the term shall be confined to places where there is evident danger of entering, from the arrangements of the power which is attacking it, with vessels stationary and sufficiently near.

The incident which gave rise to the measure was that two Russian vessels, laden with corn and bound for the Mediterranean, were seized by Spanish cruisers, on the ground that they were intended to supply the fortress of Gibraltar.

Spain was among the first to commend the principles of the "declaration," making restitution, and pleading the arbitrary conduct of England as her excuse. The proposition also met the earnest approval of the other European parties to the war against Great Britain (France and the Netherlands), and formed the subject of the convention between Russia and Denmark, of the 9th of July, 1780, to which Sweden acceded, constituting the first confederation of armed neutrality. By this treaty the Baltic was declared to be a mare clausum against the ships-of-war of the belligerent parties.

The United States acceded to the principles of the “declaration" of the Empress Catharine II., by an ordinance of the old Congress, of the date of the 7th of April, 1781.

"It is a remarkable historical fact," says Bluntschli, "that the first declaration of armed neutrality of 1780 was promulgated at the epoch of the Anglo-American War. According to the English point of view, this war was a civil war. As no state, with the exception of France, had acknowledged the insurgent colonies as a new state, the war had only as yet, in the eyes of the other neutral states, the character of a civil war. Though France and Spain were then likewise engaged in the contest with England, America, however, was the principal theatre of the war, and the neutral powers, Russia, Prussia, Austria, Portugal, etc., meant clearly to apply their declaration of neutrality to the American colonies, or, as they were in fact, to the United States of America. All the neutral states recognized in them a belligerent power, if not a new state, definitively established. There existed thenceforward a neutrality of the European states, not only with regard to two foreign independent states, but as to two parties engaged in a civil war" (Bluntschli, "Revue de Droit International," tome ii., p. 467).

During the wars of the French Revolution all the belligerent powers not only discarded in practice the principle of the armed

neutrality, but even those maxims of international law by which the rights of neutral commerce in time of war had been previously regulated. Russia made common cause with Great Britain and with Prussia to induce the other parties to the armed neutrality convention, Denmark and Sweden, to renounce all intercourse with France.

In the further progress of the war between England and France, Russia, however, revived her doctrine of neutrality. A new confederacy between Russia, Denmark, and Sweden, was formed in 1800, to which Prussia gave her adhesion; but, under the pressure of the maritime power of England, the league was dissolved and its principles expressly relinquished by Russia in the convention signed at St. Petersburg, in 1801, between her and Great Britain, and which was subsequently acceded to by Denmark and Sweden. In 1807, in consequence of the stipulations contained in the Treaty of Tilsit, between Russia and France, a declaration was issued by the Russian court, in which the principles of the armed neutrality were proclaimed anew, and the convention of 1801 was annulled by the Emperor Alexander. In 1812 a treaty of alliance against France was signed by Great Britain and Russia; but no convention affecting the freedom of neutral commerce and navigation has been since concluded between these two powers, unless we refer to their being parties to the Declaration of Paris of 1856.

The treaty of 1785, between the United States and Prussia, and which is the first that provides for the immunity of private property at sea, was of the most liberal character. The operation of its peculiar provisions was, however, suspended by the treaty of 1799, in consequence of the then political state of Europe; but they were reinstated in the treaty of 1828.

All Americans may revert with pride to the manner in which our foreign relations were conducted at the outset of the wars of the French Revolution. Besides the violation of our acknowledged rights by both the contending belligerents, for which neither offered any other apology than the fact of the infliction on us of similar injuries by its enemy, there were intrinsic difficulties in the maintenance of an impartial neutrality, arising from the discordant, if not incompatible, character of the obligations existing on our part to France and England respectively. The

treaty with France, which commenced by stipulating exemption from belligerent capture of enemy's goods in neutral ships, was in many respects at variance with the rules which we had accepted from England as governing the consuetudinary law of nations, while by the treaty of 1794, which was subsequent to the President's proclamation of neutrality, we gave to the English interpretation of international obligations a conventional sanction.

There are many things which may be done by a neutral in war which have the appearance of equality, but in their operation may have a different effect on the conflicting interests of the belligerents. A neutral country may, without breach of neutrality, permit both belligerents to equip vessels in its ports. Even without any previous stipulation with either party, the ports of a neutral may be closed or kept open to the prizes of both. It is competent for a nation to stipulate, during a period of peace, to give in war privileges to one party exclusively: thus, by the treaty of 1778, with France, it was declared that it should be lawful for the ships-of-war of either of the contracting parties and privateers to carry whithersoever they please the ships and goods taken from their enemies, while no access shall be given to the ships-of-war or privateers of their enemies, except when forced in by stress of weather.

The proclamation, which bears date the 22d of April, 1793, announces the existence of war between Austria, Prussia, Sardinia, Great Britain, and the United Netherlands, on the one part, and France on the other. It was accompanied by general instructions from the Treasury Department, intended, among other things, to secure to France her treaty-rights, while nothing beyond this should be conceded; and it declares what France (so far as it affected her) regarded as a violation of her treaty with us, that no armed vessel which has been or shall be originally fitted out in any port of the United States, by either of the parties at war, is thereafter to have asylum in any district of the United States. No privateer of the powers at war with France can enjoy any other privilege than that of purchasing victuals sufficient to go to the next port of the prince or state from which it has its commission.

Though the French prizes were brought into our ports, and were, therefore, in a certain sense, within our power, it was

not, besides the danger we incurred from France, an easy task for our Government to comply with the demands for restitution. Nice questions were raised as to the respective powers of the executive and judiciary. President Washington did not, however, rest his course as to a foreign nation on any technical ground not defensible under the law of nations; but it was only through the exercise, by our admiralty courts, of a jurisdiction, for which Sir Travers Twiss says no English precedent can be found since the time of Sir Lionel Jenkins, that the restitution was effected. Such an exercise of power by our courts was confessedly an exception to the general rule, that the trial of captures on the high-seas belongs exclusively to the courts of the nation of the captors. Our courts, however, held, and they continue to hold, that if the capture be made within the territorial limits of a neutral country into which the prize is brought, or by a privateer which has been illegally equipped in such neutral country, the prize courts of that country not only possess the power, but it is their duty, to restore the property to the owner. This was done to the private claimant, though the propriety of that course, without the intervention of his government, has been, with apparent reason, questioned by Judge Story. Not only was restitution made where the prizes were within our territory, whenever that could be done without involving us in a conflict with France, but, where it could not, compensation was made by us to England under the treaty of 1794.

That Mr. Jefferson's course was in no wise actuated by any predilection in favor of one or the other belligerent parties, is quite apparent from the correspondence at the time between him and the English and French ministers to this country. The grievance of which we had specially to complain was, besides the illegal captures, the institution of consular French courts in the United States.

Mr. Jefferson, Secretary of State, writing to Mr. Hammond, British minister, under date of May 15, 1793, after stating that an alleged condemnation of a British prize by the French consul at Charleston was a legal nullity, and can make no part in the title of a vessel, though it was an act of disrespect toward the United States, asserts that the purchase of arms and military accoutrements by an agent of the French Government, in this coun

try, with an intent to export them to France, is permitted by the law of nations:

"It" (the law of nations) "is satisfied with the external penalty pronounced by the President's proclamation-that of confiscation of such portion of these arms as shall fall into the hands of any of the belligerents on the way to the ports of their enemies. To this penalty our citizens are warned that they will be abandoned.

"The capture of the British ship George by the French frigate L'Embuscade has, on inquiry, been found to have taken place within the bay of Delaware and jurisdiction of the United States. The Government is, therefore, taking measures for the liberation of the crew and restitution of the ship and cargo.

"It condemns, in the highest degree, the conduct of any of our citizens who may personally engage in committing hostilities at sea against any of the nations, parties to the present war, and will exert all the means with which the laws and Constitution have armed them to discover such as offend herein, and bring them to condign punishment.

"The practice of commissioning, equipping, and manning vessels in our ports to cruise on any of the belligerent parties is equally and entirely disapproved; and the Government will take effectual measures to prevent a repetition of it."

In a note from Mr. Jefferson to M. Genet, minister of France, dated August 7, 1793, it is said:

"I have it in charge to inform you that the President considers the United States as bound, pursuant to positive assurances given in conformity to the laws of neutrality, to effectuate the restoration of or to make compensation for prizes which shall have been made of any of the parties at war with France, subsequently to the fifth day of June last, by privateers fitted out of our ports.

"That it is consequently expected that you will cause restitution to be made of all prizes taken and brought into our ports subsequent to the above-mentioned day, by such privateers; in defect of which, the President considers it as incumbent upon the United States to indemnify the owners of those prizes, the indemnification to be reimbursed by the French nation."

In a note to Mr. Hammond, dated September 5, 1793, and which was subsequently annexed to the treaty of 1794, Mr. Jefferson says: