Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

powers, and he was justified in his course by the acts of the de facto government of the revolted colonies in 1776, and by the more formally recognized government at Washington, in 1812-15, and 1861-5.

In July, 1861, the U. S. House of Representatives passed a resolution authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to employ a sufficient force to protect the commerce of the United States from the Confederate privateers. The object of this act was to send out privateers to capture those of the Confederacy that were annoying U. S. commerce.

In October following, Secretary Welles wrote the following letter in relation to granting letters of marque:

"NAVY DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, Oct. 1, 1861.

"In relation to the communication of R. B. Forbes, Esq.-a copy of which was sent by you to this department on the 16th ultimo, inquiring whether letters of marque cannot be furnished for the propeller Pembroke, which is about to be dispatched to China-I have the honor to state that it appears to me that there are objections to, and no authority for, granting letters of marque in the present contest. I am not aware that Congress, which has the exclusive power of granting letters of marque and reprisal, has authorized such letters to be issued against the insurgents; and were there such authorization, I am not prepared to advise its exercise, because it would, in my view, be a recognition of the assumption of the insurgents that they are a distinct and independent nationality. Under the act of August 5, 1861, supplementary to an act entitled an act to protect the commerce of the United States and to punish the crime of piracy,' the President is authorized to instruct the commanders of armed vessels sailing under the authority of any letters of marque and reprisal granted by the Congress of the United States, or the commanders of any other suitable vessels, to subdue, seize, take, and, if on the high seas, to send into any port of the United States any vessel or boat, built, purchased, fitted out or held,' etc. This allusion to letters of marque does not authorize such letters to be issued, nor do I find any other act containing such authorization. But the same act, in the second section, as above quoted, gives the President power to authorize the commanders of any suitable vessels to subdue, seize,' etc. Under this clause, letters permissive, under proper restrictions and guards against abuse, might be granted to the propeller Pembroke, so as to meet the views expressed by Mr. Forbes. This would seem to be lawful and perhaps not liable to the objections of granting letters of marque against our own citizens, and that, too, without law or authority from the only constituted power that can grant it. I have the honor to transmit herewith a copy of a letter from Messrs. J. M. Forbes & Co., and others, addressed to this department, on the same subject." GIDEON WELLES."

With the view of destroying Confederate privateers, the United States Congress, in March, 1863, passed a bill authorizing the President to issue letters of marque.

*

*

*

"By this measure," the New York Herald, of March, 8th, 1863, said, "Mr. Lincoln will have power to cause the ocean to swarm with our 'militia of the seas.' The American republic is not guided by the policy of European powers. It is not bound by the declaration of the Congress of Paris, for the simple reason that it did not agree to it. At the time, Mr. Marcy, on the part of the United States, offered to agree to the proposition to abolish privateering if the European Powers would agree to abolish all captures on the sea of private property, except

contraband of war-thus extending to the ocean the rule that prevails in modern times exempting private property from capture on the land. England and France objected, particularly England. by whose influence the offer was rejected. Again, since our civil war began, Mr. Seward proposed to England and France to adopt the proposition in the declaration of Paris, to abolish privateering, provided they would agree to treat it as piracy all over the world, like the African slave trade. But, though no nation could be aggrieved by the establishment of this rule, and although all the minor powers of Europe had agreed to the proposition of the Paris Conference-even those in the interior, who had not a single ship on the sea-yet the Western Powers refused the overture of the American government, on the ground that it was then too late."

The Royal Gazette of England, on July 21, 1863, commenting upon the act passed by the U. S. Congress, authorizing the issuing of letters of marque, said:

"The U. S. Congress, in its last session, authorized the President, if he deemed it proper, to issue letters of marque. His having not done so, in view of the destruction of property by the Alabama and the Florida, is severely censured by a writer in one of the late New York papers. This writer suggests that a reward of $500,000 be given to any letter of marque that should capture and bring into any of the ports of the United States any Confederate privateer, or $250,000 for the sinking or otherwise destroying of such a privateer. The writer concludes by observing that the 'almighty dollar might then be the means of bringing privateering to an end.'

"We can hardly understand why such a measure should be adopted. When patriotism is not sufficient to induce men to serve their country, is it probable that the dollar will? Will the dollar inspire courage to a man when the sight of his lowered flag fails to do so? And, besides, are there not enough U. S. ships-of-war skimming the seas after the Alabama and the Florida, the only two known Confederate privateers, and are these Federal vessels not commanded by admirals and officers that the Union boasts of? The issuing by the Washington government of letters of marque would be, indeed, an acknowledgment of the inefficiency of their navy compared to the two or three comparatively small vessels-of-war owned by the Confederacy, and of the incapacity of the men at the head of their fleet."

If the precedents established by the United States were just and lawful acts of war, then similar acts done by authority of the de facto government of the Confederate States in 1861-5 were not criminal" and "nefarious."

66

The license or "letters of marque," issued by a belligerent government to a private armed ship, to capture the ships and goods of the enemy at sea, had its origin in the Middle Ages, when princes issued to their subjects licenses to cross the march or frontier of a neighboring power in order to make reprisals for an injury. It was extended to the high seas in the fourteenth century. But the practice was not general till the end of the sixteenth century. The first instance in which the aid of privateers was deemed important in war was in the struggle between Spain and her revolted provinces of the Netherlands. The Prince of Orange, the leader of the revolt, issued letters of marque against Spain in 1570, and his privateers became terrible. Ever since that time the use of

privateers has been legalized in Europe, unless where parties agree by treaty to abolish it as against each other. The French were the first, on a large scale, to send out those scourges of the sea. The British imitated their example, and their illustrious naval commander, Drake, was a privateersman. At the close of the French war with England, by the peace of Amiens, the latter nation had 30,000 French sailors in prison. In our Revolutionary war with England, the American privateer played a very important part.

On May 20, 1775, articles of confederation and perpetual union were entered into by the delegates of the several colonies of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, etc. A resolution was at the same time passed, that after the expiration of six months (from July 20, 1775) all the ports of the said colonies. were declared to be thenceforth open to the ships of every State in Europe that would admit and protect the commerce of the colonies.

Although by the above articles the colonists usurped the rights of sovereignty with regard to peace and war, the entering into alliances, the appointment of civil and military officers, etc., still their connection with Great Britain was maintained, and no de facto independent government was established.

On June 12, 1775, General Gage issued a proclamation, by which a pardon was offered in the King's name to all those who should forthwith lay down their arms, threatening the treatment of rebels and traitors to all those who did not accept the proffered pardon. This proclamation was looked upon as the preliminary to immediate action, and on the 17th June hostilities commenced between the colonists and royal troops in the neighborhood of Charlestown. In July, 1775, the confederacy assumed the appellation of the Thirteen United Colonies, and General Washington was appointed to the command of the army of the confederation. Hostilities were carried, not only in the colonies, but Canada was also invaded by the colonial forces.

The first act of the Congress for the formation of a navy was promulgated on October 13, 1775, when two vessels were ordered to be armed, and on the 30th of the same month two more armed vessels were ordered to be fitted for sea. On November 25, 1775, resolutions were passed, directing seizures and capture under commissions obtained from the Congress. together with the condemnation of British vessels employed in a hostile manner against the colonies; the mode of trial and of condemnation was pointed out, and the shares of the prizes were apportioned. On November 28, 1775, Congress adopted rules for the regulation of the navy of the United Colonies. On the 13th December, a report was sanctioned for

1 The trade of the British colonists in America at this period was carried on solely by British and colonial shipping.

fitting out a naval armament, to consist in the whole of thirteen ships. On the 22d December, officers were appointed to command the armed vessels. On January 6, 1776, a regulation was adopted relative to the division of prizes and prizemoney taken by armed vessels. On March 23, 1786, resolutions. were adopted authorizing the fitting out of private armed vessels to cruise against the enemies of the United Colonies. On April 2d, 1776, the form of a commission for private armed vessels was agreed upon, and on the 3d April instructions to the commanders of private armed vessels were considered and adopted. They authorized the capture of all ships and other vessels belonging to the inhabitants of Great Britain on the high seas, or between high-water and low-water marks, except vessels bringing persons who intended to reside and settle in the United Colonies.

The whole of these laws were promulgated previously to the final Declaration of Independence issued on July 4, 1776. In the meantime, the different powers of Europe, notwithstanding the declarations of neutrality in the conflict between Great Britain and her colonies, more particularly France, Spain, and Holland, almost openly expressed their sympathy with the cause of the colonists, and aided them with arms and money, and allowed the fitting out of ships, the repairs and armaments, of privateers in their ports, even previous to the receipt of the Declaration of Independence of the colonies, passed on July 4, 1776; the letter from the American Committee of Secret Correspondence to Mr. Silas Deane, their agent in Paris, inclosing the Declaration of Independency, with instructions to make it known to the powers of Europe, not being received until November 7, 1776.

The exploits of Paul Jones by land and sea, making raids upon the British coasts, and sometimes capturing English ships-of-war, are more like romance than reality. The deeds of Captain Reed, of the General Armstrong, are well known. The letters of marque issued by the Continental Congress were held to be valid two years before the new government was recognized by any foreign power; and during the first year the American privateers captured 530 British vessels and their cargoes, valued at $5,000,000. During the Revolutionary war this country had 1,500 privateers on the ocean, having 15,000 guns.

In 1781, according to the Salem (Massachusetts) Gazette, privateering was the principal business of the town. In Mr. Niles' volume, containing "principles and acts of the Revolution," will be found, at p. 376, a "list of privateers fitted out and chiefly owned in Salem and Beverly, from March 1 to November 1, 1781," embracing 26 ships, with 476 guns and 2,645 men; 16 brigs, with 206 guns and 870 men; 8 schooners, with 50 guns and 235 men; 2 sloops, with 14 guns and 70 men; and 7 shallops, with 120 men.

Massachusetts has taken the lead in several operations in this country. She and some of the other New England States took the leading part in the slave trade; she also took the lead in the early part of this century in secession, or nullification. 1 Before the Declaration of Independence, and of course long before the formation of the present Constitution, as early, indeed, as the 10th of November, 1775, the State of Massachusetts passed a law to authorize the fitting-out of privateers and to establish a court for the trial and condemnation of prizes." That law preceded by fifteen days the action of the old Continental Congress upon the same subject; for it was on the 25th of November, 1775, that the Congress passed a law authorizing privateering. Massachusetts was two weeks ahead of Congress, and she passed a law to institute and encourage privateering. Massachusetts did not stand alone in this act, her lead was followed by other States; by Pennsylvania, Maryland and other commonwealths. The Continental Congress encouraged the practice.

The records of the Council of Maryland show that up to April 1, 1777, licenses to privateers were issued by the Council of Safety, and that these vessels were so active that their prizes captured and sent into the Chesapeake realized over $1,000,000. From April 1, 1777, to March 14, 1783, a period of six years, the privateers which sailed out of the Chesapeake, furnished with letters of marque and reprisal, numbered 248, carrying in all 1,810 guns and 640 swivels. We find in the list of owners of these vessels and their commanders some of the very best people in the State, and the ancestors of a number of those who were distinguished on the Union side during the late war between the States. We need only refer to the names of John Rodgers, David Porter, Alexander Murray, Joshua Barney, Robert Morris (the great financier of Philadelphia, the friend of Washington and Franklin), Robert Purviance, Alexander McKim, James Calhoun, the first Mayor of Baltimore, and William Patterson, the father of Madame Bonaparte.

In 1793, when the war broke out between France and Great Britain, Baltimore sent to sea some forty or fifty privateers

1 On the 1st of August, 1812, Governor Strong, of Massachusetts, addressed a letter to the three judges of Massachusetts, in which, amongst other things, he propounded to the judges this question: "Whether it was for the President of the United States, or for the States themselves, respectively, to determine the Constitutional exigency upon which the militia of the States were liable to be ordered out into the service of the Federal government?" The reply of the judges was, "That that right was vested solely in the commanders-in-chief of the militia of the several States." This question, it is true, was never formally adjudicated by the judges, but this was their answer to the question; and it was as much as to say (so far as the Governor, and the judges at least could say so) that if the President enforced, or attempted to enforce, this right that was claimed for him, the State of Massachusetts would resist it: and she did resist

it, for, in point of fact, she never furnished her quota, or even a solitary militiaman, we believe, under the requisition which was made upon her by the President. What was this but secession, or revolution, or practical nullification in the most ultra shape? We all know how persistently the conscription and impressment scheme of President Monroe, for raising an army in 1815, was resisted and opposed by five of the New England States; how it first led to a legislative protest and resolutions on the part of Connecticut, strongly tinctured with secession and nullification; and how it afterwards led to that celebrated conclave called the Hartford Convention, which met on the 15th of December, 1815, and whose members were nothing more or less than a set of nullifiers or secessionists under the cloak of federalism.

2 Hildreth's History of the United States, Vol. III., p. 101.

« ПредишнаНапред »