tion of contraband articles.
These were not presented as new rules of international law, having
been generally claimed by neutrals, though not always admitted by
belligerents. One of the parties to the war (Russia), as well as several
neutral powers, promptly acceded to these propositions, and the two
other principal belligerents (Great Britain and France) having consented
to observe them for the present occasion, a favorable opportunity seemed
to be presented for obtaining a general recognition of them, both in
Europe and America.

But Great Britain and France, in common with most of the States of
Europe, while forbearing to reject, did not affirmatively act upon the
overtures of the United States.

While the question was in this position the representatives of Russia,
France, Great Britain, Austria, Prussia, Sardinia, and Turkey, assembled
at Paris, took into consideration the subject of maritime rights,
and put forth a declaration containing the two principles which this
Government had submitted nearly two years before to the consideration
of maritime powers, and adding thereto the following propositions:
"Privateering is and remains abolished," and "Blockades in order to
be binding must be effective; that is to say, maintained by a force
sufficient really to prevent access to the coast of the enemy;" and to
the declaration thus composed of four points, two of which had already
been proposed by the United States, this Government has been invited to
accede by all the powers represented at Paris except Great Britain and
Turkey. To the last of the two additional propositions--that in relation
to blockades--there can certainly be no objection. It is merely the
definition of what shall constitute the effectual investment of a
blockaded place, a definition for which this Government has always
contended, claiming indemnity for losses where a practical violation
of the rule thus defined has been injurious to our commerce. As to the
remaining, article of the declaration of the conference of Paris, that
"privateering is and remains abolished," I certainly can not ascribe to
the powers represented in the conference of Paris any but liberal and
philanthropic views in the attempt to change the unquestionable rule of
maritime law in regard to privateering. Their proposition was doubtless
intended to imply approval of the principle that private property upon
the ocean, although it might belong to the citizens of a belligerent
sta