xxrv.] ON MARITIME LAW.

843

pinching point of the whole question, by omitting allusion 1861.
bo the fact that we gave up our old belligerent rights over Zr. 57.
Deutrals, not from choice but from mecessity. It was the
attitude of the United States at the outbreak of the Russian
War, which induced us to suspend those ‘rights’ of search
and geizure, the enforcement of which led fo our last war
with America. And we yielded up permanently those rights
at the Paris Congress from the same motives, namely,
deference to the attitude of the United States, though no
American plenipotentiary was present. In fact, as you
know, all the modifications in our old arbitrary navigation
code had their origin in the rising power of the United
States as a maritime people.
“ Looked at in this light, the question is much more simple
than you assume it to be, for you put the alternative of going
back to the state of things before the Paris Congress, as
though the consent of England to that Congress were a
voluntary choice and not an inevitable necessity. Viewed in
this manner, there cannot be a doubt in any sane mind that
it is our interest to go on even to the extent stipulated for
by President Buchanan in his late letter on the subject.
With the European law as it now stands, it merely offers the
carrying trade to the United States in case of a war between
England and any other maritime state sufficiently powerful to
keep a few fast steamers ab sea. Anybody who opposes your
Proposal to put England and America on the same footing
in cage of war, does not understand our present situation.
“PS. The peace-at-any-price party (if there be one)
are not so much interested as the war people in putting
us on a par with the United States in case of hostilities
with a maritime power; for in the present state of
things a war with France, whatever might be the ultimate
result, must involve tenfold sacrifices to England, as come
Pared with what would be the case if your plan were acceded