Mr. Seward to Mr.
Dayton.
No. 421.]
Department of State, Washington,
October 24, 1863.
Sir: Your despatch of October 8, (No. 359,) has
been received. Your proceedings therein related, in regard to the favors
shown to the pirate Florida and her crew at Brest, and the positions
assumed on that subject in your interview with Drouyn de l’Huys, are
altogether approved.
In connexion with this subject, I submit for your consideration the
expediency of recalling the attention of Mr. Drouyn de l’Huys to a
correspondence on the subject of privateers which took place between the
French government and the government of the United States at the
beginning of the Crimean war. A statement of this correspondence
accompanies this despatch. If the French government take the ground that
the Florida is not a privateer, but a public armed vessel, it may be
pertinent to ask, of what practical value to an exposed belligerent is
the distinction made by a neutral between public armed vessels and
privateers, if the other belligerent can, at its pleasure, create
privateers into belligerents, by giving them commissions instead of
letters of marque; and if, bearing such commissions, they can, to all
practical intents, carry on the business of privateering? It would be
difficult to see, in that case, what the interests of commerce have
gained, or can gain, by the declaration of the congress of Paris against
privateering.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
William L. Dayton, Esq., &c., &c., &c.
Memorandum.
Under date of April 28, 1854, Mr. Sartiges, &c., &c.,
&c., minister plenipotentiary of France, addressed a
communication to the Secretary of State, in which he stated that his
Majesty the Emperor of the French and her Majesty the Queen of Great
Britain had determined, in the war with Russia, not to authorize
privateering by letters of marque, and that the government of his
Majesty the Emperor of the French trusted that the government of the
United States would, by way of just reciprocity, give orders that no
privateers under the Russian flag should be allowed to be fitted
out, or victualled, or admitted with its prizes in the ports of the
United States, and that citizens of the United States would
vigorously abstain from taking part in equipments of that kind, or
in any other measure contrary to the duties of a strict
neutrality.
[Page 802]
The Secretary of State replied to Mr. Sartiges, on the same day, that
he was directed by the President to state that the government of the
United States, while claiming the full enjoyment of their rights as
a neutral power, would observe the strictest neutrality towards each
and all the belligerents; that the laws of the United States imposed
severe restrictions, not only upon its own citizens, but upon all
persons who might be residents in this country, against equipping
privateers, receiving commissions, or enlisting men therein, for the
purpose of taking a part in any foreign war; that it was not
apprehended that there would be any attempt to violate these laws;
but should the just expectations of the President be disappointed,
he would not fail in his duty to use the power with which he was
invested to enforce obedience to them; that considerations of
interest and the obligations of duty alike give assurance that the
citizens of the United States would in no way compromit the
neutrality of their country by participating in the contest in which
the principal powers of Europe were unhappily engaged.
A similar note was addressed to the department by Mr. Crampton, the
British minister, who received the same answer.
