« PreviousContinue »
refered to, the secretary lays down the well settled and true rule of public law. Refering to a British order of June 8th, 1793, to her naval commanders interdicting neutral trade in provisions with France, he well says: “ The first article of it permits all vessels laden wholly or in part with corn, flour, or meal, bound to any port in France, to be stopped and sent to any British port, or to be purchased by that government, or to be released only on condition of security given by the master that he will proceed to dispose of his cargo in the ports of some country in amity with his Majesty.”
“ This article is so manifestly contrary to the law of nations, that nothing more would seem necessary than to observe that it is so."
“ The state of war, then, existing between Great Britain and France, furnishes no legitimate right either to interrupt the agriculture of the United States, or the peaceable exchange of its produce with all nations; and consequently the assumption of it will be as lawful hereafter as now, in peace as in war.”
66 The President therefore desires that you will immediately enter into explanations on this subject with the British government. Lay before them in friendly and temperate terms all the demonstrations of the injury done us by this act, and
endeavor to obtain a revocation of it, and full indemnification to any citizens of these States who may have suffered by it in the mean time."
The views of Washington, in opposition to the series of British orders in council restricting neutral trade, are supported by Lord Brougham. (See his Speeches, vol. 1st, p. 242.)
Our view of this subject is sustained by a speech by that eminent British statesman, Henry Lord Brougham in the House of Commons in 1812. Speaking of the orders in council in restraint of neutral trade, of the rule of 1756, forbiding to neutrals a trade with a belligerent not allowed in time of peace, and of the rule that free ships make free
, goods established by the treaty of Utretcht, Brougham says: “Free ships make free goods, says the enemy, and so say many other powers. This we strenuously deny. Yet at the peace of Utretcht we gave it up after a war of unexampled success, a series of uninterrupted triumphs in which our power was extended, and France and her allies humiliated. The famous rule of the war of 1756 has had the same fate—that principle out of which the orders in council unquestionably sprung. The name by which it is known shows that it is but a modern invention ; but it seems to have been waived or relinquished almost as soon as it was discovered; for in the American war it
OF BALANCE OF POWER.
The balance of power has occupied the attention of European statesman since 1688. It was not perceived that the great and unchangable law of variety and inequality that was written by celestial light upon the fixed stars, upon the comets, upon our sun and planets with their moons, and upon every star that emblazons the firmament, was also found as an intrinsic quality of national condition. Experience had not taught the possibility of equalizing states and empires. Nor has the history of Europe, since 1688, shown the possibility of reducing nations to a common standard of power. After the many wars for this purpose, we find the disparity among European nations greater than it was in 1688. Great Britain, Holland, Spain, Russia, Prussia and France have greatly changed their relative weight and power since that era, and the only effect of all these wars has been to load Britain, Holland, France, Austria and Spain with great, oppressive national debts. This effort has failed because it is against the laws of our nature. Britain has attained her power by her superior industry and freedom, and if Russia, now rapidly advancing in internal improvements, shall adopt the Prussian general system of education, her power will soon overshadow
Europe. This result must follow of necessity, for Nicholas will then unite great moral with great physical power. Increased liberty flowing from these causes will augment the power, increase the industry and consolidate the glory of Russia. All Europe, if disposed, could not stop this progress. Diversity of condition among nations as well as among individuals, is a fundamental law of our nature and cannot be prevented. By internal improvements, by general, moral and intellectual education, by productive industry, and by pacific efforts, all nations may lawfully labor to extend their power and secure their happiness. But the employment of force to regulate a balance of power is not allowed by the moral law of nations. Grotius says: “ The opinion is not to be tolerated, that the law of nations permits war for the purpose of preventing one nation from acquiring a dangerous predominance of power over others." The peace and safety of nations will be found in the general education and thorough Christianization of the people of all nations producing an energetic sense of right and justice. This enlightened public opinion, speaking through diplomatic Congresses, and in other modes will then enforce peace and justice among nations.
employ their power to prevent for the future the establishment of free governments elsewhere, meaning America probably.
The 2d Article bound the allies to suppress in their own states and in Europe, the freedom of the press. The 3d Article enjoined a union of church and state with a view of teaching the people passive obedience to their sovereigns and of uniting the interests of priests and princes. The 4th Article referred to France the duty of putting down by arms the constitutional governments of Spain and Portugal, and the other allies pledged money and influence to aid in this work.
This treaty, viewed in all its aspects, is the most un principled and wicked one ever made in any age. All other immoral treaties have been limited in their object when compared with that of Verona. It proposed an armed intervention to destroy the liberty of the press and free governments in Europe and America, and to reduce mankind to slavery by force, and to perpetuate it by union of church and state. Every object of this treaty was base and immoral and stands condemned by the code of public law, as well as by the moral law of nations. This treaty was promptly resisted by Great Britain and the United States, and after it had destroyed the constitutional government of Spain and done other mischief, it