Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m42fx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T10:19:28.862Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The United States and the League of Neutrals of 1780

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2017

William S. Carpenter
William S. Carpenter*
Affiliation:
Princeton University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The idea of a league of nations is one with which the United States has been familiar since the very beginning of its history. The form in which it first appeared to this country was in the Armed Neutrality of 1780. The purpose of this league, which has sometimes been called the League of Neutrals, was the protection of neutral trade. Having its origin at the court of Catherine II, Empress of Russia, the Armed Neutrality set forth a body of rules respecting the freedom of commerce in time of war which must prove highly favorable to the United States when that country, in a future conflict, should change its status from that of a belligerent to that of a neutral. It is not surprising, therefore, that the inclusion of the United States among the membership of the league which the Tsarina was forming to enforce these principles was not without its advocates.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , October 1921 , pp. 511 - 522
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1921

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For a study of the American attitude towardscapture at sea, see H. S. Quigley, this JOURNAL, Vol. 11, pp. 820-837.

2 Jour. Cont. Cong., Ill, pp. 373-374; Davis, J. C. Bancroft , Federal Courts before the Constitution, 131 U. S. Reports, Appendix, p. xxi Google Scholar; Jameson, Essays in the Constitutional History of the United States, p. 11.

3 In 1776, when a court could not be conveniently convened in New Jersey, the legislature by statute proceeded to condemn a vessel “said to be British property,” which had been captured by the militia. Laws of N. J., 1776, p. 17. The New York Provincial Congress, on June 28, 1776, appointed a committee to take charge of prizes until condemnation. Am. Archives, Ser. 4, VI, p. 1435.

4 Davis, 131 U. S. Reports, Appendix, p. xxiii; Penhallow v. Doane, 3 Dallas 54.

5 Acts and Resolves of the Province of Mass. Bay, V, p. 1077.

6 Jour. Cont. Cong., XII, p. 1023.

7 Ibid., XVI, pp. 61-64.

8 MSS. in the office of the Clerk of the U. S. District Court at Philadelphia. The case of McAroy v. Thistle and Cargo is especially inpoint. The judgment of the State court was promptly reversed by Congress. The case of Griffin r. Sloop George, condemned in the New Jersey court in 1778, was of the same character. Jennings v. Carson, 4 Cranch 2.

9 Austin, Life of Elbridge Gerry, I, p. 313.

10 Jour. Cont. Cong., XVI, p. 62.

11 Hopkinson: Miscellaneous Essays and Occasional Writings, III, p. 24.

12 Manning: Law of Nations (ed. Amos), pp. 325-337; Phillimore: Commentaries (3rd ed.), III , p. 335 ff. In 1752, Frederick II of Prussia, in the Silesian Loan Controversy, contended that the principle of “free ships, freegoods,” must be admitted as a rule of international law, but this was successfully controverted by the British commissioners. Martens, Causes celebres, II, pp. 1-88. The best discussion of this subject is to be found in Ward, Relative Rights and Duties of Belligerent and Neutral Powers in Maritime Affairs (London, 1801), pp. 1-172. Practically allthelater English writers have simply restated the position occupied by Ward. For an attemptto establish the principles of the Armed Neutrality as rules of international law, see Barton, Freedom of Navigation (Philadelphia, 1802).

13 Jour. Cont. Cong., V, pp. 581, 585.

14 Martens, Recueil des Traites, II, pp. 594, 597.

15 Jour. Cont. Cong., IV, p. 263; IX, p. 802.

16 Pickering, Life of Timothy Pickering, I, p. 79; Penna. Archives, VII, p. 558.

17 Diplomatic Correspondence of the Am. Revolution (ed. Wharton), II, p. 322; Annual Register (1778), p. 37.

18 Dip. Corr. Am. Rev. (ed. Wharton), II. p. 784.

19 Ibid., II, p. 840

20 See instructions of the American Commissioners, Nov. 21, 1777 (Dip. Corr. Am. Rev. (ed. Wharton), II, p. 425), and proclamation of Congress, May 9, 1778 (Jour. Cont. Cong., XI, p. 486).

21 Jour. Cont. Cong., XVI, pp. 406-408.

22 Geddes v. The Golden Rose, Hopkinson, III, p. 19. The decision in this case ran counter to that of the Massachusetts court in Tucker v. LeVern and Cargo, DeValnais Claimant. In the latter case, the jury condemned a French vessel which had been captured by the British and from them recaptured by the libellant. DeValnais appealed to the Court of Appeals in Cases of Capture, where the judgment of the lower court was reversed. The case will be found among the MS8. of the Court of Appeals in the office of the Clerk of the United States Supreme Court. On the subject of recaptures, see Martens, G. F. de , Essay on Privateers and Captures, Eng. trans. (London, 1801), pp. 107-214 Google Scholar.

23 Walker v. Albion, Hopkinson, III , p. 42; Penna. Archives, VIII, p. 491. On July 15, 1779, Francis Hopkinson became judge of the admiralty court in Pennsylvania following the death of Judge Ross. In thecase of Cleaveland v. Ship Valenciano, Congress affirmed the decree ofthe Massachusetts court condemning the ship as hostile, but freed a part of the cargo owned by Spanish subjects. See cases in the office of the Clerk of the U. S. Supreme Court.

24 For an example, see case of Cabot v. Neustra Senora de Merced among the MSS. of the Court of Appeals. The admiralty court in Massachusetts freed the Spanishowned vessel, but condemned the British property. Upon appeal, Congress affirmed the decision of the State court, November 6, 1779. See also Dip. Corr. Am. Rev. (ed. Wharton), VII, p. 63; Franklin, Works (ed. Bigelow), I I I , pp. 742, 801.

25 Martens, Recueil, III , p. 158; Bergbohm, Die Bewaffnete Neutralitat, pp. 30-50. The treaties of Utrecht, 1713, and numerous other conventions had asserted the maxims “free ships make free goods” and “enemy's ships make enemy's goods.” (Calvo, IV, p. 414; Wheaton. History, p. 106 ff.; Atherley-Jones, Commerce in War, pp. 284-298). But among Christian Powers the first of these principles had never been accepted unless accompanied by the second. (Manning, Law of Nations (ed. Amos), p. 335.) Catherine I I is therefore supposed to have asserted a principle entirely novel. (Manning, p. 335; Phillimore (3rd ed.), III , p. 302 ft*.; Bowles, Declaration of Paris, pp. 77-79; Lampredi, Du Commerce des Neutres en Temps de Guerre, French trans., Italian ed. 1788 (Paris, 1802); Kent, Commentaries, I, pp. 126, 131). On the other hand, Kleen, Lois et Usages de la Neutrality, pp. 20-21, holds that the Armed Neutrality intended simply to renew the Utrecht principle and to establish the doctrine that the quality of the vessel determines the quality of the cargo.

26 Recueil des Anciennes Lois Franchises, XXV, pp. 366-370.

27 Martens, Recueil, II, pp. 103, 110, 117, 130, 171. Portugal, on July 13, 1782, and the Two Sicilies, on February 10, 1783, accepted the principles of the Armed Neutrality. Martens, Recueil, II, p. 208; III, p. 274.

28 Ibid., pp. 162, 164.

29 Ibid., I l l , p. 160; Annual Register (1780), p. 349.

30 Franklin MSS., May, 1780. Library Am. Philos. Society.

31 Dip. Corr. Am. Rev. (ed. Wharton), III, pp. 682, 742, 769.

32 Dip. Corr. Am. Kev. (ed. Wharton), III, p. 740; Franklin, Works (ed. Bigelow),VII, p. 62.

33 Dip. Corr. Am. Rev. (ed. Wharton), VI, p. 801; Fauchille, La Diplomatic Francaise et la Ligue des Neutres, pp. 394-400.

34 Doniol, Histoire de la participation de la France a l'gtablissement des Etats Unis d'Amerique, IV, p. 438.

35 Dip. Corr. Am. Kev. (ed. Wharton), I I I , pp. 612, 632.

36 Franklin, Works (ed. Bigelow), VII, p. 107.

37 Jour. Cont. Cong., XVIII, pp. 864-867.

38 JUd., XVIII, p. 905.

39 Jour. Cont. Cong., XVIII, pp. 1097, 1098.

40 Idbi., XIX, p. 261.

41 Franklin MSS., Oct. 17, 1780. Library Univ. of Pennsylvania.

42 Allen, Naval Hist. Am. Rev., pp. 540-542.

43 Dip . Corr. Am. Rev. (ed. Wharton ), IV, p. 180.

44 Jour. Cont. Cong., XX, p. 542; see also case ofBabcock v. Brigantine Brunette, in MSS. of Court of Appeals, Aug. 4, 1781.

45 2 Dallas 1.

46 Jo Upon a rehearing in December, 1781, the court took into consideration the fact that a state of war existed, at the time of capture, between Great Britain and Holland. But upon the new evidence, the court adhered to its first decision, except with regard to a part of the cargo, which was condemned on account of irregularities in the bilU of lading and letters of advice respecting those particular articles. 2 Dallas 19; Hopkinson, III, p. 70.

47 Kleen, Lois et Usages de la Neutrality, I, p. 21 ff.

48 Jour . Cont. Cong., XVIII, p. 905; Dip. Corr. Am. Rev. (ed. Wharton), IV, p. 80.

49 Dip. Corr. Am. Rev. (ed. Wharton), V, pp. 274-276.

50 Jour. Cont. Cong., XVIII, pp. 1155, 1164, 1166.

51 Ibid XVIII, pp. 1168-1173.

52 Bancroft, Hist, of the U. S., X, p. 257.

53 Franklin MSS., June 25, 1780. Library Am. Philos. Society.

54 MS. Memoir on the relations between the Imperial Court of Russia and the United States of America in the reign of Catherine II. Library of Congress.

55 For a study of the Dana mission, see Hildt, Early Diplomatic Negotiations of the United States with Russia. J. H. U. Studies, XXV, pp. 257-278. The correspondence will be found under appropriate dates in Dip. Corr. Am. Rev. (ed. Wharton).

56 Adams, Works, VIII, p. 15; Dip. Corr. Am. Rev. (ed. Wharton), VI, p. 191.

57 Works (ed. Bigelow), VIII, p. 245.

58 Adams, Works, VIII, pp. 29, 42.

59 Ibid., VIII, pp. 30, 40, 43.

60 Ibid., VIII, p. 51; Dip. Corr. Am. Rev. (ed. Wharton), VI, p. 403.

61 Dip. Corr. Am. Rev. (ed. Wharton), VI, p. 437; Jour. Cont. Cong., May 21-22, 1783. I am indebted to Miss Emily B. Mitchell of the Division of MSS., Library of Congress, for permission to use the galley proofs of the volumes of the Jour. Cont. Cong, for 1783.

62 Dip. Corr. Am. Rev. (ed. Wharton), VI, pp. 473-474.

63 Ibid VI, p. 482.

64 Ibid VI, p. 717.

65 Phillhnore (3rd ed.), I l l , p. 339.