Mr. Seward to Mr. Dayton.
Sir: Your despatch of November 6 (No. 372) has been received and submitted to the President. The note you addressed to Mr. Drouyn de l’Huys, on the same day, upon the subject of the pirates Florida and Georgia, is approved, not only in its spirit, but its every word. I can perceive in it no argument omitted or overstrained; I trust that this remonstrance will secure the careful as well as the prompt attention of the French government. The principle involved is a plain one, namely, that in a war, whether civil or foreign, a contending party without ports, or harbors, or ships, or coast, shall not be allowed, by neutral nations, to build, or arm, equip, and maintain, in the ports of such states, and on the ocean, piratical vessels to depredate on the unarmed commercial vessels of a nation with whom these states are in relations of peace and friendship, and to enjoy shelter and protection in such states without amenability to the international laws of war.
The government of the United States, in favor of the commerce of neutrals and the peace of nations, denies any toleration to such a practice. The governments of France and Great Britain seem to us to accord it. Which of the two policies shall become the precedent in future wars? It is desirable and it is urgent that this question shall be settled now. France is at war in Mexico, and, practically speaking, has closed all the ports of that republic. Would she assent to our following her own precedent set in the case of the Florida, and especially of the Georgia? True, we are yet too busily engaged in a domestic war to suffer our ship-builders and armorers to become ship-builders and armorers for the enemies of France. True, this war of ours has not yet resulted in the suppression of the insurgents, and perhaps France may yet think that it is not likely to have that auspicious termination. But these are speculations on the chances of war. Is it reasonably certain not only that we shall not regain our domestic peace within a year, but that during that time Europe will remain entirely at rest and free from the commotions of civil and international wars? If, on the contrary, we shall again be left free from the calamity of war, and that calamity shall descend upon Europe, can any European statesman believe that misguided citizens of the United States would not claim the right to practice upon the rules which the maritime powers, when the cases were reversed, had applied to ourselves? This government is not sanguine in regard to the close of our civil war. It neither hopes nor desires, and therefore it does not expect, a disturbance of the peace of Europe. But it does believe that time in its progress brings a common experience to every nation in its turn, and it asks, in the interests of peace and of humanity, that the policy of maritime powers may now be based upon principles susceptible of universal application.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
William L. Dayton, Esq., &c., &c., &c.