United States with other powers, as rather a fundamental, organic element of American policy, than as a passing temporary ordinance which could readily yield to the slightest pressure of a change of circumstances. In this sense I beg to put it upon the same platform as the neutrality statutes of the United States, which have remained essentially the same, notwithstanding numerous grave crises, ever since their first enactment in 1793. Your excellency is pleased to pay the compliment to the distinguished American publicist Kent, whose opinion I took the liberty to cite, to say, that in regard to another passage quoted by me he limits himself to repeating the opinion of another, without expressing his own. In regard to this statute, however, your excellency will observe that he speaks for himself of it, as "dictated by a humane and enlightened policy," (vol. 1 Commentaries, p. 58;) and I understand him to extend the same comment to English and French laws of the days of Edward III and Henry VIII of England, and the ordinance of Charles V of France, which declared at that early day that "foreign merchants who should be in France at the time of declaration of war shall have nothing to fear, for they should have liberty to depart freely with their effects." Will your excellency also allow me to make, in regard to the passage wherein you say Chancellor Kent contents himself with citing Vattel without giving his own opinion, that the learned chancellor says (five lines earlier, page 56) in his own person that "such stipulations (as allowing foreign subjects a reasonable time after the war breaks out to recover and dispose of their effects, or to withdraw them) have now become an established formula in commercial treaties." If this should seem to be limited to the right of the foreigner to withdraw his property only, and not his person, I beg to ask if the concession of the lesser privilege does not, a fortiori, imply that of the greater. How can one be supposed to be able to withdraw his goods and effects [without] withdrawing himself also? Vattel, in the passage immediately following, (as do most of the writers on public law which I have had an opportunity to consult,) puts the two concessions upon the same common coördinate basis. And since your excellency has done me the honor to refer to Vattel in connection with Kent, will you permit me to call your attention to the fact that the American commentator, in quoting Vattel, fails to translate into English the full force of the Swiss publicist's dictum, which I beg leave to characterize as one of the most forcible as well as most accurate expressions of the sentiments which I am trying to express in behalf of my Government that can anywhere be found. With your excellency's permission, I will quote the whole paragraph from the original French: "Le souverain qui déclare la guerre ne peut retenir les sujets de l'ennemi qui se trouvent dans ses états au moment de la déclaration non plus que leurs effets; ils sont venus chez lui sur la foi publique; en leur permettant d'entrer dans ses terres et d'y séjourner il leur a promis tacitement toute liberté et toute sûreté pour le retour. Il doit donc leur marquer un temps convenable pour se retirer avec leurs effets; et s'ils restent au delà du terme prescrit, il est en droit de les traiter en ennemis, toutefois en ennemis des amis. Mais s'ils sont retenus par un empèchement insurmontable, par une maladie, if faut nécessairement, et par les mêmes raisons leur accorder un juste délai. Loin de manquer à ce devoir aujourd'hui on donne plus encore à l'humanité, et très souvent on accorde aux étrangers, sujets de l'état auquel on a déclaré la guerre, tout le temps de mettre ordre à leurs affaires." These sentiments lose none of their force when it is remembered that they were uttered more than a century ago. I will only allow myself a single further observation in regard to the judicial decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, upon which your excellency bestows a passing observation. When Chancellor Kent speaks of "the ancient and sterner rule having become definitively settled by the Supreme Court of the United States," he does not point his comment with his usual accuracy. It was only with reference to the confiscation of property, and not the detention of persons, that the American Supreme Court was deciding; and it was only in reference to the formula that the learned chancellor's comment was pertinent, and what I pray your excellency to observe was that decision. The lower court (the eminent Judge Story) had decided that British property found on American territory during the war of 1812 was rightfully seized and confiscated by the United States Government, but the Supreme Court overruled this decision, and held that enemies' property was not liable to detention without a special statute of the United States Congress to that effect; and I beg your excellency's attention to the fact that the United States never have passed any such statute of confiscation, àpropos of a foreign war, down to this day; and that, therefore, at the present moment, by the decision of the highest American tribunal, if any such war shall hereafter break out, an enemy's property will not be liable to confiscation. As for his personal security, I beg leave to say that the belligerent stranger may fall back, with perfect security, upon the law of 1798, above commented on, and, as I believe, with perfect assurance that he will not see its repeal attempted, much less accomplished, whatever may be the pressure of a foreign war. I trust that your excellency will see that in this more extended reply to the commn nication of the 3d instant than I intended, I have in view but the single point of representing, so far as I may do, without other instructions from home, the deep interest which I am confident my Government will take in the decision which the government of France feels itself constrained by circumstances to adopt in regard to North German subjects, whose interests I am permitted by the comity of his Majesty to represent and befriend. I take the present opportunity, &c., &c., &c. His Excellency the DUKE DE GRAMONT, E. B. WASHBURNE, Minister of Foreign Affairs. No. 261.] No. 64. Mr. Washburne to Mr. Fish. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: I am to-day in receipt of a communication from the minister of foreign affairs, inclosing two official copies of the notification of the blockade of the North German coast by the French fleet. I am requested by the Prince de la Tour d'Auvergne to transmit this notification to my Government, in order that it may communicate the information to American citizens. E. B. WASHBURNE. [Extract from the Journal Officiel de l'Empire, August 17, 1870.] OFFICIAL PART, MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS. Notification of the blockade of the coast of Prussia and of the German States in the North Sea. We, the undersigned, vice-admiral commanding-in-chief the naval forces of his Majesty the Emperor of the French in the North Sea, in consideration of the state of war existing between France and Prussia, together with the states of the North German Confederation, acting in virtue of the powers belonging to us, declare that from the 15th of August, 1870, the coast of Prussia and of the North German Confederation, extending from the island of the Baltram north of the Eider, with its ports, rivers, harbors, roads, and creeks, is held in a state of effective blockade by the naval forces placed under our command, and that a delay of ten days will be granted to friendly or neutral vessels in order to finish loading and to leave the blockaded districts. The geographical limits of this blockade are: The meridian of 5° (five degrees) of east longitude from Paris, as far as the parallel of 54° 05' (fifty-four degrees five minutes) north latitude. The parallel as far as the longitude of 5° 45′ (five degrees forty-five minutes) from Paris. Then the meridian of 5° 45′ (five degrees forty-five minutes) as far as the parallel of 54° 20' (fifty-four degrees twenty minutes) of latitude. And, finally, this latter parallel as far as the coast. Steps will be taken against any vessel which may endeavor to violate the said blockade, in accordance with international law and the treaties now in force with neutral powers. On board of the Magnanime, an iron-clad frigate of his Majesty the Emperor of the French, stationed between the English island of Heligoland and the Prussian coast. The vice-admiral commanding-in-chief, AUGUST 12, 1870. TOURICHON. No. 266.] No. 65. Mr. E. B. Washburne to Mr. Fish. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Paris, August 22, 1870. (Received September 8.) SIR: In my dispatch No. 253, and dated the 12th instant, I spoke of an interview which was to be had that evening by Mr. Kern, the Swiss minister, Mr. Okouneff, the Russian chargé d'affaires, and myself, with M. Chevereau, minister of the interior, on the subject of the protection of the subjects of the powers at war with France. I will now endeavor to give you a connected narration of what has taken place in regard to this matter since the date of my dispatch above alluded to. On the 12th instant, at 6.30 p. m., Mr. Kern, Mr. Okouneff, and myself had the interview with the minister of the interior of which I spoke in my dispatch No. 253. Between the time the interview was arranged with M. Chevereau and the time it actually took place the subject of the expulsion of the Germans from Paris had been up in the corps legislatif, and for a full understanding of what was said and done there I send you a translation of the material part of the debate, marked No. 1, as copied from the official journal. I would call your attention to the language made use of in this debate by the minister of the interior, M. Chevereau. He speaks of all measures taken to expel [expulser] the foreigners in Paris. I alluded to this for the reason that Mr. Davis had requested in his telegraphic dispatch that the word "departure" should be substituted for the word "expulsion." Calling upon M. Chevereau, at the ministry of the interior, at the appointed hour, Mr. Kern, as being the senior minister here, stated to him the subject upon which we had desired to see him, and explained our positions in the matter. M. Chevereau remarked that when he came into office he found that the preceding ministry had, in view of the circumstances at the time, adopted the policy of refusing to allow Prussians to leave France, and had made certain provisions regulating their residence. The circumstances had, however, changed, and he found himself in the face of regulations which had no longer any "raison d'étre." The government had, therefore, determined, with the view of both relieving itself from the presence, in the heart of the capital, of some forty thousand Prussians, and at the same time for the purpose of protecting them from the excited population of Paris, to order them in the most humane mode to leave the country. He was urged to do this in order to answer the interpellations of the corps legislatif and the general expression of public opinion as found in the journals of Paris. After a general conversation as to the effect of such action on the German population, and the hardships and misery which would result therefrom, Mr. C. said he was prepared in every way to mitigate as far as he could the harshness of the order, and that he would take pleasure in making the exceptions as numerous as possible; that any persons who could be recommended by respectable parties in their neighborhood, or who would be indorsed by the legations of Russia, the United States, and Switzerland, he would cheerfully allow to remain unmolested. At the same time, in view of the excited state of the population of Paris, he advised all who could get off to leave at once. He would endeavor to remove all difficulties in the way of departure and to make the formalities as few as possible. At my own suggestion he promised to ascertain from the prefecture of police whether it would be possible to dispense with the police visa of that office on the passports of Germans wishing to leave, and, in concert with the prefect, he would devise some expeditious mode by which the Germans could leave France on the simple visa of the different legations charged with their protection. At my further suggestion, he promised to send immediate orders to the French police agents on the frontier not to molest the Germans who had started to leave the country, even if their papers had not a proper visa. I then told the minister that I had received very recent information from the American consul at Rheims of the ill-treatment to which the German residents in that vicinity had been subjected. He gave orders that the prefect should be immediately telegraphed to consult with the American consul there, and to afford every protection possible, and also to authorize our consul to give them passes to leave the country. In conclusion, the minister said he should be glad to place himself entirely at the disposition of the representatives of Russia, the United States, and Switzerland, with the view of aiding them in removing the difficulties which he understood must surround the position of the different peoples under their protection. At quite an early hour the next morning Mr. Erian, one of the under secretaries of the ministry, called at the legation to state that it had been arranged with the police authorities that all of the people under my protection could leave France upon the simple visa of my legation, a form of which he gave. As I stated in my dispatch No. 257, under date of the 15th instant, we have been giving these visas in great numbers, as well as furnishing pecuniary assistance to a smaller number in order to enable them to leave French territory. I had the honor to receive on the 17th instant the telegraphic dispatch of Mr. Davis, containing the approval of my action in suggesting a credit to be placed at my disposition by the Prussian government to aid in removal of their poor from Paris, advising me that such a credit had been given, and instructing me to do what I could, consistent with public law and the position of our country as a neutral, to mitigate the severity of the order of "expulsion." I also received, the day after, the telegraphic dispatch submitting the word "departure" for the word "expulsion," which I have above alluded to. Though I had left nothing undone in respect of the instructions contained in the telegraph dispatch of Mr. Davis above alluded to, I lost no time in seeking an interview with the Prince de la Tour d'Auvergne on the subject. After conversing in relation to some minor matters, I told the prince that the principal object for which I had sought an interview with him had relation to the position in which I found myself as charged with the protection of the subjects of several of the powers with which France was at war. I stated that the sudden determination of the French government in regard to the departure of the Germans from France had taken me by surprise, and I wanted to know if it were not possible for his Majesty's government to change their determination in that matter. I explained to him the great distress and hardship it inflicted on thousands of peaceable, innocent, and inoffensive men, women, and children of the laboring classes, most of whom were very poor, and who came in great crowds to our legation seeking their passes and the means of getting out of France. The minister remarked in reply that on his way from Vienna he first heard of this matter and had conceived great doubts as to the propriety of the measure, and on his arrival at Paris had so expressed himself to the Empress Regent and to the minister of interior. He had, however, yielded his first impressions upon the representations made to him by his colleague, the minister of the interior, that this measure, harsh as it was, was dictated by the pressure of circumstances; that the government could not without great concern contemplate the fact of such vast numbers of Prussians (estimated at forty thousand) residing in their midst; and that their apprehensions had become excited by the maneuvers of certain Prussians whose presence in Paris was dangerous in the highest degree; that the French population had reached a state of excitement on the subject of the residence of so many Prussians in the heart of the capital which rendered it unsafe for the latter, and placed the government under the obligation of requiring their departure for their own sake as a measure of humanity, and in view of their protection, that the government was perfectly willing and anxious to mitigate the hardship of their decree by making any exceptions in favor of persons recommended by the respectable citizens of the neighborhood, and especially in favor of any persons that the legation of the United States might designate as worthy of their protection. I remarked in reply to his excellency that I had received the same assurance from his colleague, the minister of the interior, who had manifested every disposition to do all in his power to mitigate the severity of the order. I told him that my position had become somewhat embarrassing, and that the difficulties, so far from diminishing, were on the increase; and that out of the mass of the Germans in Paris under my protection it was impossible for me to pass upon the separate cases of those who might desire to remain; and even if I could pass on them, yet by reason of the understanding that the order of departure was general, many unobjectionable persons, who would have been desirous of remaining in Paris and following their ordinary pursuits, considered themselves as being obliged to leave. I said further that in carrying out the wishes and instructions of my government, I wished in the name of humanity to make an earnest appeal to the French government, through him, to revoke the order if it should be considered possible; and if that could not be done, to so modify it as to permit the larger class of Germans in Paris to remain, whose conduct could give no possible cause of complaint to the French government. His excellency then called my attention to the fact that the order of expulsion of all French subjects from Prussia having been issued by the Prussian government, no complaint could, strictly speaking, be made here against the French order, but that out of consideration for my position he was willing to entertain the subject. At the same time he stated that the French order had not been made in consequence of the order of the Prussian government as a retaliatory measure, but for the reasons he had already suggested. I then stated that I was surprised to hear him remark that the Prussian government had made an order of expulsion against French subjects, and was hardly prepared to credit it, unless he had positive knowledge that such was the fact. In confirmation of my belief I stated that I had read a telegraphic dispatch purporting to be an extract from a Berlin paper, which, referring to the expulsion of the Germans from France, expressly declared that the French subjects would not be expelled from Prussia, but would be placed under the protection of the Prussian government. In reply to these suggestions of my own, his excellency stated that he had no official knowledge of the Prussian order of expulsion, but that he understood the minister of interior as stating it as a fact which he had taken for granted in his discussion of the matter with him. He further remarked in this connection that he had personal knowledge of |