clamations with which I am charged, it is incumbent upon me to express the extreme surprise and concern with which my government has seen the property of its innocent citizens, whilst employed in fair and legal commerce, ravaged by the cruizers of a nation between which and the United States the most perfect harmony has always hitherto subsisted, against which they have never heretofore found any cause of dispute or any ground of offence, and to which they felt themselves attached not merely by the ordinary ties of reciprocal good offices, but by a common interest in the defence and preservation of those neutral rights, which have so much contributed to the political importance of Denmark, by which her prosperity has been so greatly promoted, and which formerly foremost amongst nations she has so magnanimously and successfully contended for. But at the same time that I make this reflection so necessary and so obvious, I must also say, that the President retains an entire confidence in the personal good dispositions of his majes ty, in his steady adherence to those great and liberal principles and to those just political views which so eminently distinguish his character, and the President assures himself that it is only necessary that his majesty should be made acquainted with the nature and extent of the injuries which the rights of the United States, as a neutral nation, and the property of their citizens, have suffered and are still exposed to, to induce him to apply an immediate and an adequate remedy to the evils complained of. His majesty on his part cannot fail to feel that confidence in the correct views and honorable intentions of the U. States, which their uniform conduct in all their negotiations and transactions with other powers has so justly entitled them to; nor can he be indifferent when the friendly relations and mutual good dispositions which have hitherto so invariably subsisted between the two countries, and which it is so much the interest of each to maintain, are in question.

Animated by the most just and friendly dispositions, the American government, whilst it resists all aggressions on its neutral rights, and will never cease to oppose all violations of the public Jaw which may offend them, solicitously avoids any interference with the rights of others, nor will it admit, under cover of its name and authority, any practices which may have that tendency; it has therefore seen with the most indignant sensibility various instances of the prostitution of its flag by unprincipled adventurers in Europe, and I have it in express command to assure his majesty of its determination to discountenance by all practicable means such proceedings, and of its sincere disposition to co-operate with his majesty in detecting and punishing all similar frauds and impostures.

Your excellency will perceive in the frankness of these observations, and in the loyalty of this declaration, the true character of the American government; they will also I trust strengthen my title to that confidence on the part of his majesty which it is at once my duty and by desire to merit.

To carry into effect this twofold purpose of my government; to protect the property of its citizens, and to cast off from any reliance on its protection, those spurious and fraudulent cases, (if any such actually exist) which have injured the character of the American trade and jeopardized the interests of American citizens, I will enter into candid explanations with your excellency upon all the questions which may arise on the cases now pending; so as to establish the bona fide character of the vessels under adjudication, and thus remove from before his majesty every obstacle to that course of justice which he is always desirous to observe, and to a manifestation of the amicable and conciliatory feelings towards the United States which it is confided prevail in his mind.

I have the honour herewith to transmit to your excellency two lists, containing together 28 cases of American capture, being those now actually pending before the supreme court of Admiralty on appeal, or waiting for his majesty's decision. The list No. 1, comprising 12 of the whole number, are "convoy cases," that is, cases in which no question has been raised as to the genuine character of the vessels, but wherein the decision rests upon the clause "d," of the 11th article of the royal instructions of March 10th, 1810, declaring as a cause of condemnation-"the making use of English convoy." I stated to your excellency in conversation, as well as in the note which I took the liberty of addressing to you on the 2d instant, that it would be my duty to object to the principle assumed in that declaration. I trust that I shall be able to show you that it is entirely novel, that it has not any foundation in public law, and that it has not even such sanction as might be supposed derivable from the practice of other nations. Certainly much effort will not be necessary to prove that it is entirely repugnant to the broad ground of neutral right, formerly occupied and firmly maintained by Denmark herself; but upon this point I propose forthwith to address to your excellency a separate note; in the present, I will confine myself to observations on the cases (16 in number) mentioned in the list No. 2.

With respect to the "Egeria," captain Law, I send to your excellency a separate note in reply to that with which you honoured me on the 2d instant. That case must now stand so perfectly clear, that I am sure I need not trouble you with any additional remark on it.

In the two cases, viz. "Nimrod" and "Richmond," the sole objection made is to the French certificates of origin which they had on board; these are presumed to be forgeries, upon a supposition that at the time they bear date, the French consuls in the United States had ceased to issue such certificates. Now the cases must be relieved from that objection, and the question which has been raised upon French certificates of origin be put at rest for ever, by the facts which appear in the correspondence between the secretary of state of the United States and general Turreau the French mimister, a copy of which I have herewith the honour to inclose [No.3].

Your excellency will observe that in general Turreau's letter of December 12th, replying to the secretary's letter of November 28th, it is expressly and unequivocally stated that the French consuls in America "had always delivered certificates of origin to American vessels for the ports of France," and had also "delivered them to vessels destined to neutral or allied ports" by the authority of the French government; and that it was only by the United States ship" Hornet," which arrived in America on the 13th of November, 1810, that the French consuls received orders to discontinue the granting of such certificates to vessels bound to other ports than those of France. Your excellency will also perceive in the secretary of state's reply of December 18th how important this explanation was deemed by the president in its application to the vessels of the United States taken by Danish cruizers upon the ground of their having on board such certificates.

Of the thirteen remaining cases in the list No. 2, eight have been acquitted in the subordinate courts of Norway and at Flensburg, and are now depending in the high court on the appeals of the captors; and five have been condemned in the subordinate courts and are now depending in the high court on the appeals of the American masters.

I annex to this note a summary of each class (A and B,) showing the nature of the questions and objections which have arisen upon the several cases, and I do confide, that if your excellency will be pleased to lay it before the king, that his majesty will become immediately sensible to the undue proceedings of his tribunals, and will readily apply his royal authority to administer prompt and efficacious redress for the injuries and vexations which the commerce of the United States and its citizens are suffering.

I can only add, that in all cases where any doubt shall arise respecting the authenticity of American documents, I have it fully in my power to establish the truth: and I beg leave to re-assure your excellency that on this point, as on every other, you shall not experience any proceedings on my part, which will not conform to the strict honour and good faith, to the just and liberal sentiments that characterize, and to the friendly and conciliatory dispositions towards his majesty which influence the government which I have the honour to represent. I offer to your excellency, assurances of the very distinguished respect and consideration with which I am always, &c.

To Mr. de Rosenkrantz.

G. W. ERVING.

B.

SIR,

Mr. Erving to M. de Rosenkrantz.

Copenhagen, June 7th, 1811. With my note of yesterday, I transmitted to your excellency a list [No. 1.] of the "convoy cases," twelve in number: the two last in that list are not depending on appeal before the high court, as

is mentioned in a memorandum opposite to their names; the first eight vessels of the remaining ten were bound immediately from Petersburg and Cronstadt to the United States; they had all paid their Sound dues, and several of them had been examined before the Danish marine tribunals on entering the Baltic-and they were all arrested in going out by a British force, and compelled to join convoy. When that convoy was attacked by his majesty's gun brigs, the Americans, not conscious of any illegality in the nature of their voyages, or of any irregularity in their own conduct, made not any efforts to escape: they were captured and brought into port. No question has been made as to the genuine American character of the vessels in question, but they have been condemned under the authority of the article "d," in the 11th clause of his majesty's instructions for privateers, issued on the 10th March, 1810, which declares to be good prize "all vessels which have made use of British convoy, either in the Atlantic or the Baltic." At the time of this declaration, these vessels were in Russia, on the point of sailing, and wholly ignorant of it.

This is a brief history of the "convoy cases." It is now my duty to protest against the principle, assumed in the instructions referred to, upon which they have been condemned. I shall endeavour to show to your excellency, that it is wholly new; not founded in, or supported by, any reasoning to be derived from the law of nations -not even countenanced by precedents-and as wholly repugnant to the doctrines heretofore held by Denmark itself, as it is to the rights and to the interests of the United States.

That the belligerent has a right to ascertain the neutrality of vessels which he may meet with at sea, and therefore, under certain suspicious circumstances, to bring such vessels into port for examination, I am not disposed to deny: it may also be allowed that the being found under enemy's convoy does afford such reasonable ground of suspicion, against the vessels so found, as to authorize their being sent into port for examination. But this is the full extent of the belligerent right on this point: the examination had, and the vessels being found bona fide neutral, must be acquitted. To say that the neutral shall be condemned on the mere fact that he was found under enemy's convoy, is to impose upon him a necessity of sailing without protection even against his own separate enemies; for the case might well happen, indeed has happened, that though neutral with regard to the belligerent powers, he . has had an enemy against whom either of the belligerents was disposed to protect him. Of such protection the American commerce has often availed itself, during the war between the United States and Barbary powers; nor was it ever supposed by either of the great belligerent powers, that such commerce, so protected by its enemy, had thus become liable to capture and confiscation. The case might also occur, that of two allied belligerent powers, a third power should be enemy as to one and neutral as to the other: in that case, his seeking the protection of the common enemy of these alVOL. III. APP. + M

lied powers, against that of them to which he was enemy, could not subject him to capture and confiscation by the other allied power, with respect to which he was neutral; his right, in either of these and in all cases, to protect himself against his enemy by availing himself of whatever convoy offers, is unquestionable. I state these arguments against the broad ground taken in the royal instructions above quoted. But it will be said that the belligerent having also an unquestionable right to ascertain the neutrality of vessels, and belligerent rights being paramount to neutral rights where the two happen to be in collision, hence the attempt of the neutral to deprive the belligerent of his right, by putting himself under convoy, forms of itself a ground of capture and confiscation. To this I answer.

Firstly: That the belligerent rights, where they come into collision with those of neutrals, are not to be deemed in all cases paramount; and that nothing can establish such a general rule but force, which is not law or justice.

Secondly: That no presumption necessarily arises against the neutral, from the mere circumstance of his being found under enemies' convoy; but that this point will depend upon the peculiar circumstance of each case.

Thirdly: That where the belligerent and neutral rights conflict, all other circumstances being equal, the plea of necessity ought to decide the question in favour of the neutral. In the case supposed, the belligerent is seeking the mere exercise of a right, but the neutral is occupied in his self preservation.

Fourthly: Superadded to this reason in favour of the neutral right, is one springing out of the immutable principles of equity; for since, according to modern practice, the neutral has no representative in the judicature by which his cause is tried that it is no longer an umpirage, or a court of arbitration-so his claim to a favourable leaning towards his right, in all questionable cases, is very much strengthened.

But it is also proper to inquire, whether the vessels in question did in fact put themselves under convoy with a view to avoid examination by Danish cruizers. Now it appears, in the first place, that they did not seek convoy for any purpose, but that they were forced into it. Apart, however, from that question, there were not any Danish laws or ordinances, which they knew of, subjecting them to capture; nor could they apprehend or anticipate any such; the less, as they had previously passed through the Sound, or Belt, in safety, and without convoy; hence they had not any motive to seek convoy as a protection against Danish cruizers. They had, indeed, other inducements to put themselves under convoy; the decrees of his majesty the emperor of France (since, happily for the harmony between the United States and France, repealed) were then in force: that system, working against the English orders in council, produced such a state of things with regard to the commerce of America, that scarcely one of its ships could move on