On Privateering

“Oct. 6, 1863. (To Mr. Bigelow.)—In 1854, on the breaking out of the Crimean war, a communication was sent by England and France to the American Government, expressing a confident hope that it would, ‘in the spirit of just reciprocity, give orders that no privateer under Russian colours shall be equipped, or victualled, or admitted with its prizes, in the ports of the United States,’ &c. It has occurred to me to call your attention to this, although I dare say it has not escaped Mr. Dayton’s recollection. But I should be curious to know what answer the French Government would now make if its own former language was quoted against the course now being taken, at Brest in repairing, and I suppose ‘victualling,’ the ‘Florida.’ If the answer be that this vessel is not a ‘privateer’ but a regularly commissioned ship-of-war, then I think the opportunity should not be lost to put on record a rejoinder to this argument, showing the futility of the Declaration of Paris against privateering; for if a vessel sailing under one form of authority issued by Jefferson Davis, and called a ‘commission,’ can do all the mischief to your merchant-vessels which another could do carrying another piece of paper called a ‘letter of marque,’ it is obvious that the renunciation of privateering by the Paris Congress is a mere empty phrase, and all the boasted gain to humanity is nothing but a delusion if not a hollow subterfuge. I think it might be well if Mr. Dayton were to take this opportunity of justifying the policy of the United States in refusing to be a party to the Declaration of Paris, unless private property at sea was exempt from capture by armed ships of all kinds. The argument would be valuable for reproduction at a future time, when the question of belligerent rights comes up again for discussion.”