded shall be domiciled in some place in our kingdoms and countries.

Art. IV. He who, according to the foregoing articles, is entitled to obtain or claim a ship’s certificate, shall, in order to receive the same, present himself to the magistrate or authorities of the city or place to which the ship belongs, or where the principal number of its owners are domiciled, where either they, or at least the chief owner, has, in person or by means of a written and signed oath, declared that the ship belongs to him, or to one or more of our subjects, and that the ship for which the certificate is demanded has no contraband of war on board destined for the use of the belligerent powers or their subjects.

Art. V. No one, on the breaking out of hostilities, shall be permitted to command a ship provided with our royal sea-pass who may have been born in any of the countries of the belligerent powers, unless he, before the breaking out of hostilities, shall have acquired rights of citizenship in our kingdoms and countries.

Art. VI. Every ship master who will command a ship furnished with our royal Latin sea-pass must have acquired citizenship at some place in our kingdoms and countries.

He is bound constantly to have his letter of citizenship with him on board. As a security that he undertakes nothing that may be in contradiction with the provisions of this our enactment, he shall be bound, before departure from the harbor where he receives the pass, to take an oath that nothing with his will shall be undertaken whereby the pass and certificate given to him shall be misapplied.

Such oath made by the master shall accompany the owner’s application for the delivery of the permit. But when, on account of the absence of the ship’s master, this cannot be accomplished, the owner shall state the fact, and then our consul or commercial agent in the district where the master happens to be shall be answerable that when the master receives the permit he shall take the required oath.

Art. VII. On ships which are to be furnished with the royal Latin sea-pass no super-cargo, factors, clerks, or other ship’s officials who are subjects of the belligerents shall be permitted on board.

Art. VIII. Half the crew, including the mate, shall consist of the subjects of our kingdoms and countries. Should it happen that a crew in a foreign country, through desertion, death, or sickness, become incomplete, so that it is impossible for the master to comply with this enactment, he shall be permitted to engage as many foreigners (especially subjects of neutrals) as may be required to continue the voyage; however, in no case shall the number of subjects of the belligerents who may be on board the ship exceed a third part of the crew.

Every change connected with such alterations in the crew, together with the reasons calling for them, shall be carefully entered by the captain on the ship’s articles, which shall be attested each time and signed by our consul or commercial agent, or their deputies resident in the ports the ship may put into, and such indorsement shall serve as a justification for the master in all subsequent contingencies.

Art. IX. Besides the ship’s certificate mentioned in article II, the following ship’s documents shall always be found on board the ship:

The shipbuilder’s certificate, and, inasmuch as he who built the ship may later have sold it to another, then also the bill of sale or title deed shall be present.

The documents, on application, for the delivery of the pass, shall be sent by the owner to the proper authorities, accompanied by the certificate, in proof of the ship’s lawful right to claim the certificate.

The royal Latin sea-pass, with the accompanying translation.

Measure bill, or certificate of measurement.

Articles of agreement and list of the crew, which must be properly attested by the competent authorities.

Charter-parties and bills of lading of the cargo; and, lastly,

Custom-house clearance from the place where the cargo was taken in.

Art. X. The measure bill shall be delivered by the authorities of our kingdoms and countries properly authorized to measure ships. In case any of our subjects purchase a ship in a foreign port, our consul or commercial agent at the place shall be authorized to have the ship measured, and thereafter deliver to the master of the ship a provisional measure bill, which shall be considered valid until the ship arrives in one of our harbors where the ship can be properly measured and branded, and a permanent measure bill be made out, which shall remain with the ship.

Art. XI. It is forbidden to all and every one, owners as well as shipmasters, to procure for themselves and to have on board duplicate ship’s papers, or to carry a foreign flag, as long as they are sailing with papers and documents graciously given by us.

Art. XII. Our royal Latin sea-pass is only valid for one journey, i. e., from the time the ship after receiving it quits its home port and until the time it returns to it; unless the ship in the mean time, by lawful sale, has been transferred to another party, in which case the new owner must obtain the necessary passes and documents in his own name.

Art. XIII. According to ordinary received principles, the subjects of neutral powers cannot be permitted to have goods on board which can be considered as contraband of war when they are destined for the belligerent powers, or their subjects, or already belong to them; so have we, the King, in order to prevent our flag being misused to cover or protect such carrying of contraband articles, and in order that no one in this respect shall, excuse himself on the ground of ignorance, hereby and expressly decided what should be classed under the denomination of contraband of war. Hereafter the following articles and goods of all and every one our subject shall be considered as contraband of war: cannons, mortars, all kinds of weapons, pistols, bombs, grenades, cannon balls, and bullet guns, flint stones, fusees and tinder, gunpowder, saltpetre, sulphur, cutlasses, pikes, swords, fittings, cartouche boxes, saddles, and bridles; however, with the exception of such quantities of these articles as may be requisite for the protection of the ship or of its crew.

Besides, one must in every respect conform to all special stipulations or positive contracts which we, the King, have agreed to with foreign powers in relation to the carrying of prohibited goods and properties in our subjects’ ships, in which case the owner on receiving the pass will be furnished with special instructions for his guidance.

Art. XIV. Should a ship bound for a foreign port take in such goods which, if they were destined for any of the harbors or ports of the belligerent powers, would be considered as contraband of war, in addition to the oath which the owner and shipmaster would have to take before the proper magistrate or authority, the persons who load such ships and the master shall also be bound, in conformity with the invoice of the cargo or bills of lading, to draw up, besides the ordinarily required custom clearance, a special declaration which shall contain a classification of the merchandise in question, with their qualities of value, which declaration, signed by the shipper and master, shall be certified by the custom-house authorities at the place where the clearance is given. The declaration thus attested shall, without delay, after the clearance of the ship, be sent by our custom officials to the chief commissioners of customs, and shall serve to control the correct arrival of the specified goods at their specified destination, provided they have not been lost by accident at sea or by capture. The control shall be carried out in the following manner: The shipper of the goods in question shall procure a certificate from our consul or commercial agent at the place to which the ship is bound, or when we have no consul or commercial agent there, a certificate from the lawfully authorized local authorities certifying the due arrival and discharge of the merchandise in conformity with the declaration. This certificate shall be procured and sent in to the home office as soon as the ship arrives at its destination or reaches some home port. Should the certificate not be forthcoming in a reasonable time proportionate to the length of the journey, our home office shall demand a declaration from the shipper to the effect that he declares on oath that he has received no information about the goods or the ship. Should the arrival of the ship and the discharge of the goods in question in a neutral port not be clearly proved, and no accident or violent capture have taken place to prevent the arrival and discharge, the shipper shall pay to the treasury a fine of 20 rix dollars for every commercial last of the ship’s burden; besides both owner and master shall be liable to an action at law.

Art. XV. No shipmaster shall sail to any port blockaded from the sea-side by one of the belligerent powers, and he shall in every respect carefully pay attention and conform to the warnings communicated to him by the authorities relative to the blockade of ports. In case he, on sailing into any port, (the blockade of which has not previously been brought to his knowledge,) meets any ship carrying a flag of war of any of the belligerent powers, and it is notified to him by the commanders that the port is really blockaded, he shall immediately retire from it without in any way seeking clandestinely to break the blockade.

Art. XVI. None of our subjects shall take service on board privateers, much less themselves arm or be interested in the arming of such ships; neither shall any owner or shipmaster allow his ship to be used for the transport of troops, weapons, or contraband of war, of whatsoever description. Should any shipmaster be unable to prevent his ship (through irresistible force) being misused as above mentioned, it shall, notwithstanding, be his duty to protest, and with all his power and by a formal act, against such violent proceeding which he has been unable to obviate.

Art. XVII. When a merchantman, not sailing under convoy, is spoken with at sea by any armed vessel belonging to the belligerent powers who have the right of visitation, the shipmaster shall not oppose such visitation, if effected by the commander of such above-mentioned armed ship, but is bound on the contrary faithfully and without reserve to show all the documents appertaining to ship and cargo. Both the shipmaster, his officers and crew, are strictly forbidden to throw overboard or in any other way to destroy or conceal any documents or papers on board belonging to the ship or cargo, either before the visitation or whilst it takes place. When the protection of our flag of war is granted to merchandise, every shipmaster, before he is taken under convoy, shall exhibit his ship’s papers to the chief of the convoy, and in every case most carefully conform to his orders.

Art. XVIII. Should any one, be he owner or master, act in contravention to these enactments, he shall lose his citizenship, and the right to own or command ships; moreover, he shall be prosecuted according to law, and according to circumstances be punished either for perjury or for having infringed our royal mandates. On the other hand, we will cause to be respected and protect the lawful enterprises by land and sea of our faithful subjects, so long as they conform to the foregoing rules and regulations, to which end we have enjoined and ordered all our ministers and consuls, and other authorities in foreign parts to endeavor to their utmost to ward off and prevent any inconvenience or violence being suffered by our subjects, and in case such should have occurred, then to aid the injured parties and endeavor to assist them to obtain justice and compensation. Likewise we, the King, will at all times graciously give our support to every just complaint which our subjects in the above respects may feel themselves called upon to lay before us.

The royal department of foreign affairs has announced to this chancery that, under date of the 30th of last month, it has pleased his Majesty the King graciously to resolve that it shall not be allowed to any privateer, of whatever nation, to remain in any Danish harbors or waters.

Only in case that such privateers, forced by pressing danger of storms, bad weather, or that pursuit by the enemy occasion dangers, seek refuge in a Danish port, then they shall be received and receive such help as humanity may dictate, but they shall be bound, immediately the danger is over, to put to sea again. Neither shall any privateer be permitted to send his prizes to Denmark, or to sell them there; and in the last-mentioned case, when privateers, forced by necessity, seek refuge in Danish ports, they shall neither unload nor load prizes they may bring with them, neither shall they sell these or their cargoes or any part of them in Danish harbors.

To this end it shall by public notice be stringently forbidden to all his Majesty’s subjects to buy foreign privateers’ prizes. When foreign men-of-war run into Danish harbors they may be obliged to bring the prizes they may have taken with them, and shall neither unload nor load them, or sell them, wholly or partly, them or their cargoes.

In communicating this royal resolution, we will beg you kindly to communicate its contents to all the officials within your jurisdiction, that they may take cognizance of the same, and make known to all and every one that they are stringently forbidden to purchase prizes brought in by foreign privateers.

Certified by the expediting secretary in the ministry of justice, March 26, 1867.

Instructions for the guidance of commanders of Danish ships of war during the Crimean war.

1. At the station at which you are placed it is your duty, with the ship under your command, in the best manner to preserve good order on the coast and in the roads and harbors, to take measures that trade and navigation is carried on in its usual uninterrupted manner, without suffering molestations from the men-of-war who may be on the spot.

It is desirable that foreign men-of-war should always find Danish men-of-war in their neighborhood, whenever they appear in our waters, and you will therefore, as soon as you ascertain that foreign ships of war are in the waters of your station, approach them and follow their movements. The ship under your command should properly be considered as a guard-ship in the station, for which reason you will also, when at anchor, fire off watch signals, &c.

2. You must show foreign men-of-war, of whatever nation they may be, with which you may come in contact, all possible attention and politeness, but you must abstain in every manner from giving them assistance, except such as humanity may call for, especially you must not assist them in their navigation, by procuring for them local pilots or by other nautical assistance.

3. In case where foreign men-of-war have communication with land, you will give over the keeping of order on shore to the proper police authorities or harbor officials, but you shall in word and deed render assistance everywhere where it may be required, and where conflicts may arise either by reason of misunderstandings, want of knowledge of the language on the part of the one side or the other, or on account of possibly exaggerated claims on the part of the foreign ships. You shall in these cases come forward as mediator to clear up matters, and indeed act as a reconciliator, but be at the same time decided and serious everywhere where the question is to keep up or make good the right of the King’s subjects and the neutrality of the Danish territory.

4. The Danish territory extends one Danish mile from the terra firma of the King’s country, (see the circular from the ministry of August 18, 1810;) excepted herefrom, however, is the sound at Kronborg and the Elbe at Glückstadt, where Danish territory only stretches a cannon shot from land, or 3,000 ells.

Danish mile =5 English miles.

2,000 yards.

5. It is the will of his Majesty the King that the ships of all nations shall be under the protection of Denmark when in Danish territory and within its territorial limits, within which the Danish neutral rights must be maintained, so that the bringing up or visiting of ships, be they belligerent, neutral, or national, shall not be permitted within these territorial limits.

6. The bringing of prizes into Danish ports is forbidden. When prizes are anchored in open roads or off the coast of the Danish territory, it must be supposed that this occurs only from the force of circumstances; but you shall then request the bringer up or prize-master to take away the prize as soon as possible, and you must watch with care that nothing is sold or brought on shore or landed from the prize whilst it remains in Danish waters or territories.

The necessary warning in this respect shall be given in these cases as soon as possible to the proper authorities on shore.

7. If a ship of war or merchantman flying before an enemy seeks refuge in Danish territory, it is your duty to take it under your protection. It is to be hoped that a warning to the pursuing man-of-war (preferably by sending a boat with an officer on board, or, if necessary, by a warning signal) will be sufficient to ward off such a breach of neutrality; but should, contrary to expectation, a seizure or bringing up take place in Danish territory, you have then only, by a protest framed in a decided but serious and polite tone, to make known to the commander of the foreign man-of-war that he has committed a breach of Danish neutrality and territorial rights.

You will thereupon, as soon as possible, report to your government what has taken place, and send a copy of the protest, together with a statement of the name of the ship and its commander, &c., &c.

8. When foreign ships of war wish to run into harbors within the limits of your station, you will watch that the ship conforms to the rules of the harbor, both as regards the local or general regulations, such, for instance, as discharging of gunpowder, putting out fires, &c., &c.

9. Privateers shall not be suffered within Danish territories, and still less shall they be permitted to run into any Danish harbor except in case of distress. It must then be stringently looked to that they deliver up gunpowder and weapons, and in every case conform to the police regulations of the harbor. Their stay in harbor shall not be suffered longer than absolutely necessary for their repairs.

If privateers should bring prizes into Danish territory they shall be immediately sent back.

Privateers on refusing to comply with these orders in Danish territory, necessary force shall be applied to enforce compliance; but you must, before you have recourse to force, carefully convince yourself that the vessel in question is really a privateer and not a man-of-war, and if you consider it necessary you may, for this purpose, demand to see the commander’s commission or patent.

10. Outside of the Danish territory the sea must be considered as open water, on which account you will look upon every act of belligerent ships taking place outside of our territories as not concerning you.

Should, however, foreign men-of-war, in open waters, but within sight of you, overhaul Danish merchantmen, you must try and obtain permission for such vessels to proceed on their course, but in these cases you can only come forward as mediator. If the foreign inspecting man-of-war declares it to be his duty to bring up such vessels, and that this takes place on account of the ship being loaded with contraband of war bound for one of the belligerent’s harbors, you cannot oppose it, but can only, as soon as possible, report the case to the proper government department. Should, contrary to expectation, a foreign man-of-war in your vicinity attempt to molest a Danish merchantman, for instance, by taking his crew, merchandise, provisions, or ship’s space, or by attempting forcibly to take possession of the ship for his own purposes, such as the transport of sick or of booty, you must declare that, as you consider yourself bound to protect your countrymen’s liberty and right to unhindered sailing on the sea, (a right which can only be limited by those general hindrances applying to all nations’ ships in time of war,) it is your duty, on behalf of Danish vessels, seriously and earnestly to protest against every act which exceeds these limits.

Should this remonstrance not be attended to, you will at once make a formal protest against the proceedings of such foreign man-of-war, in which protest you will, besides giving notice that you consider that his mode of procedure is unauthorized, and a breach of Denmark’s recognized neutrality, hold him responsible for the consequences of such an act. In every case the master or owner of the merchantman shall receive full compensation and indemnity for the loss of property or time occasioned thereby. You will protect Danish trade everywhere, and in every case against privateers, and, if necessary, use force.

The object of these present instructions is to give you decided rules for your guidance in certain cases; but the department has likewise hereby intended to give you a clue for action in all possible unforeseen contingencies, in which it will be your duty to act with tact and care, together with gravity and decision. As a rule for such unforeseen cases, the department advise you the strictest neutrality, by abstaining from any sign of partiality for either the one or the other belligerent, be it either by word or deed. You must take care to have respected the Danish neutrality rights and the keeping of good order within the territories, showing every external sign of politeness and consideration in conformity with what the usages of ships of war require or call for.

Translation of section 76 of the penal code of the 10th February, 1866.

Whoever recruits men for foreign service, without the King’s permission, while the country is at war, shall suffer the punishment of hard labor six years or less: if in time of peace, the penalty shall be two months’ imprisonment, or two years of hard labor.

Any subject who enlists in time of war, without royal permission, in the service of a foreign power not at war with Denmark, is liable to imprisonment or hard labor for one year or less, according to the nature of the case.

The act of recruiting is consummated by the person’s accepting foreign service.

France.—No. I.

(Received from her Majesty’s embassy at Paris.)

Report from Mr. Treitt, counsel to the embassy.

[Translation.]

Paris, February 20, 1867.

Mr. Minister: In your letter of the 16th February, 1867, you ask about the laws, regulations, and other means used by the French government to prevent violations of neutrality by its subjects, on French territory.

Articles 84 and 85 of the penal code are the only regulations on the subject. They are as follows:

“Article 84. Whoever exposes the state to a declaration of war, by hostile acts not approved by the government, shall be punished by banishment, and, if war ensues, by deportation.

“Art. 85. Whoever exposes Frenchmen to reprisals, through acts not approved by the government, shall suffer banishment.”

You will observe the generality of the expressions whoever and hostile acts; the words are not defined; their interpretation is left to courts of justice.

Articles 84 and 85 of the penal code do not refer to machinations and maneuvers for the benefit of a foreign power, with the intention to provoke hostilities. Such machinations, practiced with a criminal intention and purpose, come within the province of treason, and are to be corrected by articles 76 to 83 of the same code. Articles 84 and 85 apply only to cases of imprudence, rashness, or negligence; it is less the intention than the material fact that is punished. The law looks only to the result; thus:

“Was France exposed to a declaration of war, and was war declared? Were Frenchmen exposed to reprisals?” The affirmative of these questions calls for the severest penalty of the law, as well as the payment of damages claimed.

Even death was proposed as a penalty in severe cases; but legislators agreed that transportation would be severe enough to restrain subjects from violation of neutrality toward belligerents. (See report of State Council, 9th January, 1810.)

In the application of articles 84 and 85 of the penal code three conditions are required: 1st. The act must be hostile; 2d. It must be without the consent of the government; 3d. France must have been exposed to a declaration of war, or Frenchmen exposed to reprisals.

I merely mention these three circumstances which are to be decided by courts of justice. If the judges decide that a certain act is not hostile, and does not violate neutrality, the government must respect that decision, and make it known to the complaining belligerent. If the accused alleges a tacit or express approbation of the government, he cannot be punished for his act.

In fine, if the hostile act does not cause reprisals or war, it is not considered criminal.

These articles relieve government greatly from the responsibility towards belligerents; but they serve, as an illustrious judge has said, to protect the morality and dignity of the nation.

In ancient times the guilty, or even the suspected, were given up to the vengeance of the complaining party; this is not done now, yet the complaints are satisfied. Such is the principle of articles 84 and 85; for without them satisfaction could not be easily given, and war would be inevitable, as a final argument.

There are but three noted prosecutions in court reports, under articles 84 and 85 of the penal code:

In 1824 a French captain, commanding a Colombian vessel, captured a Sardinian ship and exposed Frenchmen to reprisals.

In 1831 border residents attacked a Sardinian custom-house.

In 1834 some bankers effected a loan and furnished munitions of war to Don Carlos, who was fighting against the Spanish government.

We must not be surprised at the scarcity of these cases, for acts in violation of neutrality generally consist in the delivery of war implements and munitions. Now, as arms and munitions are not articles of trade in France, and are carefully watched by the government, it is hard to arm vessels or trade in munitions of war without the knowledge or consent of the government.

Articles 84 and 85 are the only laws against violations of neutrality that I can find in French legislation. I have examined the laws on maritime prizes, piracy, and the slave trade, and have found nothing else in relation to violation of neutrality. We must not confound this question with general rules in France, and with the law of nations on neutrality.

It has been rightly said that a serious hostile act may not bring on war between two countries at peace, when often a simple act may cause difficulties, if the two nations have hostile feelings towards each other.

The result of penal suits, therefore, must fix the meaning of articles 84 and 85, contrary to the received opinions that the intention makes the crime.

Other nations have like provisions in their penal laws: article 136 of the Prussian code punishes subjects who expose their fellows to reprisals; and article 37 of the Brazilian code punishes, with imprisonment of 1 to 12 years, whomsoever endangers the peace of the country and exposes Brazilians to reprisals. Treason there, as in France, meets the severest penalty.

Yours, &c.,

TREITT.

Hon. Julian Fane, Her Britannic Majesty’s Minister at Paris.

[Translation.]

Mr. Minister: In compliance with the request in your letter of yesterday, I send you the laws of the French government on neutrality, enacted the 10th of June, 1861.

I did not give them in my letter of the 20th February, because at that time no law, except the marine ordinance of 1681, related to neutrality, and I had to be brief to be intelligible. Those are the reasons why I only cited articles 84 and 85 of the penal code, that include all cases of violation of neutrality. Neither did I mention the declaration of neutrality of the 10th June, 1861, because it was officially announced to your government.

The facts about the Olinde, the Bappahannock, and other southern privateers, have come to light in Lord Cowper’s correspondence; they were noticed in the public papers, and I supposed them well known in the foreign office.

I will hunt up the history of the privateers that are charged to France, whether they were finished, were in course of construction, or had gone out to cruise.

I will let you know as soon as I find out about them; I must say to you, however, that they made no noise, and are now nearly forgotten.

The neutral declaration of the 10th June, 1861, allows privateers to remain 24 hours in French ports. Several powers declared, during the Crimean war in 1854, that no belligerent privateers would be admitted into their ports, unless in cases of absolute necessity.

That shows the progress of civilization till privateering is totally abolished. Yours, &c.,

TREITT.

Hon. Julian Fane, British Minister.

France.—No. II.

(Received from her Majesty’s embassy at Paris.)

[Translation.]

Mr. de Moustier, minister of foreign affairs, to Mr. Fane.

Paris, February 26, 1867.

Sir: In your letter of the 16th instant, you ask for the French laws and regulations about acts that might be regarded as violations of neutrality by belligerents, for the instruction of the Queen’s commission, appointed to collect information on the subject. Properly speaking, there is no French law or regulation defining neutrality between foreign belligerent powers; questions of that nature being mixed, are to be determined by the general principles of international law. Articles 84 and 85 of the penal code punish individual acts that provoke a declaration of war, or expose Frenchmen to reprisals; and article 21 of the Code Napoleon forbids Frenchmen from taking foreign service without permission.

We may quote article 3 of the law of the 10th of April, 1825, which treats as a pirate every Frenchman who accepts a commission as commander of a privateer from a foreign power.

We also cite article 67 of the commercial regulations of the 24th March, 1852, interdicting all French seamen from accepting foreign service, without permission; and certain paragraphs of articles 313, 314, and 315 of the code of military justice for the navy, about desertion abroad.

The ordinance of the 12th July, 1847, and the law of the 14th July, 1860, about war materials, is pertinent; and article 2 of the law of the 16th May, 1863, prohibiting the export of such articles.

I inclose you the texts of these laws.

Yours, &c,.

MOUSTIER.

Mr. Julian Fane.

No. 13715.—Royal ordinance in relation to the manufacture of arms and ammunition for trading vessels.

Neuilly, July 12, 1847.

Louis Philippe, King of the French, to all present and to come, greeting:

In view of the laws of the 22d August, 1791; 4 Germinal, year II; 19 Thermidor, year IV; 24th May, 1834, and 6th May, 1841; on the report of our minister of marine and colonies, and our state council consulted, we have decreed, and do decree, as follows:

Article 1. According to article 3 of the law of the 24th May, 1834, every person who desires to make fire-arms for trading ships must get permission from our minister of war for light arms, and from our minister of marine and colonies for cannon and ammunition. The petition must specify the quantity, kind and caliber of the arms, and the kind of ammunition to be made. Masters of founderies shall annex the drawings of the cannon they propose to cast, a model of the mould, and a sample of the material, to their petition.

Art. 2. After permission is obtained notice of it shall be given to the prefect of the department where the foundery or workshop is situated, in which the arms are to be made.

Art. 3. Arms and munitions of war intended for trading vessels shall not go out of the shop, nor be exported, without a permit from the prefect of the department; and carriers shall show this permit when-required to do so.

Art. 4. On the arrival of such arms at their port of destination, they shall be stored in a public warehouse, in charge of a proper officer.

Art. 5. Before sold they shall be tested, according to instructions from the secretary of war, or secretary of the navy and colonies, according to the kind of arm.

Art. 6. The officer testing them shall decide whether they are to be accepted or not. If rejected, a certificate to that effect shall be given to the maker, who may appeal to the minister for a final decision.

Art. 7. The makers shall pay all cost in these proceedings. The expenses of artillery officers who make the test shall be paid by the government.

Art. 8. No arm shall be taken from the storehouse except by a permit from a naval officer; and the maker or his agent shall state the names of the freighters of the vessels that are to take them. A copy of this permit shall be sent by the officer to the collector of the port where the vessels are loaded.

Art. 9. Cartridges and other munitions of war shall be stored as mentioned in article 4, and must be put on board when the vessel is ready to start, under conditions to be mentioned hereafter.

Art. 10. An officer of the navy at the freighting port shall issue the permit to load trading vessels with arms; and the permit shall specify the quantity of arms and the probable length of the voyage.

Art. 11. The presiding officer shall see that the arms are not too many for the size of the vessel and number of the crew; and shall see that the cannons be mounted.

Art. 12. The freighters shall sign a bond before the collector of the port, to give a true account of arms and munitions that pass through their hands, by exhibiting all the papers in relation to them; and this obligation may be canceled by the collector on the return of the vessel from the voyage; and the number, kind, caliber, and value of the arms and munitions embarked, must be set down on the crew-list of the vessel.

Art. 13. When the ship is disarmed its armament shall return to the stores mentioned in article 4; yet the naval officer may allow the freighter to keep the cannon on board.

Art. 14. Every violation of article 12 shall be punished by laws against the export of arms and munitions of war. The custom-house collector is ordered to bring the suit.

Art. 15. Violations of the other articles of this decree shall be punished by the law of the 24th May, 1834.

Art. 16. Our ministers of war, navy, and finance are charged with the respective enforcement of this ordinance.

Done at Neuilly the 12th July, 1847.

LOUIS PHILIPPE.

By the King:

Montebello, Duke, Peer of France, and Minister of Marine and Colonies.

No. 7853.—Law in relation to the making and vending of fire-arms, of the 14th July, 1860.

Napoleon, by the grace of God and the national will Emperor of the French, to all present and to come, greeting: We hereby sanction and promulgate as follows:

[From the report of the Legislative Assembly.]

Title I.—The making and vending of fire-arms.

Article 1. Any person can make arms or trade in them, by permission of the secretary of war, under conditions specified in the laws and department regulations.

The arms or pieces of arms made in licensed establishments are intended solely for export, except those ordered by the secretary of war for state use.

Art. 2. War arms are those used by French or foreign soldiers; and every arm, large or small, that may be used in war, is called a war arm.

Boarding arms and trade arms are considered as war arms, and are subject to the same regulations.

Art. 3. The permit mentioned in article 1 cannot be recalled by the secretary, unless the maker or vender has violated articles 13, 14, and 15 of the present law, or the law of the 24th May, 1834, or has committed certain crimes and offenses, as in articles 86, 101, 209, 210, 211, 215, and 216 of the penal code; or against the law of the 7th June, 1848, concerning riots; or against articles 1 and 2 of the law of the 27th July, 1849; or against articles 1, 2, and 3 of the law of the 27th February, 1858.

Art. 4. Every licensed maker or vender must have a register, each leaf to be signed by the magistrate, containing daily accounts of the arms made, bought, or sold, where they are sent and to whom sold.

The mayor shall examine and certify this registry once a month, or in his default, the police commissary may do it.

Art. 5. The minister of war, or in case of necessity, generals of divisions, may dictate measures for the public interest or safety in relation to arms stored in their district.

Art. 6. All barrels of war guns, or those intended for export, must be tested, and stamped in proof of it. They shall also have an export stamp on them.

Title II.—Import, export, or transit of fire-arms.

Art. 7. No arms or parts of arms can be imported without a permit from the minister of war.

Art. 8. Especial provisions shall say where imported arms or parts of arms may be stored. These arms or parts of arms may be regulated by article 5, for public safety.

Art. 9. War arms, or parts of arms, may be exported on conditions specified by law or regulations. An imperial decree may forbid their export, for a certain time, over a particular frontier. Decrees shall say through what custom-house they may pass abroad. When the export to a certain place is forbidden, the exporters, under penalties specified in article 4, title III, of the law of 22d August, 1791, must show that the arms were sent to a lawful destination, by giving bonds, to be canceled at the customhouse whither they are sent, by French consular agents there.

Art. 10. A permit from the war department must be obtained for moving, sending from one place of storage to another, or re-exporting, all arms or pieces of arms. If their export to a certain place is prohibited, permits for that place, given before the prohibition, are of course void.

Art. 11. Lawful importation, exportation, or transit of arms, and their circulation on the frontier, are regulated by the custom-house laws.

Title III.—Penalties.

Art. 12. Whoever makes arms unlawfully, or trades in them without license, may be fined as much as 1,000 francs, and be imprisoned for one year or less.

Arms, or parts of arms, made or sold without license, are subject to confiscation, and the guilty may be put under guard for two years or less. In case of repetition, the penalty may be doubled.

Art. 13. The maker or trader who does not conform to article 4 of the present law may be fined 300 francs or less, and imprisoned three months. In case of repetition, this penalty may be doubled.

Art. 14. Every maker or trader who violates article 6 may be fined 300 francs, and his arms confiscated. In case of repetition, the penalty may be doubled.

Art. 15. Counterfeiting the proof or export stamp, or the use of such punches, may be punished by a fine of 3,000 francs or less, and imprisonment of five years.

Art. 16. Whoever takes and uses the true punches illegally, shall be fined as much as 500 francs, and imprisoned for two years.

Art. 17. Article 463 of the penal code applies to all the provisions of the present law.

Title IV.—General provisions.

Art. 18. The forms of petitions for license to make arms and trade in them are fixed by department regulations: the fees for testing and stamping; the transport inland; and the superintendence of the manufacture and sale of them.

Art. 19. The law of the 24th May, 1834, is not repealed, nor the laws and regulations concerning hunting, fancy, and prohibited arms.

Art. 20. All laws contrary to the present are hereby repealed. Done in public session, at Paris, on the 20th June, 1860.

COUNT MORNY, President.

Count Louis de Cambacérès,

Count Leopold Letton,

Count Joachim Murat, Secretaries.

Extract of the verbal process of the Senate.

The Senate is not opposed to the promulgation of the law concerning the manufacture and trade of fire-arms.

Discussed and voted upon in the session, the 30th of June, 1860, in the Palace of the Senate.

TROPLONG, President.

A. Laity,

Count de Grossolles,

Flamarens,

Baron T. de Lacrosse, Secretaries.

Seen and sealed with the seal of the Senate.

Baron T. de LACROSSE, Senator and Secretary.

Whereby we command and order that the present, authenticated with the seal of the state and inserted in the records of laws, be addressed to the courts, tribunals, and executive authorities, in order that they may be registered on their records, be observed, and caused to be observed; and our minister secretary of state of justice is charged to superintend the publication thereof.

Done in the Palace of St. Cloud the 14th July, 1860.

NAPOLEON.

By the Emperor:

Achille Fould, Minister of State.

Seen and sealed with the great seal.

DELANGLE, The Keeper of the Seals, Minister Secretary of State of Justice.

France.—No. III. (Received from her Majesty’s embassy at Paris.)

Report from Mr. Treitt, counsel to the embassy.

[Translation.]

Paris, March 3, 1867.

Sir: In compliance with the request in your letter of the 25th February, I sent you the French laws on neutrality; I now send you the particulars of six confederate privateers built in France.

On the 15th of April, 1863, a contract was made by James D. Bullock, confederate agent, with Mr. Arman, a ship-builder at Bordeaux and a member of the legislative assembly. It was not known that Mr. Bullock was acting for the confederate government at the time. The contract was to start a line of steamers between San Francisco and Shanghai, touching at Japan. Mr. Arman was to build four fast steamers, to carry 12 or 14 guns and 12 days’ coal. The guns were said to be to defend them against pirates, and the ships were to be exactly like the French sloops of war. Two of the steamers, of 1,550 tons and 400 horse-power each, were to be built at Bordeaux by Mr. Arman himself. Mr. Voruz, also a member of the national legislature, was to build the other two in his yards at Nantes. All four were to be ready in 10 months. One million eight hundred thousand francs were to be paid for each of the vessels in five installments. Mr. Bullock was to furnish artillery, arms, projectiles, and powder.

On the 16th of July, 1863, another contract was made by the same parties for two ironclad steam rams, with two turrets each, to be constructed on the same terms, at 2,000,000 of francs each. Their destination was not specified. Erlanger was Bullock’s banker.

Jollet and Babin, in Bordeaux, and Dubigeot & Son, in Nantes, began the construction of the vessels at the same time, and immediately. Mazeline & Co., of Havre, were to make the machinery. I name these persons because they will soon appear as defendants in a suit by the United States.

The vessels were soon finished, and Arman applied to the secretary of the navy, in accordance with the ordinance of the 12th July, 1847, for a permit to arm them with 14 cannons, to serve in the Pacific. The permit was given on the 6th of June, 1864; the ships at Nantes were launched in April. Now Mr. Dayton, the American minister, informs the cabinet that these vessels were intended for privateers. Inquiry was made, and on the 22d October Mr. Arman and Voruz were prohibited from arming the vessels.

The friends of the north justly apprehended that the vessels would get out somehow and hoist the confederate flag, just as the Alabama, the Georgia, the Florida, and the Rappahannock had done in England.

Here is what became of those six vessels: the Yeddo and Osaka, built at Bordeaux, were sold to Prussia; the Shanghai and San Francisco were sold to Peru; one of the rams, the Cheops, was sold to Prussia, and the other, the Sphinx, was sold to Denmark and taken to Copenhagen. I don’t know why the Danish government refused to receive it. It was then called the Olynde, furnished with Danish papers and crew, and taken back to Bordeaux. On the way, it stopped at the little island of Houat, not far from Quiberon, and took in coal, arms, and a confederate crew. The vessel then went to Corogne, Lisbon, the Azores, and Havana, where it fell into the hands of the Americans. Such is the story of those vessels. The Americans kept a constant eye on them, and France was not implicated, so there was no national quarrel about them. The Rappahannock got to Calais, and was there watched by the government; its damages are now charged to England.

Though the President of the United States did not complain of France, he brought suit against Arman, Voruz, Jollet, Babin, Dubigeot, Mazeline, Erlanger, and all who had a hand in the proposed privateers. He claims the sum of 2,880,000 francs, received on account of the vessels ordered. The suit is based on these articles of the Code Napoleon:

“Article 1376. He who receives by mistake or knowingly that which is not due to him, is bound to restore it to the party from whom he has unduly received it.

“Article 1382. Every action of man whatsoever, which occasions injury to another, binds him through whose fault it happened to reparation therefor.

“Article 1383. Every one is responsible for the damage of which he is the cause, not only by his own acts, but also by his negligence or by his imprudence.”

The first of these three articles treats of the right to reclaim what has been paid unduly. Now, as the contract between Arman and Bullock is null, by French law there was nothing due by it, and what was paid ought to be restored. The two other articles establish the principle of the right to damages with interest, by plaintiffs against defendants, for acts or neglects. Such will be the argument of the prosecution, not yet begun.

The French law allows defendants to require security for costs of suit of foreign plaintiffs, if they fail in obtaining judgment; and Arman & Co. have asked for a cost bond of 150,000 francs in this suit. The President offers only 5,000. The court insists on 150,000. The President appeals; the appeal court confirms the original sum demanded, and the President must deposit that sum before the suit can begin.

Yours, &c.,

TREITT.

Hon. Julian Fane, British Minister.

France.—No. IV.

Paris, December 4, 1867.

My Lord: I have the honor to transmit to your lordship a further report from M. Treitt on the subject of the action brought by the government of the United States in the French courts against persons concerned in equipping armed vessels for the so-called Confederate States.

I have the honor to be, &c.,

LYONS.

The Lord Stanley, M. P.

[Translation.]

Paris, December 3, 1867.

My Lord: On the 20th February and 13th March, 1867, I sent the French laws on the violation of neutrality to the foreign office, together with the account of the privateers which the southern States had armed, or tried to arm, during the secession war in America.

I announced at the same time that the United States were about suing several French ship-builders for the money they had received from southern agents, asking also damages and interest. The suit has already been instituted in the lower court of Paris, and will probably be tried next year.

Here is the substance of the argument for the United States:

When the war broke out between the north and the south, the French government proclaimed its neutrality by a publication in the Moniteur of the 10th June, 1861, forbidding Frenchmen to receive commissions or letters of marque for privateers from either party, or to take any part in equipping and arming a vessel of war or privateer for either belligerent.

Such violations were to be punished by articles 84 and 85 of the French penal code.

A similar declaration of neutrality had already been made by England.

Yet the Confederate States found men, both in England and France, ready to violate the laws of their country. The south sent Maury and Bullock to England, where they brought out the Alabama and Florida. Urged by the United States, the English government seized the Alexandra at Liverpool and the Pampero at Glasgow, and promised not to let two iron-clad rams, building in Liverpool, go out of their yards, thus shutting off the confederates from Great Britain. They then turned to France, and sought the aid of Mr. Lucien Arman, a wealthy ship-builder of Bordeaux, and a member of the legislative assembly.

The United States reproached this member for persuading the French government not to recognize the blockade of the southern ports, (see Moniteur, 13th February, 1863,) thus protecting his own interests with a veil pretending to be for the political and commercial interests of France.

In fact, Mr. Arman was at that time president of a, company to build war vessels for the southern States. The ships were reported to be for a line of steamers between San Francisco and Shanghai. Bullock made his contract with Arman on the 15th April, 1863. Arman was to build two vessels in 10 months, and have two others built by Voruz, also a member of the legislature, in the same space of time. The two first were to be made at Bordeaux; the other two at Nantes, or rather at St. Nazaire.

Bullock’s banker, Erlanger, signed as surety for the payments stipulated in the contract.

Arman is also accused of writing to the minister of marine on the 1st of June, 1863, for a permit to arm the vessels, telling him they were for a Pacific line, thus defrauding the government. The permit was obtained on the 6th June, 1863.

All this is proved by the United States through written evidence, amply corroborated. In a letter dated 12th June, 1863, Mr. Arman, moreover, offered to build six iron-clad floating batteries for the south, and to get a government permit to arm them in French waters.

The above facts were made known to Mr. Dayton, the American minister to France, by Mr. Bigelow, the consul, in September, 1863. Mr. Dayton communicated them to the government, and formally demanded a recall of the permit granted to Arman.

The effect of these communications on the French government may be seen in Mr. Dayton’s dispatches of the 11th and 12th September, 1863, to Mr. Seward.

In a correspondence between the minister of foreign affairs and the minister of the marine, the latter says “he can only refer to the declarations of Mr. Arman and Voruz, and cannot be responsible for any illegal acts they may commit.”

The French government instituted an inquiry, and Arman and his colleagues denied the facts, which were evident. On the 22d October, 1863, Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys wrote to Mr. Seward that Arman and Voruz were indignant at the charges made against them. The minister of marine withdrew the permit to arm the vessels building at Bordeaux and Nantes; yet Arman & Co. continued their operations.

In February, 1864, Arman introduced a resolution into the assembly to rescind the declaration of neutrality by the French government, but it was not adopted.

In a dispatch from Mr. Dayton to Mr. Seward, dated 14th February, 1864, the former says he regrets that Annan’s proposed resolution was not discussed, as it might have brought out all the circumstances connected with the construction of those privateers at Bordeaux and Nantes.

To avoid responsibility, Arman & Co. reported to the French government that two of the iron-clads had been sold to the Danish government, and Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys so informed Mr. Dayton on the 4th February, 1864. Mr. Dayton wrote to Copenhagen, and found this was not the fact.

In April, 1864, Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys told Mr. Dayton the same ships were sold to Sweden on the 15th April, 1864; but the Swedish minister of foreign affairs denied it in a letter to the United States minister in Stockholm.

On the 12th May, 1864, the Crown orator assured, in the assembly, that Annan’s vessels should not quit France “till proof was given that they were not to interfere with the belligerents in the United States,”

After this, the Yeddo and Osaka were sold and delivered to Prussia in June and July, 1864. The San Francisco and Shanghai at Nantes gave almost as much trouble as the others, but finally they were sold to Peru in 1865.

Voruz says he returned to Bullock all the advances he made after the vessels were sold to Peru.

Now, there were yet two iron-clad rams to be built by Arman, by his contract of 16th July, 1863. These were the two said to have been sold to Denmark and Sweden. Here is their brief history:

One was called the Sphynx. On the 31st March, 1864, Arnous Rivière, Arman’s agent, sold the Sphynx to the Danish government. The vessel was to be delivered on the 10th June, 1864, but it was not ready till the 20th October, when the Danish government refused to take it.

Arman, depending on the generosity of the Danish government, as he said, sent the Sphynx to Copenhagen under French colors. It changed its name there to the Stoer Kodder.

The Danish government, however, did not receive it, and it was taken back to France under Danish colors and papers, which were to be given up to the Danish consul in Bordeaux.

Mr. Arnous Rivière then took the vessel to the island of Houat, near the Quiberon peninsula. There the Stoer Kodder took the name of the Olinde, as a confederate war steamer. Mr. Dubigeon, of Nantes, sent coal out to it from Saint Nazaire, and an English steamer furnished it with arms and a crew. Captain Page took command. The crew was the same that belonged to the Florida.

After this the ram again changed names and took that of the Stonewall, and then went to Ferrol, in Spain.

All this took place in the month of January, 1865, without the knowledge of the French government.

France put the blame on Denmark for letting the vessel go out with Danish flag and papers.

The representative of the United States government tried to induce Spain to retain the Stonewall. It was suffered to go to Lisbon, but was soon sent away by that government. Two American gunboats, the Niagara and Sacramento, were on the lookout, and followed the Stonewall to Havana, where the Spanish authorities gave it over to the American agents. A correspondence on this subject took place between Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys and Mr. Bigelow. In a letter of the 10th February, 1855, Mr. Bigelow shows that the French minister of justice was cognizant of these facts, and Mr. Arnous Rivière did not deny them. He declared publicly that he was not guilty, and that he was ready for a suit at any time. He was not indicted.

The second ram, called the Cheops, was sold to Prussia. The French government undertook to inquire into the reality of this sale; for Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys “was unwilling to be caught again as in the case of the Stonewall,” as Mr. Bigelow remarked in a letter to Mr. Seward, on the 17th March, 1865. Such are the representations of the United States against French justice, and upon them is founded the suit against Arman, Voruz, Dubigeon, Erlanger, and others. The suit has two objects: 1. A claim of property. 2. A claim for damages.

The first claim is for the money paid by the so-called confederate agents to Arman & Co., and which they retain illegally. The second is for damages, by article 1382 of the Code Napoleon, caused in 1863, 1864, and 1865, by violation of the laws of neutrality, the law of nations, and special statutes of France. To justify its claim for the money paid to Arman & Co., the government at Washington says it is money taken from the treasury of the United States by rebels, in States where the federal authority has never ceased; that their acknowledgment as belligerents by France does not affect the federal right; that France made that acknowledgment only to sustain its dignity and neutrality. The money in Arman’s hands was paid by illegal contract, and consequently ought to be restored as the lawful property of the United States. This argument is sustained by quotations from the Constitution of the United States, from the Code Napoleon, from writings on the law of nations, from treaties, and many commentaries on the neutrality laws of different nations in former times. The United States contend that they have always observed neutrality, and mention the indemnity paid to English subjects in 1794 to substantiate the assertion. These subjects had suffered from French privateers that had been fitted out in the United States without the knowledge of the American government.

Other cases are cited by the counsel for the United States, to show how they have always respected neutrality. In 1853 they stopped the construction of vessels for Russia, before the war had begun; and in 1855 the Maury was detained on simple suspicion of fitting out for privateering.

The United States then show that the acts of Arman & Co. were illegal, contrary to the law of nations, and against the laws of France. So there is no doubt that the money paid to Arman on illegal contracts is wrongfully detained, and ought to be given up to the United States, particularly as Mr. Arman and his colleagues must know that, by articles 549 and 550 of the Code Napoleon, the holder of property in bad faith is bound to restore it to the lawful owner. It is for these reasons that the United States claim of Arman & Co. not only the sums paid, but interest from the time the money was deposited in France.

In the second place, the United States claim 2,800,000 francs damage from Arman & Co. This demand is founded on article 1383 of the Code Napoleon, which says: “Every action of man whatsoever which occasions injury to another, binds him through whose fault it happened to reparation thereof.”

Here is the statement of the damage to the United States: Arman & Co., enjoying an official position in the political world, pretended to act with the secret consent of the French government, thus giving hope of French intervention to the rebels of the southern States.

The armaments prepared in France paralyzed American commerce to such an extent that northern shippers had to denationalize their vessels to save them from privateers fitted out in England and France; 715 vessels thus changed flags during the rebellion. (See letter of Mr. Seward to Mr. Bigelow, dated March 15, 1865.)

Arman & Co. were partly the cause of these apprehensions, causing a real decrease and consequent injury to American commerce, and of course they owe reparation for it.

The United States allege that 2,800,000 francs is but a small sum compared to the claims against England.

Such is the substance of the suit of the government at Washington against French ship-builders and freighters. I get them from the papers of the lawyers for the United States.

I do not know what defense Arman & Co. will make; it is thought they will except to the competency of French courts in a matter so entirely political. It is also supposed they will allege that if they have violated French laws the French government alone can call them to account for it.

That is all that is known about the defense. In the mean time I have thought proper to give you this synopsis of the prosecution, because there is a similar dispute about it between Great Britain and America.

This is a sequel to my former notes to the foreign office. I hope they will be found satisfactory.

TREITT.

His Excellency Lord Lyons, Ambassador of Her Britannic Majesty, Paris.

France.—No. V.

Extract from the Moniteur of April 5, 1868.

[Translation.]

Neutrals in the eastern war; a memorial read before the Academy of Sciences, by Drouyn de Lhuys, on the 4th April, 1868.

All of you remember the circumstances that brought about the war of 1854, in the east. The proud Prince Menchikoff’s mission to Constantinople, with its haughty demands, unmasked the Czar’s designs, and united the western powers against the imminent peril. France, already engaged in the discussion of the affairs of the Holy places, did not hesitate to declare the part that the powers of western Europe would take in them against the unexpected claims of the court of Russia. England bravely took position by our side; Austria, Prussia, and most of the European nations were interested in this threatened balance of power, and openly sympathized with the defenders of the common interest.

Soon the situation, at first shaded by diplomatic negotiations, became apparent. Russia passed from words to deeds, and seized a portion of the Ottoman territory, thus giving the alarm to all her friends.

Austria, seeing her frontier menaced, gathered together her troops, determined to sustain her protest by force of arms. The moderation of France and England in advising the Sultan not to consider the invasion of his territory as an act of war, might have averted the catastrophe had not the glimmer from the conflagration of the Turkish fleet, bombarded before Sinope, proclaimed the necessity of war. The allied powers then thought of their duty to save Europe. The dismemberment of Turkey would have been a menace to France and England.

We all remember the anxiety and excitement of those times. Petty national disputes were laid aside, and we all joined for the benefit of civilization and humanity. One of the first considerations was the conduct of the allies towards neutrals. Opinions on this subject were divergent, yet the importance of the cause demanded a previous settlement of the question.

The history of late times shows, by sanguinary testimony, how Great Britain and France differed in their conception of rights and duties of maritime powers in time of war. The dissentions of the two nations on that subject were exhibited in continual contests for the supremacy of rival legislation.

When the Crimean war was about to open the laws on neutrality were, in substance, as follows: Supported by the acknowledged right to cut off an enemy’s resources by the destruction of his sea-trade, but respecting a neutral flag, France considered it lawful to capture vessels of the enemy, with all the goods aboard, even those belonging to neutrals, while the property of enemies was not to be taken if found on vessels of friendly powers.

England, on the other hand, paid no attention to legal fictions, but assumed the right to search every vessel on the high seas, and confiscate the enemy’s goods found thereon, no matter what flag waved over them.

It was also the custom of Great Britain to prohibit neutrals, in time of war, from a trade that the belligerents reserved for their own subjects in times of peace, as the coast trade and colonial commerce.

This principle was established, first, at the commencement of the seven years’ war, and has been since continued by the English under the name of the rule of 1756. The English also had usages in blockade, against which we had always protested in our foreign wars. While proscribing paper blockades in theory, they declared blockades by a single ship. We remember that the continental blockade, the great trick at the beginning of this century, was provoked by outrages for which the British government had set the example.

Such were the discordant usages we were trying to reconcile. On the first of January, 1854, the French minister of foreign affairs mentioned to the British minister in Paris the importance of settling a question of such moment to neutrals.

To do that, he said, no absolute principles could be determined, for the principles of each nation were so strenuously maintained that a positive agreement could never be effected. Theories were to be kept, but a common practice must be established. Now this could only be done on the condition that neither nation would make use of practices condemned by the other, while the war lasted. Each party could abstain from enforcing rights arrogated to themselves, without harm; whereas, neither could exercise privileges deemed illegal by the other party, without contention.

Such a compromise left doctrines whole, principles intact, and gave no umbrage. Gratefully accepted by neutrals, it suited the interests and liberal intentions of the allies.

This language, while it implied a relinquishment on our part of some privileges claimed by our navy, still harmonized with our national traditions that favored neutral rights and freedom of the seas. We were prompted to do this by the peculiar situation of affairs. The greater part of Europe lauded the fact of France and England marching to the aid of an oppressed ally, and this sentiment was a help to the two nations, giving hopes of more substantial aid in future. One of the happy consequences of this attitude was, it allowed them to declare the alliance open to other nations, who might feel a general interest in the common welfare, on the same terms they had accepted.

We all know what weight the opinion of neutral powers had in that war, and how much general sympathy of some, and adhesion of others, placed France and England foremost, and secured the success of their arms. The German courts especially did much good by their resolutions on the progress of events. When the crisis began, Germany was too submissive to our mighty adversary to declare against him openly. We had to temporize with her as well as with all the Scandinavian nations, whose geographical positions were of the utmost importance to us. Stockholm and Copenhagen were still attracted towards Petersburg by the recollection of the armed neutrality in 1780 and 1800. Those acts had been suggested by Russian policy, and if we again provoked them, might we not arouse the same resistance and force them to side with our enemy?

The United States of America gave us the same cause of uneasiness. Russia courted their favor, and agreed with them in the interpretation of maritime laws. The great power of the New World had always sustained the rights of neutral flags; so we could not oppose this, and give her an excuse for turning against us.

England was not insensible to these considerations; but she insisted that she could not give up the observance of the inviolable rules of her old maritime law.

In the mean time Denmark and Sweden had given official notice of their intention to remain neutral in case of war. The minister of foreign affairs, writing to London about that communication, used it to induce the British cabinet to solve the questions it contained. On the 4th of January, 1854, he wrote to our ambassador as follows: “Try to find out what the English government is going to do about neutrals. We have always differed from England on that subject; and I have reason to think, from what I have seen in the papers, that merchants would not like to see the old English law applied in all its rigor. Without open discussion, I beg you will collect what information you can on the subject, and find out what England expects of Denmark and Sweden in regard to neutrality. Lord Clarendon knows that Russia is much displeased with those two powers, particularly with Sweden, for her declaration of neutrality. This is another reason to believe in the sincerity of the cabinets at Copenhagen and Stockholm, and a good reason why we should not increase the embarrassment of their position by too great exactions.”

On the 12th of January again wrote to London, inclosing a copy of the dispatch which he proposed to send to Stockholm and Copenhagen: “I hope Lord Clarendon’s answer will satisfy Sweden and Denmark in regard to their neutrality. I know England will adhere to her old maritime laws; but I hope she will try to agree with us in practice, if war breaks out. It will be the best method to secure the sympathy of those two courts, particularly as they have no very good feeling for Russia. Though this independence is a power to St. Petersburg, the court there does not consider it such. We must not watch too closely the trade from Sweden and Denmark to Russia, lest we disturb relations that are now entirely satisfactory. I know that Sweden confidently expects free trade under a neutral flag.”

What particularly disturbed England was to see America incline to our enemy, with a prospect of aid with hardy volunteers. The seafaring people of the United States, with their strong navy, might furnish Russia with privateers, to cover the sea and disturb our commerce in its most distant corners. To avoid this, London had to flatter the federal government. It determined to propose to all maritime nations the abolition of privateering, and to treat every vessel cruising with letters of marque in time of war as a pirate.

This project, though afterwards abandoned, shows how concerned the English were about it. We agreed with them in holding that privateering was a barbarous practice for gain, masked by the pretext of patriotism. In former times it gave some heroic names to history; but we want no such materials for history now. It is no longer compatible with the uses of civilized nations that do not allow rights of war to individuals, but reserve them alone for regularly constituted nations.

If we had less to lose than England in this contract, it was not from ambition, but from necessity. To reconcile two different practices, extreme indulgence was necessary. It was not simply a question of interest and convenience, but a logical law. England could not ask us to adopt a law we had always condemned. We might have replied: If we must agree, you must consent to seize neutral goods under hostile flags, as we do. Then they would have answered: But we hold that neutral goods are inviolable everywhere, and under all circumstances; we have proclaimed this a thousand times; and now, just to agree with you, we cannot assume a right which we have always condemned.

The friendly relations with our allies, increasing daily, authorized usto press our propositions. While this subject was in discussion, the two governments showed their mutual friendship by instructing their diplomatic and consular agents, their colonial governors and their naval officers, to extend reciprocal protection alike to English and French in every part of the world. Thus, to the world, the English and French flags were united, and this only rendered concerted action more urgent. The anxiety of private interests, the pressure of public opinion, the needs of commerce, required an end to uncertainty. The matter was discussed in the British Parliament the latter part of February. One of the Crown ministers stated that the Queen would publish her intentions towards neutrals before war was declared, and the French minister wrote to our ambassador, on the 1st of March, as follows:

“I hope England will not decide on this matter without consulting us. It would look bad for two countries, united in one war, to differ in theory and agree in practice. Please call Lord Clarendon’s attention to this. I think it would be well to instruct our naval commanders how to act towards neutrals in the Black and Baltic seas, without declaring any specific law on the subject, to frighten those who did not understand it. In this way France and England would reserve their particular doctrines, and agree in practice, that might be altered according to circumstances.”

To the above dispatch, containing the conversation between the minister of foreign affairs and the English ambassador in Paris, the British government replied that Crown lawyers had been consulted, and a decision would soon be rendered, but certainly not before consulting the government of the Emperor. It was hoped some general principles could be agreed upon, and similar instructions given to the naval officers of each nation.

Several days after, on the 4th of March, Lord Cowley told the minister of foreign affairs in Paris that his government would confine search on the high seas to ascertaining the nationality of the vessel and seeing that there were no contraband goods nor hostile correspondence on board. He admitted that neutral flags protected hostile goods, and that neutral goods were safe under hostile flags. He also declared that no letters of marque should be issued, and that all subjects caught with them should be treated as pirates.

This document, considerably modified before it was sent to Paris, contained important concessions. It was new for England to agree to respect hostile goods under neutral flags. This was to conciliate neutral powers, whose flags had been so often insulted by its privateers in late wars, and to smooth over the vexatious right of search, that had been the terror of non-belligerents of all nations. Still we wished to close the door that was left open to too much abuse, and we demanded greater security for neutrals.

After a discussion of the subject by the French minister and British ambassador, the modified declaration was sent back to London on the 20th of March.

“This project (wrote the minister) has been carefully prepared by Lord Cowley and myself. I have sent it to the minister of marine for his opinion on it. I think we will have to agree upon a declaration applicable only to this war, agreeing in action but differing in doctrine, and one that will not compromise neutrals.”

On the 24th of March the minister of foreign affairs wrote to Count Walewski, our ambassador in London, as follows: “Lord Cowley’s observations on a declaration in relation to neutrality, sent to you on the 20th, merits a criticism, which I will now make.

“If the English government wants its declaration to say ‘that it reserves the application of such or such principle,’ or ‘that it renounces for the present the exercise of such and such a right,’ thus showing the principle to be recognized and the right claimed, two declarations will be necessary, similar in doctrine but differing in form. The French government cannot say ‘it renounces the exercise of a right’ it never claimed; nor ‘that it reserves the application of a principle’ it has always refused to recognize. This is a mere question of form; what is of real importance is the agreement on some practical rule for our conduct in this war.

“I now pass to two important points, to which I beg you to call Lord Clarendon’s attention.

“The first relates to neutral goods seized on board hostile ships. The project I sent you declares they shall not be confiscated. That is a serious question for the French government. In fact, it is feared that hostile goods or hostile vessels may be transported without risk by means of forged neutral papers; and as French laws confiscate hostile vessels and their neutral goods, a new law would be necessary to deprive seamen of their prize-money coming chiefly from that source. I shall have to consult the minister of the marine about it, and this I cannot do until I learn the definite intentions of the British cabinet.

“The English government seems to insist that the proposed declaration shall forbid neutrals, in war time, from engaging in colonial or coast trade, if they are reserved during peace.

“It is hardly necessary to remind you how persistent the French government has always been in sustaining the remonstrances of neutral nations against the adoption of that rule. France is therefore bound by historic precedents, as well as by treaties with other nations, in which she promised to allow all ships to trade freely in time of war, even between hostile ports. How could we now agree to a provision refusing neutrals a right we have always claimed for them, and which we have solemnly proclaimed in our treaties?

“I only mention cursorily the interest that this question has for France, and the consequences of the adoption of the proposed regulation. England, that always admits foreign flags to participate in colonial and coast trade, has nothing to dread from the application of this principle; but France, that reserves such trade for her national vessels, may eventually suffer from its application.

“I question if the insertion of such a principle in the declaration would be of benefit in this war. In peace times, Russia reserves colonial and coast trade; but in the Baltic the coast trade has so few ports that they could be completely closed by blockade. The same may be said of the Black Sea ports, now controlled by the combined fleet. As to trade in Russian America, now monopolized by a company, if it should be held by vessels of the United States it might arouse serious disputes with France; for, in her treaty of 1778, with the United States, she allows neutrals to trade at reserved ports in war time.

“I am pleased to see that England has done much to accord with the French doctrines, and you may assure Lord Clarendon that we are willing for a mutual compromise. We have given a proof of it in the question of neutral goods on hostile vessels; but I am sure Lord Clarendon will not expect us to allow neutrals to trade at reserved ports. The English government, considering the proposition as founded upon the law of nations, may readily renounce it without injury to its system, while France cannot make a rule which she cannot apply without violation of her principles.

“I beg you will place these remarks before Lord Clarendon. I hope they will induce him to leave out of the English declaration a rule that France cannot put in hers. Both nations, up to this time, have endeavored to agree, and it is to be hoped that minor questions will not now disturb their unanimity. If the two countries cannot adopt the same principles on certain points, they should avoid proclaiming different ones.

“Please let me know, as soon as convenient, the result of your conference with Lord Clarendon on this subject.”

The tender points touched upon in this dispatch made England hesitate.

On the 26th of March, the minister of foreign affairs telegraphed to Count Walewski thus: “Insist upon the serious inconsistency of discordant declarations that would spread doubt of a good understanding between the two countries; would alarm neutrals, and would cause inevitable conflicts between commanders. If Lord Clarendon accepts the principle of a joint declaration with separate minute instructions, ask him to communicate the fact to me immediately, so that I may come to an understanding with the minister of marine.”

Here is what the minister wrote on the 27th: “My late interviews with Lord Cowley have been confined to the important and delicate question of the rights of neutrals. Lord Clarendon must have been informed of the subject of these discussions, and I know the English embassador has already sent him the substance of the declaration we have agreed upon; and so he must have been prepared for the dispatch of the 24th of this month, intended to effect a definite settlement of opinions. My telegram of yesterday showed you the interest the government of the Emperor takes in the settlement of such an important question, now that the war has begun. I hope you will persuade the secretary of state to relinquish his project of publishing two distinct declarations. We would regret to see England adopt measures, at the very beginning of the war, that would indicate a misunderstanding between the two countries, and thus weaken the effect of our supposed unity.

“If we come down from important principles to minor details, the danger is not less perceptible. Neutrals may choose between the declarations of France and England; and they will certainly select those that are the most consistent with antecedents and most favorable to them. Would it not be better to insure them safety in the unity of the two navies, and not force them off by reviving old quarrels?

“On the other hand—and this is not one of the least objections to Lord Clarendon’s system—how could naval commanders agree in practice, of principles so discordant in theory? Disputes would be constantly arising between them, to the danger of the success of their operations.

“The United States are ready to take the part we refuse, and make themselves protectors of all neutrals that ask their aid. The Washington cabinet has already proposed to us a treaty of friendship, navigation, and commerce, containing a series of articles affirming principles it has always sustained, and which do not differ from ours. Her Britannic Majesty’s chief secretary of state knows we cannot refuse this, even if France and England adopt opposing principles in this joint war. But if the two nations agree upon a common declaration, then we may postpone the consideration of the American proposal. This reasoning must strike Lord Clarendon, and I hope he will accept a project to be applied only in this war, and that will not affect the doctrines of either nation. Instructions to the commanders of the war vessels of both nations would make up deficiencies in the declarations; but these instructions should be drawn up in concert; and you may assure Lord Clarendon that the minister of marine will do all he can to agree with the English admiral in the instructions he gives to our admirals.”

On the same day the minister sent a new draught of a declaration to London. It contained a brief preamble, bringing together, as nearly as possible, inform and substance, all the English ideas. He wrote about it as follows:

“This declaration, which I have agreed upon with the minister of marine, does not pretend to consecrate the essential principles upon which the accord of the two governments is based; separate instructions will regulate the application of them by law, and thus settle the discrepancy of doctrines that cannot be arranged at present.”

On the 28th March, Lord Cowley wrote that his government determined to insist on prohibiting neutrals to trade “in transit, between two ports belonging to the enemy.”

We could not accept that. The minister of foreign affairs said: “I regret that the English government forces us, by this, to make a separate declaration, the same in substance as that proposed yesterday, with the exception of a preamble which I have submitted to the Emperor. As you will see, I have obtained the marine minister’s consent to exempt the seizure of neutral goods on hostile vessels.

“Lord Cowley has sent me the proposed instructions for commanders of English vessels, which were ready to be signed. Now it is useless to broach questions opposed to our principles in that declaration; all we can do is to make out instructions for our own vessels. I have ordered the minister of marine to do this, and I will send them to you as soon as they are made out. I hope there will be no serious difficulty in the execution of these instructions, as we agree upon the most essential points in them. I acknowledge the liberality of the English government in accepting our principles in matters of blockade.”

Both governments regretted this disagreement upon small matters; but France was bound to other nations and could not break her treaties with them. In affairs where her latitude of action was not restricted, she showed her willingness to meet her ally half-way in liberalising old laws. Thus, in every proposal sent to London proposing to abolish privateering and other ancient customs of our navy, we always allowed neutral goods under hostile flags.

The British cabinet considered the dilemma of the situation. He was conscious of the absurdity of issuing two different declarations to be applied to neutrals under the same circumstances. A new conference was had at the last moment, and after a warm discussion it was decided that the objectionable article should be expunged from the English declaration.

Now the understanding was complete. In a few hours, thanks to the telegraph, the two cabinets agreed, and announced the immediate publication of a joint declaration. The French copy appeared in the Monitor of the 30th March, 1854, dated the day previous. So you see there was no time lost. Here are the two documents; the first is preceded by a report to the Emperor:

Report to the Emperor.

“Paris,29th March, 1854.

“Sire: At a time when maritime relations and commercial interests hold such an important place in the existence of nations, it is the duty of a nation at war to make its effects felt as little as possible, by allowing neutrals all freedom of trade not incompatible with the state of hostility, in which they desire to take no part.

“But it is not enough for belligerents to have the secret intention of always respecting the rights of neutrals; they must also endeavor to calm the suspicions of commerce, by leaving no uncertainty in the principles which they mean to apply.

“A regulation of the duties or rights of neutrals might seem an insult to the sovereignty of nations that wish to remain neutral; yet the spontaneous declaration of the principles which a belligerent promises to observe is the most formal pledge he can give of his respect for the rights of other nations.

“In this conviction, I have the honor to submit the following declaration, agreed upon with the government of her Britannic Majesty, to your Majesty’s high approbation.

“I am, with respect, sire, your Majesty’s very obedient servant and faithful subject,

“DROUYN DE LHUYS.

“Approved:

“NAPOLEON.”

Declaration relative to neutrals, letters of marque, &c.

“His Majesty, the Emperor of the French, being forced to take up arms to sustain an ally, desires to render the war as little onerous as possible to the powers with which he is at peace.

“In order to avoid all unnecessary restrictions upon the commerce of neutrals, his Majesty at present consents to renounce a portion of the rights which belong to him, as a belligerent power, by virtue of the law of nations.

“His Majesty cannot renounce the exercise of his right to seize articles contraband of war, and to prevent neutrals from carrying dispatches from the enemy. He also insists upon his right, as a belligerent power, to hinder neutrals from breaking a blockade, formed by a sufficient force, before the forts, harbors, or coasts of the enemy.

“But his Majesty’s vessels will not seize property of the enemy on board a neutral vessel, unless that property be contraband of war.

“His Majesty will not claim the right to confiscate the property of neutrals found on vessels of the enemy, unless it be contraband of war.

“His Majesty also declares that, moved by the desire to mitigate the ills of war as much as possible, and to restrict its operations to regularly organized national troops’ he does not intend, at present, to deliver letters of marque to authorize the arming of privateers.”

The day on which this declaration was published on both sides of the channel the minister of foreign affairs wrote to London as follows:

“I am much pleased with this proof of accord between England and France, on a question of such importance to the reserved rights of neutrals in this present war. This harmony will make a good impression abroad, and will win the sympathy of all the commercial nations of the world. Please say to Lord Clarendon that the Emperor’s government is pleased with the action of the government of Queen Victoria on a matter he had much at heart, and that he considers its settlement on the present terms as one of the best results of the intimate reliance of the two countries.”

The confidence expressed in this letter was realized. The new agreement on France and England on rules of maritime law was hailed by neutrals as the dawn of a day of justice and reparation. Protected from the harm of war, they had no fear of being dragged into another’s quarrel, and could peaceably carry on trade in the midst of battles, provided no fraud brought down upon them the vengeance of the belligerents.

On communicating these dispositions to different governments, they were told that a strict compliance with the duties of neutrality was the condition of the advantages they accorded to neutrals. Such was the purpose of the following circular, sent by the minister of foreign affairs to all the agents of his departments accredited to powers not engaged in the contest. It bears date the 20th March:

“Sir: The declaration of the French government on the subject of neutrality, together with my report of it to the Emperor, on submitting it to his high approbation, was published in the Monitor of this day.

“The British government has also promulgated the same declaration.

“At a time when the two nations take up arms in joint defense of an ally, they cannot give a better proof of their unity of sentiment than by adopting similar resolutions on a subject about which they had hitherto differed.

“The government of the Emperor, knowing the care of France for neutrals, had studied the questions of neutrality, to decide them in favor of nations with whom we are at peace. The British government was also animated by the same desire, to leave neutrals in possession of all advantages that were not necessary to be restricted by absolute military necessity.

“This community of views dictated the declaration adopted by the two governments; and I do not hesitate to say that a document of such favorable terms was never before made up.

“The intention not to issue letters of marque is there officially announced.

“The necessity of an efficient blockade is admitted.

“Neutral flags will protect goods, and neutral goods will be safe under hostile flags.

“Such are the advantages that will be secured to trade during the war; and even after it is over, this joint declaration will remain as a precedent in the history of neutrality.

“But, as the union of France and England grants advantages to neutral nations, those nations must implicitly respect the rights of the belligerents. We have reason to hope that neutral governments will commit no hostile acts, and will force their subjects to observe a strict neutrality.

“I will soon send you a form of notice of this declaration, made out in consultation with her Britannic Majesty’s government, for the government near which you are accredited.”

A few days after, these documents were addressed to the same agents:

“Paris, April 5, 1854.

“Sir: I have the honor to transmit to you the project of a note which you will address immediately to the government hear which you are accredited, to inform it of the principles that France and Great Britain intend to apply towards neutrals during the present war, together with the resolution of the two governments not to issue letters of marque for the present.

“Her Britannic Majesty’s representative will receive orders to address a similar communication to the government of * * *

“You will send me the answer of the government of * * * as soon as you get it, and will see that it answers the expectations of the two governments.”

Substance of the note.

“The undersigned is instructed by his government to address to your excellency the following communication:

“His Majesty the Emperor of the French, and her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, find themselves obliged to resort to force of arms to repel the aggressions of the government of his Majesty the Emperor of Russia upon the Ottoman empire. Desiring to make the disastrous effects of war as light as possible on commerce, their majesties have resolved not to authorize privateering for the present, by the issue of letters of marque, and at the same time to make known the principles to be applied to navigation and the trade of neutrals during this war. With this design, his Majesty the Emperor of the French publishes the annexed declaration, identical with that published by her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

“By confining their rights as belligerents to strict limits, the allied governments will depend upon the honest efforts of neutral powers in this war to make their subjects observe the strictest neutrality.

“Therefore, the government of his Majesty the Emperor of the French trusts that the government of * * * will accept these joint resolutions of the two allied governments, and in return will order that no privateer under Russian colors be armed, supplied, or admitted with prizes into the ports of * * *, and that its subjects rigorously abstain from taking part in armaments of this kind, or any other, contrary to the duties of a strict neutrality.”

Thus, even in the details of their joint notice, France and England; exhibited their perfect accord; and it was not disturbed by subsequent events.

Instructions were sent by the two governments to their respective naval commanders to reconcile any minor divergencies in their regulations, without appeal to the cabinets of Paris and London.

Neutrals took advantage of all the favors granted them, but did not abuse them; and during the whole war France and England had no cause to regret their generous resolutions. These new regulations, after trial by two great maritime powers, were universally accepted by other nations as a blessing.

In England, as well as in France, the commercial classes, far from feeling jealous at the security which this liberal principle gave to rival interests, rejoiced at the general development of trade produced thereby, and felt that it would finally redound to their interests. You will remember that the Universal Exposition of 1855, which took place in Paris while our land and sea armies were fighting in the Crimea and in the Baltic, furnished ample evidence of the vigor and success with which the labors of peace were prosecuted, even in the midst of a sanguinary war. The sight was glorious for the century that first produced it, and it was calculated to inspire a just confidence in the progress of the ideas which its triumph signalized. The cruel needs of war were confined to a specific circle, outside of which peaceful and laborious humanity preserved its rights.

The system inaugurated by the war of 1854 answered the common wants of all people so well that it readily assumed the nature of a definite reform of international law.

At the Paris peace congress of 1856, the members who had to discuss the results of the war naturally adopted the regulations therein practiced by the belligerent powers towards neutrals. This was expressed in the Paris declaration of the 16th April, 1856, which says:

1. Privateering is abolished and shall remain so.

2. Neutral flags protect hostile goods, unles contraband of war.

3. Neutral goods, not contraband of war, cannot be seized under hostile flags.

4. Blockades, to be binding, must be effective; that is, maintained by a force sufficient to prevent approach to the hostile coast.

All nations adopted this declaration except Spain, Mexico, and the United States of North America. The two first reserved the right to arm privateers, and agreed to the other articles. The United States would have accepted them all, provided an article to respect private property at sea had been added.

With the exception of these restrictions, the arrangements concluded in 1854 between England and France have fallen into the public domain, and are now placed under the authority of the law of nations.

This result was easy to be foreseen. When we began treating with England, at the beginning of the war, to soften its resistance and remove scruples, we insisted upon the transitory nature of the concessions we asked; but we knew they would become permanent by force of circumstances and unanimous consent. In fact, when common interests are developed for a certain time they soon become, under the protection of a more liberal system, the supports and defenses of the principles which first protected them.

DROUYN DE LHUYS.

Italy.

Florence, March 2, 1867.

My Lord: With reference to your lordship’s dispatch marked circular of February 14, directing me to obtain official information respecting the neutrality laws of Italy, I have the honor to transmit herewith to your lordship copies, accompanied by translations, of the laws in force upon this subject, as well as the code of regulations for the Italian mercantile marine, containing certain rules to be observed by the superintendent of harbors respecting the sojourn in them of belligerent vessels of war, which have been transmitted to me by the Italian minister for foreign affairs.

I have, &c,

HENRY ELLIOT.

Circular of the minister of marine.

Turin, April 6, 1864.

In transmitting to your excellency the royal decree of to-day’s date, on the neutrality of the ports of the kingdom, the undersigned thinks it opportune to accompany it with the present circular, which is intended to serve as a rule for the practical application of the regulations contained in the same.

The report to his Majesty, which precedes the decree itself, will make known to your excellency the fundamental principles of the international maritime law on which it is founded, as also the general rules which guide it.

Such rules and such principles, having been recognized by the publicists of all nations and of all epochs, are, moreover, borne evidence to by recent and analogous regulations which have emanated from the principal maritime powers during the last few years.

The state of neutrality which the government of the King intend to observe with respect to powers which find themselves in declared hostility to each other, imposes certain obligations on the belligerent parties, obligations which cannot be separated from the analogous rights which accompany them; and, therefore, in declaring the duties imposed by the most strict neutrality, it is necessary to mention, at the same time, the prerogatives which arise from such conditions. Thus, in forbidding Italian subjects from taking part in any way whatsoever to the advantage or disadvantage of the belligerent states; in preventing that in places on the sea shore any commercial operations should be carried out which could produce harm to the powers which are at war against each other; in forbidding, under pains and penalties, that any citizens of the kingdom should take service on board the belligerent ships, refusing them also in such a case any protection on the part of his Majesty’s government, and, on the contrary, leaving them under the jurisdiction of the laws of the other parties; it was necessary, on the other hand, to avoid the seas within the territorial jurisdiction of the kingdom serving as a field for hostile operations between the belligerent powers, or the ports and places of anchorage along the extensive Italian coasts serving to afford means of armaments, or being used as secure bases for hostile operations.

It having been agreed, recognized, and stipulated by international treaties that foreign subjects ought to submit to all the laws and regulations which relate to public security, and to the police of the country in which they sojourn or are domiciled, it follows as a logical and natural consequence that the laws and prohibitions contained in article 4 ought to be considered to extend to foreign subjects who happen to be in the kingdom.

The law of humanity, which suggests that in cases of danger even an enemy who was harmless should be assisted, finds its application in the 7th article of the accompanying decrees. To those ships or privateers of the belligerents who should be driven by stress of weather into the ports of the kingdom, or who should there seek refuge to repair damages or to procure provisions or commodities, to such ships it is impossible to refuse shelter and assistance. Nevertheless, the duties of humanity are confined to requirements necessary for safety of navigation, and do not extend to any request for means which could in any shape or manner increase the offensive or defensive force of the said ships.

Consequently, if in any port, roadstead, or coast belonging to your excellency there should come any ships of war, or belligerent privateers, for refuge against bad weather, or to repair damages it had suffered, or to procure provisions or materials indispensable for pursuing its voyage with safety, your excellency, in virtue of article 10, could not refuse such request, but would decline, according to the terms of article 9, to accede to any demand which could in any way increase the means of military offense or defense of the said ships.

The power of landing at or arrival in the harbors or coasts of the kingdom cannot, however, be granted to belligerent ships accompanied by prizes, except in the sole case of stress of weather. In the event of their being in need of repairs or provisions, they must first agree to set their prizes at liberty, and then their requests will be granted, but otherwise every assistance must be refused, the presence of a prize constituting a continuance of hostile operations within the waters under the territorial jurisdiction of a neutral country.

The second paragraph of article 10 provides that a supply of coal can only be granted 24 hours after the arrival of the belligerent ship which has made the demand. In this regulation your excellency will perceive that the undersigned has in view to prevent these sort of supplies serving for immediate offensive purposes against ships of the other belligerent party which might be followed by the one which made the demand for fuel, even though it might have been requested for security of its navigation. The period of 24 hours specified in the said article may, in special cases, be extended by the authority of your excellency, but may never be reduced.

The regulation of article 11 of the subjoined royal decree requires, besides its exact observance, that the marine authorities should use all possible care to avoid, in the way they carry it out, any opportunity for immediate hostilities between the ships of the two belligerent parties. In interpreting the article 11 above mentioned, the state of the weather must be taken into consideration in determining the interval allowed to elapse between the departure from port of the first ship and that of the second. The reciprocal conditions of sailing and steamships must be kept in view, the sailing ship, in such a case, being first required to depart rather than that one possessed of mechanical motion, except in the event of the former being a mercantile steamer and the latter a public armed ship or a privateer.

On the arrival at anchorage of a ship of war of whatsoever nation, or in whatsoever locality of the kingdom, a copy of the accompanying royal decree shall be conveyed to it. If the said ship belong to a belligerent power, there shall be also given to it a copy of the inclosed schedule, with the request that the various columns may be filled up in the manner indicated. The same system will be followed towards privateers.

A copy of the said schedule will, as soon as it be filled up, be immediately forwarded to the undersigned in the proper way, the captains and officers of the port not omitting individually to inform the proper authorities under whom they are placed in order of departmental seniority.

The presence of considerable maritime forces in certain ports of the kingdom, as indicated by article 12 and specified in article 13, might in some cases hinder the free action of the government, and the undersigned, following the example of the measures prescribed by other powers on this head, proposes that his Majesty should give his assent to the rules laid down in the accompanying articles.

While the rules contained in article 12 should be scrupulously observed, the naval commandants of the ports, specified in article 13, must use every precaution in applying them, in order to avoid misunderstandings, and to prevent the general maritime regulations from being viewed as bearing a character of mistrust.

Nevertheless, the captains of ports, of which mention is made above, upon seeing the approach of a squadron comprising more than three vessels of war, shall be careful not to await their entrance into harbor before communicating to them the disposition aforesaid, but shall meet them outside the harbor as soon as it shall be manifest that they intend to anchor, and thus inform them in good time of the rules which obtain in that port with respect to the presence of foreign naval armaments.

Should the squadron comprise three ships or less, then the captains of the ports, following the directions of article 14, shall go on board of the senior officer’s ship, or the man-of-war should she be alone, and communicate to him the provisions of article 12 with respect to the stay of the squadron in the harbor.

From the second paragraph of article 12 your excellency will perceive that, with the permission of the government, ships of war, three or less in number, may be allowed to sojourn for a longer period than eight days in the ports mentioned in article 13.

Therefore, should the commander of the squadron express a wish to prolong his stay beyond the period prescribed by the rules, your excellency will inform the undersigned of the same as soon as possible, and await a reply, before requesting the commander to take his departure, even though the period of eight days were thereby exceeded.

Your excellency will gather from article 8 that the government are desirous of making an exception to the rules laid down by the royal decree in favor of those vessels of war whose mission is exclusively scientific; and this exception, made some years ago, is to be extended also to vessels belonging to a belligerent state.

This exception refers, however, solely to those vessels whose mission is altogether beyond suspicion, and already recognized by the government by diplomatic means, and has been assented to by them.

In such cases the respective captains of ports will be advised in time by the ministry of marine itself.

Whenever any doubt shall be entertained by the naval authorities as to the interpretation or application of the various cases contemplated in the articles of the said decree, they must refer at once to the ministry in writing, and ask for instructions and explanations.

CUGIA.

Report addressed to the King by the minister of marine.

Turin, April 6, 1864.

Sir: The Paris convention of April 16, 1856, has established new bases of public laws in naval war with respect to neutrals and to belligerent powers.

Property belonging to the subjects of a state which remains neutral in war, even if embarked upon hostile ships, is now respected; nor does it constitute, any longer, in most cases, prize of either belligerent.

The obligations undertaken by the powers signitary to the above convention, and by the countries adhering to it, not to issue letters of marque to merchant ships, have also modified those principles of maritime law which refer to privateers and their prizes.

These principles, however, intended to diminish the losses sustained by private individuals during a maritime war, were not accepted by all naval powers indiscriminately, and for that reason the laws regarding privateering and its prizes contained in the various codes and regulations of maritime law could not be abrogated, being kept in reserve for such cases as those of a war with one of the countries which had refused its adherence to the principles laid down in the Paris convention.

This explains the motives why the maritime powers who framed these new bases of law should now also issue regulations regarding the armaments of privateers.

The conditions of the portions of North America at war induced, at the commencement of that struggle, the French government to declare in a note dated 10th June, 1861, and also the British government in a letter of 12th January, 1862, from the foreign office to the lords of the admiralty, what principles were to serve as a basis of neutrality to those governments during the disastrous war in America.

Recently, however, and in spite of this declaration, hostile enterprise was carried into the waters of the neutral European powers by certain vessels pertaining to these belligerents, which also sought to repair damages and obtain provisions in neutral ports.

Although the position of this kingdom may exclude the supposition that any of the armed vessels or privateers of the belligerent states of America might ever have occasion to approach the Italian coast under circumstances calculated to cause trouble to a neutral power, this supposition assumes another aspect when the movements of the ships of war belonging to the northern powers of Europe are considered now even in a state of armed warfare.

These facts will doubtless compel the attention of your Majesty’s government to the consequences which may ensue to a neutral state, and also to provide that while the duties of neutrality are observed, the rights which such a state insures to the neutral powers be equally respected.

While compiling the project of law which I have now the honour to submit to your Majesty, besides detailing the principles which should regulate the conduct of the maritime authorities, the seafaring population, and your Majesty’s subjects, to preserve the strict limits of neutrality now to be the guide of the Italian government towards the powers at present at declared war, I think it right to declare what regulations are already in force in many harbors of the kingdom, sanctioned by previous law, and common to all maritime nations, whether as a special right obtaining on certain parts of the coast, (Quale perogativa propria su certi punti speciali delle coste,) or as being recognized by all those who have ever treated of international maritime law.

Whenever your Majesty will approve of the considerations which are the basis of the scheme of the following decree, I would humbly hope that your Majesty will deign to confer upon it your royal sanction.

E. CUGIA, Minister of Marine.

Victor Emanuel II, elect King of Italy.

With reference to the royal patents of 24th November, 1827, which determine port regulations;

With reference to the penal law for the mercantile marine, dated January 15, 1827;

With reference to the royal decree of December 22, 1861, which extends the laws and regulations of the mercantile marine in force in the ancient provinces to all new provinces of the kingdom;

Considering the state of the existing relations between Italy and other maritime states which are in open hostilities;

Considering the rights reserved by international maritime law respecting certain special parts of the seaboard of any maritime state, tending to maintain and guarantee the state of neutrality of that kingdom towards belligerent powers; and to render valid, under all circumstances, those rights which might spring from or be derived from such a state, (of neutrality,) and also to preserve intact its liberty of action;

On the proposal of our minister of marine, in concert with our minister for foreign affairs, we have and do decree:

Article I. It shall not be allowed for any ship of war or privateer belonging to a belligerent state to enter into or remain with prize in any port or harbor of the kingdom, except in case of necessity.

Article II. In such exceptional cases, and under the conditions contained in the preceding article, ships of war and privateers must leave the coast of the kingdom as soon as the cause which forced them to seek shelter shall have been removed, and according to the dispositions of article XI.

Article III. No sale, exchange, transfer, or gift of objects of plunder shall be made under any pretext in the ports, harbors, or coasts of the kingdom.

Article IV. No Italian subject shall take commission from either belligerent power to arm ships for war, or to accept letters of marque to cruise, or assist in any way in fitting out, arming, or preparing for war a vessel or privateer of the said belligerents.

Article V. According to the 35th article of the penal code for the mercantile marine, no Italian subject shall be enrolled or take service on any ship of war or privateer belonging to either belligerent.

Article VI. No Italian subjects guilty of contravention of the rules laid down in the preceding articles 4 and 5, or who shall commit any act against one of the belligerent powers, contrary to the duties attendant upon the neutrality maintained by the Italian government towards the said parties, can claim protection against the acts or measures of whatever nature which the belligerents may deem right to enforce against them, and besides, they incur the penalties mentioned in article 5 of the present decree, according to the dispositions of the 80th article of the penal code for the mercantile marine, dated January 13, 1827.

Article VII. No belligerent vessel of war or privateer shall remain more than 24 hours in any port, harbor, or anchorage in the kingdom or adjacent waters, even though alone, except in cases of necessity caused by stress of weather, for repairs, or for want of necessary provisions for the safety of navigation.

Article VIII. Vessels of war belonging to a friendly power, even though belligerent, can anchor and remain in the ports and harbors of the kingdom, when their mission is purely scientific.

Article IX. In no case shall a belligerent vessel of war make use of an Italian port for warlike purposes, or for providing itself with arms and ammunition. Neither shall it, under pretext of repairs, do anything to increase its force in action.

Article X. There shall not be furnished to belligerent vessels of war or privateers other than provisions in portions for the subsistence of the crew, and the mere means for making those repairs actually necessary for the safety of the vessel. Belligerent vessels of war and privateers wishing to coal can only do so 24 hours after their arrival.

Article XI. When vessels of war, privateers, or merchant vessels of both belligerent powers shall meet in the same port or harbor of the kingdom, there shall be an interval of 24 hours between the departure of any vessel belonging to one power and that of any vessel of the other power. The local maritime authority has power to prolong this interval according to circumstances.

Article XII. In ports considered as naval fortresses or military fortresses, in anchorages where military or naval arsenals, dockyards, or other similar buildings, only three vessels of war belonging to the same power shall be there at once, and then for no period exceeding eight days.

This period can only be extended in cases of necessity or for the sake of repairs, under formal permission of his Majesty’s government, to whom application must be made by the local maritime authorities through the minister of marine.

Article XIII. The ports and places of anchorage treated of in the preceding article are: Genoa, and adjacent waters towards the shore of Foce; the gulf of Spezia, Leghorn; Portoferraj; Naples; Baja; Castlelamare; Gaeta; Messina, (with the anchorages of Faro and Reggio in Calabria;) Milazzo; Syracuse; Augusta; Palermo; Frapani; Taranto; Brindisi; Ancona; Cagliari; Island of Maddalena.

Article XIV. The local maritime authorities of the plans mentioned in the preceding article shall, on the arrival of foreign vessels of war, present to their commanders, or commander of the squadron, a copy of the present regulations for their information, and request them to conform to them.

Article XV. All maritime authorities in the kingdom are expected to adopt strictly all the measures prescribed in the present decree, which shall take effect from the day of its publication in the various parts of the kingdom.

Article XVI. All dispositions at present in force, and which are contrary to those contained in the present decree, are hereby abrogated.

We command that this present decree, furnished with the great seal and registered at the court “dei conti,” be inserted in the official collection of laws and decrees of the kingdom of Italy, desiring all it may concern to obey it and make it obeyed.

(Signed) VITTORIO EMANUELE.

(Countersigned) E. CUGIA.

Extract from Italian naval code, Chapter VII—of the neutrality of the state towards delligerent powers.

In case of war between powers towards which the state remains neutral, privateers, or vessels of war with prizes, shall not be received into the harbors or roadsteads, except in cases of stress of weather.

They will have to leave as soon as the danger has ceased.

No ship of war or privateer belonging to a belligerent will be allowed to remain longer than 24 hours in a port, harbor, or roadstead of the state, or in the adjacent waters, even when alone, except in cases of necessity arising from bad weather, of ship-wreck, or of an absence of the means necessary to carry on the navigation with safety.

In no case will they be permitted, during their stay in the port, harbor, or roadstead of the state, to sell, exchange, or barter, or even give away, any of the prizes, (taken in war,)

The ships of war of a friendly power, even when belligerent, are permitted to touch or even to remain in any harbor, port, or roadstead of the state, on condition that the object of their mission be exclusively a scientific one.

In no case can a belligerent ship avail itself of an Italian port for the purposes of war, or of obtaining arms and munitions. It shall not be able, under the pretense of repairs, to execute any alterations or other works designed to augment its warlike force.

Nothing shall be furnished to vessels of war or to belligerent privateers beyond articles of food and commodities, and the actual means of repair necessary to the sustenance of their crews and the safety of their navigation.

Vessels of war or belligerent privateers wishing to fill up their stores of coal cannot be furnished with the same before 24 hours after their arrival.

In the case in which vessels of war, whether privateers or merchantmen of the two belligerent nations, are both together in a port, harbor, or roadstead of the state, there shall be an interval of at least 24 hours between the successive departures of the vessels of one belligerent and those of the vessels of the other.

This interval can be increased according to the circumstances brought before the maritime authorities of the place.

The capture of prizes, as well as any other act of hostility between two belligerent ships within the territorial waters or the adjacent waters of the islands of the state, will constitute a violation of territory.

The Netherlands.

[Received from her Majesty’s legation at the Hague.]

Note from the minister for foreign affairs to his Majesty’s chargé d’affaires.

[Translation.]

The Hague, March 6, 1867.

Mr. Ward’s note of the 16th instant, asking information for his government about the laws, regulations, and other means that the Netherlands may use to prevent violation of neutrality within her borders, has been received.

In reply, the undersigned informs Mr. Ward that there is no code of laws or regulations in the kingdom of the Netherlands concerning the rights and duties of neutrals, nor any special laws or ordinances for either party, on this very important matter of external public law. The government may use articles 84 and 85 of the penal code; but no legislative provisions have been adopted to protect the government, and serve against those who attempt a violation of neutrality.

It may be said that no country has codified these regulations and given them the force of law; and though Great Britain and the United States have their foreign enlistment act, its effect is very limited. The Netherlands government has not yet thought proper to collect the regulations in relation to the rights and duties of neutrality; but has always scrupulously observed the principles of the European law of nations, and have published notices (as Great Britain and France did in 1861) to Netherland subjects not to carry dispatches or articles contraband of war, nor to break an effective blockade, nor to engage in privateering, nor accept letters of marque.

The admission of belligerent ships of war into our ports was regulated in the same manner, and the special instructions sent to our colonial governors, during the civil war in the United States, were communicated to the British legation on the 17th December, 1861.

Those notices were more extensive and precise last year. The government undertook to prevent the equipment of war vessels for belligerents in her ports. A copy of the Official Gazette, March 20, 1866, containing those notices, is hereto annexed.

Articles 84 and 85 of the penal code may be used as coercive measures to prevent violations of neutrality. For example, they might serve to prosecute those attempting to equip or sell vessels of war in our ports, for the benefit of belligerents. The vessels could then be seized as evidence, and their departure be thus prevented.

The undersigned requests Mr. Ward to communicate this to his government, and begs him to let this government know what articles are considered contraband of war by the cabinet at London.

Yours, &c.,

DE ZEYLEN DE NYEVELT.

Translation of proclamation—Ministry of foreign affairs.

As war is now existing between Brazil (in league with the Argentine Republic and Uruguay) and Paraguay, as well as between Spain and Chili, while Peru has declared war against Spain, the minister of foreign affairs and the minister of justice are empowered by the King to advise by these presents all inhabitants of this kingdom by no means to meddle with privateering, and to accept no foreign letters of marque. Should Netherlanders, who practice any such privateering business or lend a hand in it, be pursued before the Dutch authorities, the affairs of such people will be treated as criminally hostile, and will receive the punishment awarded by the law.

The above-mentioned ministers,

E. CREMERS.

PICKÉ.

The Hague, March 17, 1866.

In consequence of the commands of the King, the ministers of foreign affairs, of justice, and of marine, bring to the knowledge of all whom it may concern that, for the preservation of a complete neutrality during the war between the powers mentioned in the previous amendment, the following determinations have been resolved upon:

Article I. No ships of war or privateers belonging to one of the belligerent powers, with prizes, shall be allowed to come into Dutch harbors or estuaries, or remain there to refit, unless they are overtaken by evident necessity, such as misfortune at sea or want of provisions. They shall, moreover, so soon as the cause which delayed them be overcome, go on their way as speedily as possible.

Article II. Proclaiming prizes, the selling, bartering, or giving away of all prizes and of objects coming out of them, also of plundered goods, is forbidden in the harbors or estuaries of the Netherlands. It is also forbidden to unrig and sell ships of war or cruisers of the belligerent parties, also privateers, (so far as these are admitted,) unless the government in ordinary circumstances gives judgment that the sale can take place without danger to the neutrality of the state.

Article III. Privateers, even without prizes, are not admitted into Dutch harbors and estuaries, except in the cases specified in Article I. The conclusion of that article is also applicable to this one.

They must take in no more provisions than they require for immediate use, of coal hardly as much as is necessary to supply their wants for 24 hours.

Article IV. The ships of war of the belligerent parties, provided they submit to the international regulations for their admission into neutral ports, may remain for unlimited time in Dutch harbors and estuaries; they may also provide themselves with an unlimited quantity of coal.

The government, however, reserves to itself the right, whenever it is thought necessary for the preservation of neutrality, to limit the duration of such stay to 24 hours.

Article V. When ships of the belligerent parties (either ships of war, cruisers, or merchantmen) find themselves at the same time in the same harbor to refit, or in the inner waters of the country, a period of at least 24 hours must elapse between the departure of a ship of one belligerent party and the following departure of a ship belonging to another belligerent.

This period of time may be lengthened, according to circumstances, by the maritime authorities of the harbors.

Article VI. It is forbidden to furnish to the ships of war of either of the belligerent parties weapons or ammunition, as well as to aid in any way to the increase of his weapons or accoutrements.

The above-named ministers,

E. CREMERS.

PICKÉ.

The Hague, March 17, 1866.

The minister of war, charged ad interim with the department of marine.

J. W. BLANKEN.

The minister of foreign affairs thinks it his duty, in consequence of the war existing between the above-mentioned powers in South America, to call the attention of ship-owners, manufacturers, and freighters, to the dangers and difficulties to which they expose themselves if, putting themselves in opposition to their duties to the neutral powers, they do not respect an actual blockade, or transport contraband of war, soldiers, or dispatches intended for one of the belligerents.

In these circumstances the parties concerned will be exposed to all results proceeding herefrom, without any protection or intervention from the Netherland government, whatever claims they may make.

Also, the government will keep strict watch against the fitting out in this country of armed ships on behalf of the belligerent parties, or the taking part therein by Nether-landers.

The above-named minister,

[Translation.]

Articles 84 and 85 of the penal (code Napoleon) book III, title I.

Article 84. Whoever exposes the state to a declaration of war, by hostile acts not approved by the government, shall be punished by banishment, and, if war ensues, by deportation.

Article 85. Whoever exposes Frenchmen to reprisals, through acts not approved by the government, shall suffer banishment.

Portugal.

Lisbon, February 26, 1867.

My Lord: In reply to your lordship’s dispatch marked circular, of the 14th instant, instructing me to procure information respecting the neutrality laws in Portugal, I have the honor to state to your lordship that I have this day received from the Portuguese minister a note, of which a copy, together with a translation by Mr. Duff, is herewith transmitted. Your lordship will perceive that its information is restricted to furnishing me with copies of the Portuguese declarations of neutrality, which are already in the possession of her Majesty’s government.

I have, therefore, requested further information in a note, of which I beg also to inclose a copy, as to what are the laws, regulations, or any other means at the disposal of the Portuguese government for preventing within their territory any acts which would be violations of the Portuguese neutrality laws as contained in the declarations of neutrality, which M. Cazal Ribeiro has transmitted to me.

I have the honor to be, &c.,

A. PAGET.

The Right Honorable Lord Stanley, M. P., &c., &c., &c.

Foreign Department, Lisbon,February 25, 1867. (Received 26th.)

Most illustrious and excellent Sir: I received the note which your excellency was pleased to address to me on the 19th instant, wherein you inform me that inasmuch as her Majesty’s government had appointed a commission to inquire into the neutrality laws in England, and were desirous to obtain information respecting the laws, regulations, or any other measures that may have been adopted in other countries upon this subject, they had instructed your excellency to point out to them what were the laws and regulations of Portugal for the purpose of preventing, within the Portuguese territory, any acts that might be considered to be a violation of the laws of neutrality.

And as your excellency requested me to forward to you copies of the laws and regulations to which you refer, as well as any other information that I might be able to furnish upon this point, I have the honor to state to your excellency that as Portugal professes the most liberal principles with regard to neutrality, and as it is desirous to co-operate towards the consolidation of those principles, and the securing of the freedom of the maritime trade and navigation of neutral powers, it did not hesitate, so far back as the year 1782, to accede to the declaration made by Russia on the 28th of February, 1780, to several powers, and to agree in the convention entered into with that empire, on the 12th of July of the above-mentioned year of 1782, to identical principles with those which are laid down in the second, third, and fourth articles of the declaration of the Congress of Paris of the 16th of April, 1856, on maritime law, a declaration to which Portugal fully and entirely adhered, because it was in accordance with the doctrines which it has for so many years professed with regard to neutrality.

Before the adhesion of Portugal to the declaration of the 16th of April, 1856, to which I allude, and at the time of the eastern question, the decree of the 5th of May, 1854, (of which a copy is inclosed,) was published in order that the most strict and absolute neutrality should be observed in this kingdom in regard of those powers which were then in a state of war.

On the 29th of July, 1861, the Portuguese government being desirous, under the circumstances which then occurred with respect to the United States of America, to enforce a compliance with the principles set forth in the declaration of Paris of the 16th of April, 1856, published the decree of that date, of which I also forward the inclosed copy to your excellency.

Finally, by the decree of the 2d of July, 1856, on the occasion of the breaking out of the war between Italy and Austria, as well as between Russia, that empire and other states of Germany, and of which a copy was sent to the several chiefs of missions of Portugal in order that they should communicate the provisions contained therein to the government to which they were accredited, your excellency will see what are the neutrality laws now in force in Portugal.

I avail myself, &c.,

CAZAL RIBEIRO.

Sir A. Paget, &c., &c., &c.

British Legation, Lisbon, February 26, 1867.

M. le Ministre: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your excellency’s note of yesterday’s date respecting the neutrality laws of Portugal, and to thank your excellency for the documents with which you have been good enough to furnish me.

There is one point, however, upon which her Majesty’s government are most desirous of information, to which your excellency’s note and the inclosures it contains do not refer, namely, what laws or regulations, or any other means, are at the disposal of the Portuguese government for preventing within its territory any acts which would be violations of the Portuguese neutrality laws, as contained in the declarations of neutrality which your excellency has transmitted to me. If your excellency would supply me with this information I should be greatly obliged. I avail myself, &c.,

A. PAGET.

H. E. M. Cazal Ribeiro.

Lisbon, March 29, 1867.

My Lord: With reference to my dispatch of the 26th ultimo, I have the honor to transmit to your lordship a copy, with translations by Mr. Duff, of a further note which I have received from the Portuguese minister respecting the neutrality laws and their enforcement in Portugal.

I have the honor to be, &c,

A. PAGET.

The Right Honorable Lord Stanley, M. P., &c., &c., &c.

Foreign Department, Lisbon, March 18, 1867. (Received 22d.)

Most illustrous and excellent Sir: I had the honor to receive the note which your excellency was pleased to address to me on the 26th of February last, requesting to be informed, in compliance with the wishes expressed by your government, what laws or means does the Portuguese government possess to enable it to preveut within its territory any acts of violation of neutrality.

In reply, it is my duty to state to your excelleucy that the laws and regulations in the matter are those which were inclosed in my note of the 25th of that month, or were mentioned in those documents, and the means of execution in the case of any violation of neutrality are—criminal proceedings, the use of force, complaints addressed to foreign governments, or any other means in order to meet some particular occurrence.

I avail myself, &c.,

CAZAL RIBEIRO.

Sir A. B. Paget, &c., &c., &c.

Prussia.

[Received from her Majesty’s embassy at Berlin.]

Note from the minister of foreign affairs to her Majesty’s ambassador.

Berlin, March 11, 1867.

The undersigned has the honor to state, in reply to the note of Lord Loftus, &c., of the 15th ultimo, that the decrees contained in the Prussian code of laws for preventing, during the war between foreign states, acts on Prussian territory which could be construed as an infringement of neutrality are partly direct and partly indirect.

A direct decree is contained in section 78 of the code of punishments of the 14th of April, 1851, by which hostile acts committed by a Prussian in his own country or abroad, or by a foreigner during his residence in Prussia, against a foreign state or its ruler, are punishable, if the same acts committed against the King of Prussia would be held to be high treason. But with respect to acts committed against non-German states, this decree is only enforced when reciprocity is guaranteed by public decrees or treaties.

The punishment consists in imprisonment in the house of correction for from two to ten years; but under extenuating circumstances, in confinement for one to ten years. Should the intention be discovered before the act is carried out, confinement from six months to three years.

It is stated in section 61 of what nature these hostile acts must be to render them liable to punishment, viz, every attempt which has for its object:

1. To murder the King, to take him prisoner, to deliver him into the power of the enemy, or to render him incapable of governing; or

2. Forcibly to after the succession to the throne or the constitution of the state; or

3. To incorporate, either entirely or partially, the territory of the Prussian state into a foreign state, or to separate a portion of territory from the whole.

Furthermore, in section 111, whoever enlists or causes the enlistment of a Prussian in a foreign military service will be punished with imprisonment for from three months to three years. The attempt to commit this act will be punished in the same manner.

Under the head of indirect preventative measures against breach of neutrality come all those laws which enable the government generally to oppose the maturing of acts of violence within the territory of the state. The following clauses of the book of the penal code apply to this:

§ Whoever assembles or commands armed bodies of men without authority, or who furnishes with arms or the necessaries of war a body of men whom he knows to be assembled without the permission of the law, will he punished with imprisonment not exceeding two years.

Whoever takes part in such armed meeting, has rendered himself liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year.

§ 340.

2. Whoever secretly, or in defiance of the authorities, stores up arms or ammunition, it not being his trade, will be punished with a fine of 50 Rths., or six weeks’ imprisonment. In these cases a confiscation of the stores takes place. The undersigned, &c., for the minister of foreign affairs,

THILE.

Russia.

St. Petersburg, August 29, 1867.

My Lord: With reference to your lordship’s dispatch circular of February 14, instructing me to ascertain and report what laws, regulations, and other means the Russian government possess for preventing acts within its territories of which belligerents might complain as a violation of the duties of neutrality, I have the honor to inclose a copy of a note which I have received from M. de Westmann, stating that with the exception of article 259 of the Russian penal code, which forbids Russian subjects to afford military succor to any power in a state of war with a government allied to that of Russia, there are no laws existing in this country of the nature alluded to in your lordship’s dispatch. A translation of the article of the penal code referred to is inclosed.

I have, &c.,

ANDREW BUCHANAN.

The Lord Stanley, M. P., &c., &c., &c.

[Translation.]

St. Petersburg, April 16, (28,) 1867.

Mr. Ambassador: In reply to your note of the 26th February, I have the honor to inform you that, with the exception of article 259 of the penal code of the empire, which forbids Russian subjects to afford military succor to any power in a state of war with a government allied to that of Russia, there are no laws for preventing acts of which belligerents might complain as violations of neutrality.

Yours, &c.,

WESTMANN.

[Translation.]

§ § 259.—Penal code of Russia.

If any Russian subject in time of peace shall by open force attack the inhabitants of a neighboring state or those of any other foreign country, and shall thereby subject his own country to the danger of a rupture with a friendly power, or even to an attack by such foreign subjects on the territory of Russia, for such a crime against international law, the offender, and all those who participate voluntarily in his enterprise with a knowledge of its objects and illegality, shall be sentenced to lose all their civil rights, and be condemned to hard labor in a fortress for a term of eight to ten years.

Spain.

[Received from her Majesty’s legation at Madrid.]

Note from the minister for foreign affairs to her Majesty’s minister.

[Translation.]

Palace, February 22, 1867.

Sir: I have received the note which your excellency addressed to me on the 17th instant, requesting, in the name of your government, a copy of the laws and regulations in force in the Peninsula concerning neutrality.

In this matter Spain has always adapted herself to the principles of international right, and solely on the occasion of the late war in the United States did her Majesty’s government issue a decree on the neutrality to be observed by Spanish subjects during that contest.

Of that document (the only one existing on the subject) a copy has been made, which I have the honor to transmit to your excellency in answer to your above-mentioned note.

I avail, &c,

E. D. CALONGE.

H. B. M. Minister Plenipotentiary.

[Translation.]

Royal decree concerning neutrality in the United States war, issued by H. C. M., on the 17th June, 1861.

Taking into consideration the relations which subsist between Spain and the United States of America, and the propriety of causing no detriment to the reciprocal sentiments of good understanding on account of the grave events which have happened in that republic, I have resolved to maintain the strictest neutrality in the contest entered into between the Confederate States of the south and the Federal States of the Union; and in order to avoid the prejudice which might result to my subjects and to navigation and commerce, in consequence of the want of clear dispositions by which to regulate their conduct, in accordance with my council of ministers, I decree the following:

Article 1. The fitting-out, supplying, and equipment of any privateer in any of the ports of the monarchy is prohibited, whatever may be the flag which she may hoist.

Art. 2. The proprietors, masters, or captains of merchant vessels are also prohibited from receiving letters of marque, and from contributing in any way to the armament and equipment of vessels of war or privateers.

Art. 3. Ships of war or privateers with prizes are prohibited from entering and remaining for more than 24 hours in the ports of the monarchy, except in the case of forced arrival.

When the latter shall occur, the authorities shall watch the ship, and shall oblige her to put to sea as soon as possible, without permitting her to supply herself with anything more than that which is necessary for the moment, but under no circumstances with arms or with munitions of war.

Art. 4. Articles taken from prizes shall not be sold at the ports of the monarchy.

Art. 5. The transport of all articles of commerce under the Spanish flag is guaranteed, except when intended for the blockaded ports.

The carrying of effects of war and of papers or communications for the belligerents is prohibited. Contraveners will be responsible for their own acts, and will have no right to the protection of my government.

Art. 6. All Spaniards are prohibited from enlisting in the belligerent armies, and from engaging themselves for service in vessels of war or privateers.

Art. 7. My subjects will abstain from any act which, by violating the laws of the kingdom, might be considered contrary to neutrality.

Art. 8. Contraveners of the above orders will have no right to the protection of my government; they will suffer the consequences of the measures taken by the belligerents, and will be punished according to the laws of Spain.

Sweden.

[Received from her Majesty’s legation at Stockholm.]

Note from the minister for foreign affairs to her Majesty’s minister.

[Translation.]

Stockholm, February 23, 1867.

Sir: In answer to your note of the 19th instant, I have the honor to inform you that the dispositions of the declaration of the Paris Congress of the 16th April, 1856, and of the annexed ordinance of 8th April, 1854, are the only laws now in force on matters of neutrality; and it is a principle with us, that where there is no law or positive fact to regulate the rights and duties of neutrals in time of war, the rules or principles in general use among nations must find application.

MANDERSTRÖM.

Mr. Jerningham, &c., &c., &c.

[Translation.]

Royal ordinance relating to what must be observed for the protection of the commerce and navigation of Sweden, in time of war between foreign powers. Issued at Stockholm the 8th April, 1854.

We, Oscar, by the grace of God King of Sweden and Norway, of the Goths and Vandals, hereby make known—

That, recognizing the necessity, in prospect of threatened collision between foreign maritime powers, for those of our faithful subjects engaged in commerce and navigation to observe strictly the obligations and precautions requisite to secure to the Swiss flag all the rights and privileges of neutrals, and also to avoid every act that might arouse the suspicion of belligerent powers and subject us to insult, we have thought proper to ordain, in reference to what has been already enacted on the subject, that the following rules be hereafter generally observed:

1. To enjoy the rights and privileges due to the Swedish flag as a neutral, every Swedish vessel must have on board the documents required by existing ordinances (see royal ordinances 1st March, 1841, and 15th August, 1851) to prove its nationality, and these documents must be on board during every voyage.

2. Captains are positively forbidden to have duplicate or false papers or bills of lading on board, and to hoist any foreign flag, on any occasion or pretext whatever.

3. If the crew of a Swedish vessel, while abroad, is diminished so as not to have enough left to work it, a complement must be taken from neutrals; but in no case shall the portion of the crew taken from belligerents exceed one-third. Every change of this kind, with causes for it, shall be noted on the crew-list, and be certified by the Swedish consul or vice-consul, or, those wanting, by the mayor or a notary public, according to the usages of the country.

4. Swedish vessels, as neutrals, may freely navigate in the ports and on the coasts of nations at war; but they must not attempt to enter a blockaded port, if notified of such a condition by the commanding officer of the blockade.

By a blockaded port is understood one so closed by many war vessels, stationed so near to each other that no vessel can pass without evident risk.

5. All sorts of goods, even belonging to the belligerents, may be freely carried on neutral Swedish vessels, with the exception of articles contraband of war. The following articles are contraband of war: cannons, mortars, arms of all kinds, bombs, grenades, bullets, flints, matches, powder, nitre, sulphur, shields, pikes, belts, cartridge-boxes, saddles and bridles, as well as everything used in war; excepting, of course, the quantity of such material as may be necessary to defend the vessel.

6. Every Swedish captain is prohibited from using his vessel to carry dispatches, troops, or munitions of war, for belligerents; and if forced to do so, he shall make a formal protest against such force.

7. Vessels of belligerent powers may import or export to or from Swedish ports all sorts of produce or goods not contraband of war.

8.Every Swedish subject is forbidden to arm or equip vessels to cruise against any belligerent power, their subjects or property, or to take part in any ships for that purpose. They are also forbidden to accept service on board privateers.

9. No privateer shall be allowed to enter a Swedish port, nor to hover on the coast. No prizes shall be brought into Swedish ports, unless from stress of weather. Our subjects are also forbidden to buy captured goods from privateers.

10. When a captain without escort is met at sea by a war vessel of a belligerent, he must show his papers, and not conceal any, or throw them overboard.

11. When merchant vessels are escorted, their captains must conform to the royal ordinance of the 10th June, 1852.

12. The captain who observes the above regulations enjoys a free navigation by the law of nations; and if he is molested, he must appeal to our ministers and consuls abroad for redress and damages. The captain who neglects them does so at his own risk, and forfeits our protection.

13. In case a Swedish ship is seized, the captain must make a certified report of the seizure to his consul or vice-consul, at the port where he is carried, or to the nearest consul or vice-consul.

We command and order all persons interested to conform to the above regulations. In faith whereof, we have signed the present with our hand, and have affixed our royal seal thereto.

Done at the palace of Stockholm, on the 8th of April, 1854.

OSCAE. [l. s.]

J. F. Fahræus.

United States.

Washington, February 18, 1867.

My Lord: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your lordship’s telegram of the 14th instant, inquiring what laws, regulations, or other means the United States government possess for the prevention of acts within their territories of which belligerents might complain as violating duties of neutrality.

The only law on the subject is the neutrality act of 1818. In the accompanying volume of Brightley’s Digest I have marked the law. In the foot-notes your lordship will find the principal cases which have been decided in the courts of the United States bearing upon the construction of the statutes.

When a complaint is addressed to the government, of a vessel being fitted out in breach of the law, the matter is referred for investigation to the district court attorney (an officer of the federal government) in the State in which the vessel is situated. It is his duty to see that the law is respected, and it is incumbent upon him to receive and collect evidence, and to libel the ship, if in his opinion the circumstances of suspicion are sufficient to warrant the institution of legal proceedings against her. He then reports the case to the government, who decide either in proceeding with the libel or on releasing the vessel. In the latter event it is in the power of the government to call upon the owners to give bonds in double the value of the vessel not to employ her for illegal purposes. This course is pursued where the evidence shows grounds for suspicion, but when the grounds are not strong enough to warrant a prosecution, with a view to forfeiture. Mr. Bemis, in a pamphlet on the Neutrality Laws, states that the bonds only affect the owners so long as the vessel remains in their possession, and he seems to be of the opinion that in the event of a bonâ fide sale, and of her subsequent employment as a cruiser or privateer against a friendly power, it would not be found possible to enforce the penalty against the original owners.

I inclose a newspaper extract with reference to the proceedings against a steamer called the R. R. Cuyler, which will show the manner in which the government acts. In this case the attorney-general directs that the libel be dismissed, and the vessel restored to the owners on their executing a bond as required by statute.

Though there are no specific regulations in force as to the mode in which the law is to be carried out, I apprehend it may be inferred that this government would consider any circumstances of suspicion attending the fitting out or equipment of a ship as sufficient to warrant her detention until the case can be investigated by the district attorney. It is not necessary that the allegations should be of such gravity as, if proved, would warrant her forfeiture. The owners may be compelled by law to give a bond previous to the sailing of an armed vessel, to guard against the possibility of her being-employed against a friendly power, should war exist between two countries at peace with the United States. And a similar bond can be exacted, under certain contingencies mentioned in the statute, from the owners of any vessel built for warlike purposea and laden with war material.

It is to be presumed that these provisions are intended to apply to cases of war ships fitted out during time of war, where no direct evidence appears of illegal intent, but where the government thinks it advisable to call upon the owners to find security for keeping the peace. In order to effect this object it is evident that a wide discretion must be left to the government for the exercise of the power of detention.

I may remark that the government of the United States has considerable advantages in proceeding against vessels under the statue. They have on the spot where the preparations are being made the district attorney, a legal officer responsible to the government, to whom the duty of investigation is committed. The libel is in the nature of a proceeding in admiralty “in rem.” It is decided by a judge conversant with international and maritime law, and without the intervention of a jury. The failure of the attempt to stop or punish the persons engaged in the expeditions against Cuba, and the suspension of proceedings against the men who took part in the Fenian raids against the British Provinces, in spite of the clearest evidence shows the difficulty of enforcing the law when it has to be put in operation “in personam,” and when it is dependent on the verdict of a jury.

I have, &c.,

FREDERICK W. A. BRUCE.

The Lord Stanley, M. P., &c., &c., &c.

The steamer R. R. Cuyler—Conspiracy on board to assume control of the vessel at sea—The owners not culpable—The vessel to be bonded.

New York, February 15.

The suspicion that the steamship R. R. Cuyler was intended for a piratical enterprise appears, from facts which have come to light since the seizure by the government, to have been well founded. The theory advanced, which there is no grounds for doubting, is, that there was a conspiracy on board to assume control of the vessel after she had gone to sea, and thus deprive the lawful owners of their property, who were not to receive their pay for her until she was delivered at Laguayra, Venezuela, to the Colombian government. Whatever may have been intended by the extraordinary personages on board, and however they may have intended to execute their plans, are matters no longer to be regarded with alarm, as the party has been dispersed, and the owners required to file bonds in twice the value of the vessel that she shall not be used by them to commit hostilities against any nation with which this government is at peace. This is sufficiently set forth in the following letter, received by Collector Smythe from the Secretary of the Treasury yesterday:

Order to the collector.

Treasury Department, February, 1867.

Sir: I transmit herewith a copy of the letter of this date from the Attorney General of the United States at New York to the United States district attorney at New York, relative to the steamship R. R. Cuyler. You are hereby instructed to carry out the decision of the President, to release the R. R. Cuyler to the owners, upon being advised in writing by the United States district attorney that the required bond has been given and the proceedings in court dismissed.

Very respectfully,

h. McCULLOCH, Secretary of the Treasury.

H. A. Smythe, Collector of Customs, New York.

The following is a copy of the letter of the Attorney General:

The Attorney General’s letter.

Attorney General’s Office, February 13, 1867.

In re steamship “R. R. Cuyler.”

Sir: The President has had under his consideration the case of the steamship R. R. Cuyler, now detained at the port of New York under a seizure made by the customs officers, and a libel filed by you on or about the 5th of the current month, for alleged infraction of our neutrality laws.

The decision of the President had thereon is that such circumstances are shown as to require bond and security to be given by the owners, Messrs. Sturges, Taylor, Hubbell & Dollard, according to the provisions of the 10th and 11th sections of the act of April 20, 1818, entitled “An act in addition to the act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States, and to repeal the acts therein named.”—3d vol. Statutes at Large, p. 447.

You, are accordingly instructed that, upon the entering and delivery to you of such bond to the United States, with sufficient sureties, prior to the clearing of the vessel, in double the amount or the value of the vessel and cargo on board, including her armament, conditioned that the vessel shall not be employed by such owners to cruise or commit hostilities against the subjects, citizens, or property of any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district, or people with whom the United States are at peace, as provided by the said 10th section, you will dismiss the proceedings so instituted.

Instructions will be sent to the collector of the port by the Secretary of the Treasury for the release of the vessel to her owners, when you advise them that the bond has been given and the proceedings in court have been dismissed.

I am, very respectfully, &c.,

HENRY STANBERY, Attorney General.

Samuel G. Courtney, Esq., U. S. District Attorney, New York City.

Case of the “R. R. Cuyler”—Alleged conspiracy of an ex-rebel captain and crew to turn the vessel into a Chilian privateer—Bonds required by the government.

[From the New York Post.]

The steamship R. R. Cuyler, seized some time ago by the customs authorities of this port, and held for examination on a charge that she was destined for an illegal voyage, is still in the hands of the officers, but the former owners and claimants of the vessel are confident she will soon be released. The theory that there was a conspiracy on board to take her from the owners, who were not, it is declared, to get their pay for her, or all of it, till she should be delivered at Laguayra, Venezuela, to the Colombian government, is now, it appears, fully accepted, and it goes into the case as part of the matter which the Attorney General will consider when he decides whether the R. R. Cuyler ought to be held to await the action of the courts with a view to her condemnation if the charged should be sustained.

This theory is founded on information already partially given to the public. The evidence that the vessel was to become a Chilian privateer, or have some other illegal character, is considered complete; and her owners do not hesitate to admit that they would probably have lost her, except for the interference of the United States authorities. This avowal raises many interesting points about the fitting out of the Cuyler, which will be fully investigated if an examination is entered upon, but which otherwise may never be brought out.

What is now recognized as the important fact of the case is that the conspiracy was fully matured, and was to be executed by ex-rebels, who comprised the passengers of the vessel. It appears that the getting together of these men and the equipment of them, with the purchase of some war material, costing more than $100,000, were the parts of the business about which the owners had no direct knowledge; and Read, the rebel officer who had charge of the numerous “passengers,” only a part of whom it seems were on board the Cuyler at the wharf when she was ready to sail at the time of the seizure, was at the head of the piratical expedition, Exactly what was to be done with the Cuyler after she had left this port and was in the hands of the desperadoes who had been gathered to take possession of her, the representatives of the men whose interests were involved do not undertake to say.

These things in some respects explain, and in other respects complicate and mystify, the affair of the Cuyler. What influence they may have on the determination of the matter is a curious question. That the vessel, if she had been allowed to go, would have made a legal voyage, nobody asserts; nor is it likely that the government officers will urge that the American owners were guilty of complicity with the rebels, or with the persons, whoever they may have been, who furnished the means required at the beginning of the suspicious undertaking.

In a later edition the Post says:

“Collector Smythe has to-day received a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury directing that the steamship R. R. Cuyler be released when the owners of her give bonds to the government in double the amount of her value that she shall not be used by them to commit hostilities against any nation with which this government is at peace.

If bonds are not given, and no new instructions come from Washington, proceedings for the confiscation of the vessel will go on. No intimation has yet been given as to what the course of the claimants will be.

The following declarations and notifications were issued by the several countries hereunder specified, on the breaking out of the civil war in America:

France.

Declaration respecting neutrality of France daring struggle in America.

[Translation.]

Paris, June 10, 1861.

The minister of foreign affairs has submitted to the Emperor the following declaration, which his Majesty has approved:

Declaration.

His Majesty the Emperor of the French, taking into consideration the state of peace which exists between France and the United States of America, has resolved to maintain a strict neutrality in the contest now pending between the government of the Union and the States that are attempting to form a distinct confederation.

In consequence, his Majesty in view of article 14 of the Naval Ordinance of August, 1861; article 3 of the law of April, 1825; articles 84 and 85 of the Penal Code; 65 and others of the decree of the 24th of March, 1852; 313 and others of the Maritime Penal Code; and article 21 of the Code Napoleon, declares:

1. It shall not be lawful for any vessel of war or privateer of either of the belligerents to enter and remain with prizes in our ports or harbors more than 24 hours, unless in case of necessity.

2. No sale of prize goods shall take place in our ports or harbors.

3. It shall not be lawful for any Frenchman to accept a commission from either party to arm war vessels, or to accept letters of marque for privateering, or to take any part in equipping and arming a war vessel for either party.

4. Every Frenchman, in France or elsewhere, is forbidden to enlist or accept service in the army or navy, or in privateers of either belligerent.

5. Every Frenchman, residing in France or elsewhere, must refrain from any act against the laws of the empire or the law of nations that might be considered as an act hostile to one of the two parties, and contrary to the neutrality we have resolved to observe.

Violators of the prohibitions and recommendations contained in the present declaration shall be punished, if necessary, by the provisions of the law of the 10th of April, 1825, and by articles 84 and 85 of the Penal Code, and also be liable to prosecution by article 21 of the Code Napoleon, and articles 65 and onward of the decree of the 24th March, 1852, in relation to the navy, and by 313 et sequens of the Penal Code for the sea forces.

His Majesty moreover declares that every Frenchman who does not obey the present instructions cannot claim the protection of his government against any acts or measures that belligerents may exercise or decree.

NAPOLEON.

E. Thouvenel, Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Prussia.

The minister of commerce issued the notification annexed to the mercantile classes in the Baltic ports:

“It is my duty to make known to you that during the continuance of the conflict that has broken out among the North American States the mercantile classes must abstain from all enterprises which are forbidden by the general principles of international law, and especially by the ordinance of the 12th of June, 1856, which has relation to the declaration of the 12th of April, 1856, upon the principles of maritime law. Moreover, I will not omit to make especially noticeable by you that the royal government will not permit to its shipping or its subjects, which may mix up in these conflicts by taking letters of marque, sharing in privateering enterprises, carrying merchandise contraband of war, or forwarding dispatches, to have the benefit of its protection against any losses which may befall them through such transactions.

“The equipment of privateers in the ports of this country is forbidden by the laws of the land, as is known to the mercantile community.”

Belgium.

[Translation.]

Belgium has given its adhesion to the principles laid down in the declaration of the Congress of Paris of April 16, 1856. This adhesion was published, together with the said declaration, (6th June, 1856,) in the Belgian Moniteur of June 8, 1856.

The commercial public is notified that instructions on this subject have been given to the judicial, maritime, and military authorities, warning them that privateers, under whatever flag or commission, or letters of marque, are not to be allowed to enter our ports, except in case of imminent perils of the sea. The aforesaid authorities are charged, consequently, to keep a strict watch upon all such privateers and their prizes, and to compel them to put to sea again as soon as practicable.

The same authorities have been charged not to recognize the validity of any commission or letter of marque whatsoever.

All persons subject to the laws of Belgium who shall fit out or take any part in any privateering expedition will therefore expose themselves to the danger, on the one hand, of being treated as pirates abroad, and, on the other, to prosecution before Belgian tribunals with all the rigor of the laws.

Russia.

To the Commander-in-chief of the port of Cronstadt:

His Imperial Highness the general admiral, foreseeing the possibility of ships belonging to the southern States of the American Union, which have seceded from the United States of North America, arriving at our ports during the present navigation, has directed me to inform your excellency, for your guidance, that, according to the opinion of the minister of foreign affairs, the flag of men-of-war belonging to the seceded States must not be saluted.

That there may be no obstacle in the way of commerce, merchant vessels of the seceded States are to be treated according to the rules acted on by us with regard to Italian merchant vessels sailing under the Italian flag; i. e., according to the treaties that are at present in force, (commercial treaty concluded between America and us, December 6/18, 1832.)

Should the crews of vessels belonging to the seceded States not wish to acknowledge the authority of the consuls appointed by the federal government of Washington, then, in case of dispute, they must abide by the decision of our local authorities, in the same manner as foreigners whose governments have no representatives in our empire.

General-Major GREIG, Director of the Chancellery of the Minister of Marine.

Circular addressed to the custom-houses on the White, Baltic, Black, and Azoff seas.

By order of the minister of finance, the department of foreign trade prescribes, in case any merchant vessels arrive in our ports belonging to the southern States of the American Union, the same not acknowledging the authority of the government of the United States of America, the said vessels are to be treated and received as hitherto, according to the treaty of 1832, should even their ships’ papers not be in order, which may occur in consequence of the present political condition of the United States of America.

General-Lieutenant PASHKOFF, Director of the Department of Foreign Trade.

SORNIN, Chief of Section, &c.

Netherlands.

[Translation.]

At the Hague.

In obedience to the King’s orders, the ministers for foreign affairs, of justice, and of the marine, present to the knowledge of all it may concern, that, to guard against probable difficulties during the doubtful complications in the United States of North America, no privateers under any flag soever, or provided with any commission or letters of marque, or their prizes, shall be admitted into our havens or seaports, unless in case of marine disaster, and that requisite orders be issued that under any circumstances such privateers and their prizes be required to go again to sea as speedily as possible.

The ministers above named.

[Translation.]

The Hague.

The minister for foreign affairs and the minister of justice, by the King’s authority, warn, by these presents, all inhabitants of the kingdom that during the existing disturbances in the United States of America they in nowise take part in privateering, because the Netherlands government has acceded to the declaration upon maritime rights set forth by the Paris conference of 1856, whereby, among other matters, privateering is abolished, and no recognition of commissions got for letters of marque permitted; also that commissions and letters of marque in conflict with the aforesaid prohibition, which may issue to inhabitants of the Netherlands, cannot have a lawful effect in behalf of the King’s subjects or of any abroad who are in subjection to the laws of the kingdom. Those who, under such circumstances, engage in or lend their aid in privateering to other people, will be considered as pirates, and prosecuted according to law in the Netherlands, and subjected to the punishment provided for the commission of such offenses.

The ministers above named.

[Translation.]

The Hague, June, 1861.

The minister for foreign affairs, apprised by a communication from the minister of marine that the King had authorized the naval force in the West Indies to be seasonably strengthened by his Majesty’s steam-frigate Zealand and the screw-propellers Dyambi and Vesuvius, for the purpose of giving protection to the trade and navigation of the Netherlands during the contest which seems to be in existence in the United States of North America, wherever it may be desired, therefore esteems it to be his duty to direct the attention of shipmasters, consignees, and freighters to the peril to which their insurance against loss will be exposed by any violation of the obligations imposed on neutral powers to respect actual blockades, and not to carry contraband of war or dispatches of belligerents.

In these cases they will be subject to all the resulting losses that may follow, without the benefit of any protection or intervention on the part of his Majesty’s government. Of which take notice.

The minister above named.

Portugal.

[Translation.]

Palace of Necessidades, July 29, 1861.

It being proper, in view of the circumstances at present existing in regard to the United States of America, to carry into effect the principles established in the declaration of Paris of April 16, 1856, made by the representatives of the powers that signed the treaty of peace of the 30th of March of that year, to which declaration my government acceded, and likewise, for the same reason, to adopt other measures which I deem opportune, I have been pleased, after hearing the council of state, to decree as follows:

Article 1. In all the ports and waters of this kingdom, as well on the continent and in the adjacent islands as in the ultramarine provinces, Portuguese subjects and foreigners are prohibited from fitting out vessels destined for privateering.

Article 2. In the same ports and waters referred to in the preceding article is, in like manner, prohibited the entrance of privateers and of the prizes made by privateers, or by armed vessels.

The cases of overruling necessity, (força maior,) in which, according to the law of nations, hospitality is indispensable, are excepted from this regulation, without permission, however, being allowed, in any manner, for the sale of any objects proceeding from prizes.

The ministers and secretaries of state in all the departments will thus understand, and cause it to be executed.

KING.

Countersigned:

Marquez de Loule.

Alberto Antonio de Moraes Carvalho.

Visconde de Sa da Bandeira.

Carlos Bento da Silva.

Thiago Augusto Velloso de Horta.

Antonio José d’Avila.

Hawaiian Islands.

Proclamation of the King of the Hawaiian Islands declaring the neutrality of the Hawaiian Islands in the war between the United States and the so-called Confederate States.

Kailua, August 26, 1861.

Be it known to all whom it may concern that we, Kamehameha IV, King of the Hawaiian Islands, having been officially notified that hostilities are now unhappily pending between the government of the United States and certain States thereof styling themselves “the Confederate States of America,” hereby proclaim our neutrality between the said contending parties.

That our neutrality is to be respected to the full extent of our jurisdiction, and that all captures and seizures made within the same are unlawful and in violation of our rights as a sovereign.

And be it further known, that we hereby strictly prohibit all our subjects, and all who reside or may be within our jurisdiction, from engaging, either directly or indirectly, in privateering against the shipping or commerce of either of the contending parties, or of rendering any aid to such enterprises whatever; and all persons so offending will be liable to the penalties imposed by the laws of nations, as well as by the laws of said States, and they will in nowise obtain any protection from us as against any penal consequences which they may incur.

Be it further known, that no adjudication of prizes will be entertained within our jurisdiction, nor will the sale of goods or other property belonging to prizes be allowed. Be it further known, that the rights of asylum are not extended to the privateers or their prizes of either of the contending parties, excepting only in cases of distress or of compulsory delay by stress of weather or dangers of the sea, or in such cases as may be regulated by treaty stipulation.

Given at our marine residence of Kailua, this 26th day of August, A. D. 1861, and the seventh of our reign.

By the King,

KAMEHAMEHA.

By the King and Kuhina Nui,

KAAHUMANU.

R. C. WYLLIE.

Bremen.

Ordinance of Senate against privateering. Published July 4, 1861.

[Translation.]

The Senate finds it necessary, in regard to the events which have occurred in North America, to renew the regulations contained in its ordinance of April 29, 1854, and accordingly makes the following notification for general observance:

1. All subjects of the state of Bremen are forbidden, under severe penalties, both from meddling in any way with privateering and from taking part therein, either by fitting out privateers themselves, or contributing through others to the same.

2. The proper officers are ordered not on any account to allow the fitting out or provisioning of privateers, under whatever flag or carrying whatever letters of marque, in any port of the Bremen territory, nor to admit into a Bremen port any such privateers, or the prizes made by them, except in cases of proved stress of weather at sea.

Resolved at Bremen, in the assembly of the Senate, on the 2d, and published on the 4th of July, 1861.

Hamburg.

Ordinance against privateering.

[Translation.]

On the occasion of the events which have taken place in the United States of North America, the Senate reminds the public that, according to the notification of July 7, 1856, relative to the declaration of the Congress of Paris on the application of maritime law in time of war, privateering is entirely abolished, and therefore it is prohibited to engage in any way in privateering, or to take part in it either in fitting out privateers or by assisting others to do so. The proper orders have also been issued not to allow in Hamburg ports the fitting out or provisioning of privateers, under whatever flag or furnished with whatever letters of marque, and not to admit into Hamburg ports or roadsteads any such privateers, with or without prizes, except in cases of proved stress of weather at sea.