W« en tils' ocean in time of war, although belonging to citizfego^ or;&,ubjecti3;of, the countries engaged in the contest, made the follo\niig fe'poft': The inviolability of private property at sea in time of war is a question in which no nation can have a deeper interest than ours. That question is now being agitated throughout Europe, and the New-York Chamber of Commerce, as one of the principal organs of the commerce of the United States, would neglect its mission if it failed to bring the subject before the forum of public opinion. The principle, that free vessels make free goods, was acknowl- edged by our Government, almost contemporaneously with its formation. It has ever since adhered to that principle, admit- ting all the time the logical deductions thereof, until, in 1854, the President of the United States submitted to the maritime nations of Europe, and asked their assent to the following pro- positions, viz : 1st. That free ships make free goods, ^. e., that neutral vessels protect enemy's property. 2d. That the property of neutrals on board an enemy's vessel is not subject to confiscation. Even here our Government did not stop. A gratifying proof of its steady advance in liberal and enlightened views is found in the President's Message to Congress of Dec. 4, 1854, in which he takes the broad ground, that private property upon the ocean 679938 should be exempt from seizure by national ships of war as well as by privateers ; that it should not be captured nor molested by any kind of armed vessel, but that the same immunity which it enjoys on land should equally attach to it at sea, inasmuch as " it would be difficult to find any substantial reasons for the distinc- tion now recognised in its application (the doctrine of immunity) to such property on land, and not to that which is found upon the ocean." The famous " Declaration" of the Congress at Paris — 1st. Privateering is and remains abolished. ' ''2d. The nelitr'arflag covers enemy's goods. ' ' ' S^. jll^eiitfral' goods lare not liable to capture under enemy's flag. 4th. Blockades, in order to be binding, must be effective, is, in its important features, nothing more than an endorsement of the previously expressed views of the United States ; neverthe- less, the latter had to refuse its adhesion, because the Congress insisted upon the indivisibility of the four principles, and, by acceding to the "Declaration," the United States would sur- render the right to employ privateers in time of war. To the surrender of that right the United States demurred ; but, said our Secretary of State, " Add to the first proposition the follow- ing words: 'And that the private property of the subjects or citizens of a belligerent on the high seas shall be exempted from seizure by public armed vessels of the belligerent, unless it be contraband.' Thus amended, the Government of the United States will adopt it, together with the other three principles con- tained in the ' Declaration.' " This comprises, as far as generally known, the action of the respective Governments on the subject. The " Declaration" was not amended as proposed by the United States. What might have been done, had the suggestions of our Secretary of State reached the Congress in time, must remain a matter of conjec- ture, but the Prime Minister of Great Britain, in addressing, a .y^' few months later, the merchants and traders of Liverpool, tised these words : " I cannot help hoping, that those principles of war, which are applied to hostilities by land, may be e:ctended withont exception to hostilities by sea, so that private property shall no longer be the object of aggression on either side." And the Emperor of the French, at the close of the late war, restored to Austria all private shipping captured by French cruisers under the Austrian flag. Thus it may be said, that the princi- ples, advocated by the United States and Lord Palmerston, have already found their practical application in France. But it remains to have these principles incorporated into the Declaration of 1836, into the Code of Maritime Law ; and to reach that end, the European Congress, which is expected to meet shortly at Paris, is thought to offer a fit opportunity. The Hanse Towns were the first to move in the matter ; their appeal has already met with a favorable response from many points in Europe, and it is not doubted that the agitation will lead to the desired result, if at this juncture the voice of the United States be heard once more in favor of the best interests of commerce, and of justice and humanity. Christianity and civilization have not been able to banish war, whatever they may have done in mitigating its evils, and if by a solemn and binding "declaration" war can be made "an affair of Governments," and cease to be a license for "wanton pillage and uncompensated appropriation of individual property," it is the duty of a right-thinking people to do all in its power to bring about the change. Our Government hesitates to surrender the right of employing privateers in time of war, believing that by the use of that right only can we place ourselves upon an equal- ity with a great naval power as to the means for inflicting injury. It is not our policy to maintain a powerful navy — as a perma- nent establishment ; we consider it " detrimental to national prosperity and dangerous to civil liberty." If forced to vindicate their rights by arms, the United States are content to rely, in a considerable degree, upon privateers. Although not prepared to advocate the surrender of this pre- rogative, except on the terms proposed by our Government, the Committee, for the purpose of eliciting correct views on the subject, deem it their duty to look at the weapon, not only as to its valiie in the vindication of national rights, but also as a ques- tion of ethics. Privateers are not intended — certainly not solely or even mainly — to fight an enemy's ships, but to capture or destroy the private property of a people with whose government another government is at war. It is not love of country that arms and equips them, but love of lucre ; not in a nation's grat- itude for patriotic and heroic deeds are they content to find their reward, but in the prizes they make, in the proceeds of property belonging to them only by the right of might. The views respect- ing privateering, its character or nature, have changed within the last half century. It is no longer the policy merely of the law that is questioned ; the present age sees in it a licensed violation of the established principles of morality. The assertion in a celebrated public document, "No better reasons can be given for the sur- render of the right to resort to privateers than for foregoing the right to receive volunteers," will not bear the test of strict scrutiny. When, during the late Mexican war, our government accepted the services of volunteers, it did not permit them to go whither they might choose, and seize or destroy the property of Mexican citizens, but it retained absolute control over their movements, and used them for no other purpose than to fight and vanquish the Mexican armies. And now, admitting that in former wars privateers were of great service to us, it does not follow that tlie resort to the same means of aggression would lead to equally satisfactory results in a war at this time. The party having the largest amount of private property at sea, will be the most exposed to injury from privateers. In our last war with England, the American prop- erty upon the ocean in the shape of vessels and cargo was truly insignificant compared with the English. Our privateers had before them a field covered with riches to gather from ; while the enemy's privateers found nothing, so to speak, but a barren waste. Look at the difierence now ! Our mercantile marine equals in tonnage the largest in Europe, and the amount of American private property upon the ocean can be counted by hundreds of millions, of dollars only ! No other nation now could tempt the privateer with richer booty than our's. Again, if steam be the source of wealth and prosperity, it is also the most powerful engine for the destruction of life and property. The navies of Europe now consist of steamships, and the bare mention of this fact suggests almost insurmountable diflSculties in the successful prosecution of privateering by any other than steam vessels, and even then not much more than the destruction of property could be attempted or expected. To bring the slow-sailing prize into port, without being overtaken by the swift cruiser of the enemy, will be a rare exception. Priva- teering will be too costly and unprofitable to embark in. To surrender the right of resorting to it will not prove too great a sacrifice, if thereby the immunity of private property can be purchased. But, we are asked, why surrender the right, when there is no need to apprehend that the United States should ever become involved in a great maritime war ? If such a war is to break out, we shall not be a party to it. Be it so ! But we dare not overlook the identity, the solidarity of the interests of commerce throughout the world. Whether the private property seized or destroyed be called American or European, the loss will affect us all. A commercial crisis cannot sweep over Europe without prostrating America, and vice versa. The fate of commerce in the one hemisphere shapes its destiny in the other. And finally : However remote the danger of any great mari- time war, we cannot expect to be, for any great length of time, . without exciting and critical political questions, without the alarm consequent thereon, and the ruinous losses resulting there- from. What with the destruction of confidence and the suspense of business, the fear of war will for a time work as much jnjijry as war itself. But such crises, if not entirely to be avoided, will become more rare, if the inviolability of private property at sea, in time of war, not less than in time of peace ; its exemption from seizure by national ships of war as well as by privateers, be solemnly guaranteed. That guaranty, it is believed, may now be obtained by an energetic expression of the wishes of the people and Gov- ernment of the United States, and with the view of calling forth 8 sucli expression, the Committee respectfully recommed the adop- tion of the annexed resolutions. KespectfuUy submitted. Leopold Bieewikth, Chaeles H. Maeshall, RoBEET B. MmnjEN, Heney K. Bogeet, John D. Jones, James G. King, Committee. Hesolved^ That the perfect immunity of all private property upon the ocean in time of war, is demanded by an enlightened sentiment of justice and the improved spirit of civilization, not less than by a due consideration of the best interests of commerce. Resolved^ That the Government of the United States be re- spectfully solicited to take such measures as it may deem fit, to have the principle expressed in the preceding resolution incor- porated in the code of maritime law. Resolved^ That copies of these resolutions be sent to the Chambers of Commerce and Boards of Trade in other Cities of the United States, with an earnest request to aid us in obtaining the important object in view. On motion, the above report and resolutions were adopted and ordered to be printed. UNIVEESITT OF CALIFOENIA LIEEAEY, BEEKELEY THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE STAMPED BELOW Books not returned on time are subject to a fine of 50c per volume after the third day overdue, increasing to $1.00 per volume after the sixth day. Books not in "emand may be renewed if application is made before ■ ■''tion of loan period. ^t« \ Elected 1 MA'ITHl EDWIX CHARLl On tht ROBERT walte; ABIEL 1 CHARLl KEC'DLD JAN 3 72 -2 PM 9 1 kxhs. icill expire TRLIE, INNELL, JTHROP. ms. .PS, ^RSTOW, TKLING, 50»»-7,'29 IeFFERTS. fa J til (S^omnr^siontrs jof ^ilols. ROBERT L. TAYLOR, CHARLES H. MARSHALL, ELISHA E. MORGAK ^ubHor« of ^rtonnts. STEWAirr BROWN, HENRY K. BOGERT. mm i Stockton, Calif. PAT. IAN. 21, 1908 679938 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY ^\y