part12-第1章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！






　　　　　　　　〃FREE　SHIPS　MAKE　FREE　GOODS〃




　　　　　　　　_To　the　U。S。　Minister　to　France_

　　　　　　　　（ROBERT　R。　LIVINGSTON）

　　　　　　　　_Monticello；　Sep。　9；　1801_




　　　　　　　　DEAR　SIR；　　You　will　receive；　probably　by　this　post；　from　the

Secretary　of　State；　his　final　instructions　for　your　mission　to

France。　　We　have　not　thought　it　necessary　to　say　anything　in　them　on

the　great　question　of　the　maritime　law　of　nations；　which　at　present

agitates　Europe；　that　is　to　say；　whether　free　ships　shall　make　free

goods；　because　we　do　not　mean　to　take　any　side　in　it　during　the　war。

But；　as　I　had　before　communicated　to　you　some　loose　thoughts　on　that

subject；　and　have　since　considered　it　with　somewhat　more　attention；　I

have　thought　it　might　not　be　unuseful　that　you　should　possess　my

ideas　in　a　more　matured　form　than　that　in　which　they　were　before

given。　　Unforeseen　circumstances　may　perhaps　oblige　you　to　hazard　an

opinion；　on　some　occasion　or　other；　on　this　subject；　and　it　is　better

that　it　should　not　be　at　variance　with　ours。　　I　write　this；　too；

myself；　that　it　may　not　be　considered　as　official；　but　merely　my

individual　opinion；　unadvised　by　those　official　counsellors　whose

opinions　I　deem　my　safest　guide；　&　should　unquestionably　take　in

form；　were　circumstances　to　call　for　a　solemn　decision　of　the

question。




　　　　　　　　When　Europe　assumed　the　general　form　in　which　it　is　occupied　by

the　nations　now　composing　it；　and　turned　its　attention　to　maritime

commerce；　we　found　among　its　earliest　practices；　that　of　taking　the

goods　of　an　enemy　from　the　ship　of　a　friend；　and　that　into　this

practice　every　maritime　State　went　sooner　or　later；　as　it　appeared　on

the　theatre　of　the　ocean。　　If；　therefore；　we　are　to　consider　the

practice　of　nations　as　the　sole　&　sufficient　evidence　of　the　law　of

nature　among　nations；　we　should　unquestionably　place　this　principle

among　those　of　natural　laws。　　But　it's　inconveniences；　as　they

affected　neutral　nations　peaceably　pursuing　their　commerce；　and　it's

tendency　to　embroil　them　with　the　powers　happening　to　be　at　war；　and

thus　to　extend　the　flames　of　war；　induced　nations　to　introduce　by

special　compacts；　from　time　to　time；　a　more　convenient　rule；　that

〃free　ships　should　make　free　goods；〃　and　this　latter　principle　has　by

every　maritime　nation　of　Europe　been　established；　to　a　greater　or

less　degree；　in　it's　treaties　with　other　nations；　insomuch；　that　all

of　them　have；　more　or　less　frequently；　assented　to　it；　as　a　rule　of

action　in　particular　cases。　　Indeed；　it　is　now　urged；　and　I　think

with　great　appearance　of　reason；　that　this　is　genuine　principle

dictated　by　national　morality；　&　that　the　first　practice　arose　from

accident；　and　the　particular　convenience　of　the　States　which　first

figured　on　the　water；　rather　than　from　well…digested　reflections　on

the　relations　of　friend　and　enemy；　on　the　rights　of　territorial

jurisdiction；　&　on　the　dictates　of　moral　law　applied　to　these。　　Thus

it　had　never　been　supposed　lawful；　in　the　territory　of　a　friend　to

seize　the　goods　of　an　enemy。　　On　an　element　which　nature　has　not

subjected　to　the　jurisdiction　of　any　particular　nation；　but　has　made

common　to　all　for　the　purposes　to　which　it　is　fitted；　it　would　seem

that　the　particular　portion　of　it　which　happens　to　be　occupied　by　the

vessel　of　any　nation；　in　the　course　of　it's　voyage；　is　for　the

moment；　the　exclusive　property　of　that；　and　nation；　with　the　vessel；

is　exempt　from　intrusion　by　any　other；　&　from　it's　jurisdiction；　as

much　as　if　it　were　lying　in　the　harbor　of　it's　sovereign。　　In　no

country；　we　believe；　is　the　rule　otherwise；　as　to　the　subjects　of

property　common　to　all。　　Thus　the　place　occupied　by　an　individual　in

a　highway；　a　church；　a　theatre；　or　other　public　assembly；　cannot　be

intruded　on；　while　it's　occupant　holds　it　for　the　purposes　of　it's

institution。　　The　persons　on　board　a　vessel　traversing　the　ocean；

carry　with　them　the　laws　of　their　nation；　have　among　themselves　a

jurisdiction；　a　police；　not　established　by　their　individual　will；　but

by　the　authority　of　their　nation；　of　whose　territory　their　vessel

still　seems　to　compose　a　part；　so　long　as　it　does　not　enter　the

exclusive　territory　of　another。　　No　nation　ever　pretended　a　right　to

govern　by　their　laws　the　ship　of　another　nation　navigating　the　ocean。

By　what　law　then　can　it　enter　that　ship　while　in　peaceable　&　orderly

use　of　the　common　element？　　We　recognize　no　natural　precept　for

submission　to　such　a　right；　&　perceive　no　distinction　between　the

movable　&　immovable　jurisdiction　of　a　friend；　which　would　authorize

the　entering　the　one　&　not　the　other；　to　seize　the　property　of　an

enemy。




　　　　　　　　It　may　be　objected　that　this　proves　too　much；　as　it　proves　you

cannot　enter　the　ship　of　a　friend　to　search　for　contraband　of　war。

But　this　is　not　proving　too　much。　　We　believe　the　practice　of　seizing

what　is　called　contraband　of　war；　is　an　abusive　practice；　not　founded

in　natural　right。　　War　between　two　nations　cannot　diminish　the　rights

of　the　rest　of　the　world　remaining　at　peace。　　The　doctrine　that　the

rights　of　nations　remaining　quietly　under　the　exercise　of　moral　&

social　duties；　are　to　give　way　to　the　convenience　of　those　who　prefer

plundering　&　murdering　one　another；　is　a　monstrous　doctrine；　and

ought　to　yield　to　the　more　rational　law；　that　〃the　wrongs　which　two

nations　endeavor　to　inflict　on　each　other；　must　not　infringe　on　the

rights　or　conveniences　of　those　remaining　at　peace。〃　　And　what　is

_contraband_；　by　the　law　of　nature？　　Either　everything　which　may　aid

or　comfort　an　enemy；　or　nothing。　　Either　all　commerce　which　would

accommodate　him　is　unlawful；　or　none　is。　　The　difference　between

articles　of　one　or　another　description；　is　a　difference　in　degree

only。　　No　line　between　them　can　be　drawn。　　Either　all　intercourse

must　cease　between　neutrals　&　belligerents；　or　all　be　permitted。　　Can

the　world　hesitate　to　say　which　shall　be　the　rule？　　Shall　two　nations

turning　tigers；　break　up　in　one　instant　the　peaceable　relations　of

the　whole　world？　　Reason　&　nature　clearly　pronounce　that　the　neutral

is　to　go　onin　the　enjoyment　of　all　it's　rights；　that　it's　commerce

remains　free；　not　subject　to　the　jurisdiction　of　another；　nor

consequently　it's　vessels　to　search；　or　to　enquiries　whether　their

contents　are　the　property　of　an　enemy；　or　are　of　those　which　have

been　called　contraband　of　war。2




　　　　　　　　Nor　does　this　doctrine　contravene　the　right　of　preventing

vessels　from　entering　a　blockaded　port。　　This　right　stands　on　other

ground。　　When　the　fleet　of　any　nation　actually　beleaguers　the　port　of

its　enemy；　no　other　has　a　right　to　enter　their　line；　any　more　than

their　line　of　battle　in　the　open　sea；　or　their　lines　of

circumvallation；　or　of　encampment；　or　of　battle　array　on　land。　　The

space　included　within　their　lines　in　any　of　those　cases；　is　either

the　property　of　their　enemy；　or　it　is　common　property　assumed　and

possessed　for　the　moment；　which　cannot　be　intruded　on；　even　by　a

neutral；　without　committing　the　very　trespass　we　are　now　considering；

that　of　intruding　into　the　lawful　possession　of　a　friend。




　　　　　　　　Although　I　consider　the　observance　of　these　principles　as　of

great　importance　to　the　interests　of　peaceable　nations；　among　whom　I

hope　the　U　S　will　ever　place　themselves；　yet　in　the　present　state　of

things　they　are　not　worth　a　war。　　Nor　do　I　believe　war　the　most

certain　means　of　enforcing　them。　　Those　peaceable　coercions　which　are

in　the　power　of　every　nation；　if　undertaken　in　concert　&　in　time　of

peace；　are　more　likely　to　produce　the　desired　effect。




　　　　　　　　The　opinions　I　have　here　given　are　those　which　have　generally

been　sanctioned　by　our　government。　　In　our　treaties　with　France；　the

United　Netherlands；　Sweden　&　Prussia；　the　principle　of　free　bottom；

free　goods；　was　uniformly　maintained。　　In　the　instructions　of　1784；

given　by　Congress　to　their　ministers　appointed　to　treat　with　the

nations　of　Europe　generally；　the　same　principle；　and　the　doing　away

contraband　of　war；　were　enjoined；　and　were　acceded　to　in　the　treaty

signed　with　Portugal。　　In　the　late　treaty　with　England；　indeed；　that

power　perseveringly　refused　the　principle　of　free　bottoms；　free

goods；　and　it　was　avoided　in　the　late　treaty　with　Prussia；　at　the

instance　of　our　then　administration；　lest　it　should　seem　to　take　side

in　a　question　then　threatening　decision　by　the　sword。　　At　the

commencement　of　the　war　between　France　&　England；　the　representative

of　the　French　republic　then　residing　in　the　U　S；　complaining　that　the

British　armed　ships　captured　French　property　in　American　bottoms；

insisted　that　the　principle　of　〃free　bottoms；　free　goods；〃　was　of　the

acknowledged　law　of　nations；　that　the　violation　of　that　principle　by

the　British　was　a　wrong　committed　on　us；　and　such　an　one　as　we　ought

to　repel　by　joining　in　a　war　against　that　country。　　We　denied　his

position；　and　appealed　to　the　universal　practice　of　Europe；　in　proof

that　the　principle　of　〃free　bottoms；　free　goods；〃　was　not

acknowledged　as　of　the　natural　law　of　nations；　but　only　of　it's

conventional　law。　　And　I　believe　we　may　safely　affirm；　that　not　a

single　instance　can　be　produced　where　any　nation　of　Europe；　acting

professedly　under　the　law　of　nations　alone；　unrestrained　by　treaty；

has；　either　by　it's　executive　or　judiciary　organs；　decided　on　the

principle　of　〃free　bottoms；　free　goods。〃　Judging　of　the　law　of

nations　by　what　has　been　_practised_　among　nations；　we　were

authorized　to　say　that　the　contrary　principle　was　their　rule；　and

this　but　an　exception　to　it；　introduced　by　special　treaties　in

special　cases　only；　that　having　no　treaty　with　England　substituting

this　instead　of　the　ordinary　rule；　we　had　neither　the　right　nor　the

disposition　to　go　to　war　for　it's　establishment。　　But　though　we　would

not　then；　nor　will　we　now；　engage　in　war　to　establish　this　principle；

we　are　nevertheless　sincerely　friendly　to　it。　　We　think　that　the

nations　of　Europe　have　originally　set　out　in　error；　that　experience

has　proved　the　error　oppressive　to　the　rights　and　interests　of　the

peaceable　part　of　mankind；　that　every　nation　but　one　has　acknoleged

this；　by　consenting　to　the　change；　&　that　one　has　consented　in

particular　cases；　that　nations　have　a　right　to　correct　an　erroneous

principle；　&　to　establish　that　which　is　right　as　their　rule　of

action；　and　if　they　should　adopt　measures　for　effecting　this　in　a

peaceable　way；　we　shall　wish　them　success；　and　not　stand　in　their　way

to　it。　　But　should　it　become；　at　any　time；　expedient　for　us　to

co…operate　in　the　establishment　of　this　principle；　the　opinion　of　the

executive；　on　the　advice　of　it's　constitutional　counsellors；　must

then　be　given；　&　that　of　the　legislature；　an　independent　&　essential

organ　in　the　operation；　must　also　be　expressed；　in　forming　which；

they　will　be　governed；　every　man　by　his　own　judgment；　and　may；　very

possibly；　judge　differently　from　the　executive。　　Wit