Miscellaneous Back Matter [pp. 472A-RD06]

PRIVATEERS AND PRIVATEERING.
A great change would seem to have takeii place in the public
sentiinenit of Europe, espe(cially of tlhe 3ritishl Governiment,
since 1824, on the subject of privateeriug. III coinmunieiting
to the United States tlhe course which Erngland and France pro posed to pursue toward neutrals, in the pending war, after
.sttting, under the date of April'21st, 1854, that thleir najesties
lhad, for the present, resolved not to authorize the issue of let ters of marque, iMr. Cranipton says: " Her Britannie Majesty's
Government entertains the confident hope that the Unitedc
States Government will receive with satisfaction the anoiiunemnent of the resolutions takeni in coimmon by the two allied (Goveriin)ents; and that it will, in the spirit of joint -reciprocity, give
orders that no privateer under TRussian colors shiall be equii)ped
or victualled, or admitted with its prizes, in tl-he ports of the
United States; and also, that the citizens of the United States
shall rigorously abstain fiom taking, part in armatments of this
niatutre, or in any measure opposed to the duties of a strict
neutrality."
The Count De Sartiges addressed the Secretary of State,
under date of the 28th April, 1854, to the same efftect on the part
of' the Freinch Government.
rA. i-arcy, in returning, an ainswver to the English and( French
Ministers, atnd whichl was expressed in the samei terms t o each
of tlhem on the clay of the date of t'he last note, remarks thlat
the laws of this country impose severe restrictions, lnot onlly
upon its own citizens, but upon all persons who may be residents
within any of the territories of the United States, against
equippilng pivateers, receiving commissions, or enlisting men
trlicrein for the plurpose of talcing' part in any foreign war."
At an interview, in sMarch, between Lord Clarendon and Ahr.
Buclhanan, he did not propose the con(,lusion of a treaty for the
sup)ression of privateering, but he expressed a strong opinion
agoainst tle practice as i nconsistent with modern civilization.
lie s)oke in hii,hly conmplimentary terms of the treaties of the
Uiiited States with several nations, wvhich stipulate if one of
thie parties be neutral and the other belligerent, the subjects
of the neutral accepts commnissions, as privateers, to cruise
ag,ainst the other, fi'om the opposing belligerent, shall be putnislied as pirates. Ar. Bluclhanan, iii answer, said, it did not
seem to him to be possible, under existing circumstances, for
-the Unite(d States to agree to the suppression of piivateering,
unless the naval powvers of the world would go one step fil ther,
and consent thlat war against p)rivate property should be abolished altogether upon the ocean, as it had already beenl u,)on
land. There was nothing different, really, upon principle and
mnorality, between the act of a regular cruiser and that of a
privateer of robbing a merchant vessel upon the ocean, and
confiscating the property of private individuals on board for
-,he benefit of the captor. Suppose a war with Great Britain;
48'.3
A
0
.I