the power to suspend, by proclamation, the operation of the laws authorizing the transit of goods, wares, and merchandise in bond across the territory of the United States to Canada; and further, should such an extreme measure become necessary, to suspend the operation of any laws whereby the vessels of the Dominion of Canada are permitted to enter the waters of the United States." President Grant, Second Annual Message, 1870. Under the non-intercourse act of June 28, 1809 (2 Stat. L., 550), a vessel could not proceed to a prohibited port, even in ballast. Ship Richmond r. U. S., 9 Cranch, 102. Under the same statute, an American vessel from Great Britain had a right to lay off the coast of the United States to receive instructions from her owners in New York, and, if necessary, to drop anchor, and in case of a storm to make a harbor; and if prevented by a mutiny of her crew from putting out to sea again, might wait in the waters of the United States for orders. The U. S. r. The Cargo of the Fanny, 9 Cranch, 181. Fat cattle are provisions, or munitions of war, within the meaning of the act of Congress of the 6th of July, 1812 (2 Stat. L., 728), “to prohibit American vessels from proceeding to or trading with the enemies of the United States, and for other purposes." U. S. v. Barber, ibid., 243. A British ship, coming from a foreign port, not British, to a port of the United States, did not become liable to forfeiture under the nonintercourse act of April 18, 1818, by touching at an intermediate British closed port from necessity, in order to procure provisions, and without trading there. The Frances Eliza, 8 Wheat., 398. The non-intercourse act of the 18th of April, 1818, did not prohibit the coming of British vessels from a British closed port, through a foreign port, not British, where the continuity of the voyage was actually and fairly broken. The Pitt, 8 Wheat., 371. Purchases by neutrals, though bona fide for value, from persons who had purchased in contravention of the statute of July 13, 1861, and the subsequent proclamation of the President, making all commercial intercourse between any part of a State where insurrection against the United States existed and the citizens of the rest of the United States "unlawful," were invalid, and the property so purchased was liable to capture. The Ouachita Cotton, 6 Wall., 521. The Government of the United States has the right to permit limited commercial intercourse with an enemy in time of war, and to impose such conditions thereon as it sees fit. Whether the President, who is constitutionally invested with the entire charge of hostile operations, may exercise this power alone has been questioned; but whether so or not, there is no doubt that, with the concurrent authority of the Congress, he may exercise it according to his discretion. Hamilton v. Dillin, 21 Wall., 73. VI. EMBARGO. § 320. The first embargo resolution adopted by Congress was that of March 26, 1794, laying an embargo on commerce for thirty days. The immediate cause was the British orders of council of November 6, 1793, followed by a reported hostile speech to Indian tribes by Lord Dorchester. The expectation was that the measure would lead to a restriction of the supply of provisions to the British West Indian fleet, though the letter of the act operated equally against the French. On April 7, 1794, a resolution for a suspension of intercourse with Great Britain, so far as concerns British productions, was introduced. This resolution, upon President Washington announcing a special mission to England (that of Jay) for redress of grievances, was dropped. The second embargo was in 1807. The Berlin decree of Napoleon and the British orders of council having been so interpreted as to expose the shipping of the United States to risks almost destructive, President Jefferson called a special meeting of Congress on October 25, 1807, and, after reciting these menaces, and the spoliations to which they had already led, recommended "an inhibition of the departure of our vessels from the ports of the United States." The Senate at once, at a single secret session, by a vote of 22 to 6, passed a bill laying an embargo on all shipping, foreign and domestic, in the ports of the United States, with certain exceptions, ordering all vessels abroad to immediately return. The House, with closed doors, passed the act, after a debate of three days, by vote of 82 to 44. This act was repealed on March 1, 1809. The third embargo followed a message of President Madison of April 1, 1812, and was passed as a measure preliminary to war, on April 6, 1812, and was followed on April 14 by an act prohibiting exportation by land. The fourth embargo was passed on December 17, 1813, while the war with Great Britain was pending, and prohibited (the object being to prevent the supply of the British blockading squadron) the exportation of all produce or live stock, and for this purpose suspended the coasting trade. On January 19, 1814, the President recommended the repeal of the act, which was found very onerous, and the repeal passed Ĉongress on April 14. The report of the Senate committee of April 16, 1808, on British and French aggressions on American shipping, sustains the policy of the embargo, on the ground that it "withholds our commercial and agricultural property from the licensed depredations of the great maritime belligerent powers." It was, however, recommended that the President should be authorized, on such changes in foreign affairs as might make it expedient, to suspend the embargo. See 3 Am. St. Pap. (For. Rel.), 220 ff. "When a war with England was seriously apprehended in 1794, I approved of an embargo as a temporary measure to preserve our seamen and property, but not with any expectation that it would influence England. I thought the embargo which was laid a year ago a wise and prudent measure for the same reason, namely, to preserve our seamen and as much of our property as we could get in, but not with the faintest hope that it would influence the British councils. At the same time I confidently expected that it would be raised in a few months. have not censured any of these measures, because I knew the fond attachment of the nation to them; but I think the nation must soon be convinced that they will not answer their expectations. The embargo and the non-intercourse laws, I think, ought not to last long. They will lay such a foundation of disaffection to the National Government as will give great uneasiness to Mr. Jefferson's successor, and produce such distractions and confusions as I shudder to think of." Mr. J. Adams to Mr. Varnum, Dec. 26, 1808. 9 John Adams's Works, 606. For an exposition of the circumstances under which the embargo statutes were repealed, see Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Giles, Dec. 25, 1825. 7 Jeff. Works, 424. "To repeal the embargo altogether would be preferable to either of the other courses, but would, notwithstanding, be so fatal to us, in all respects, that we should long feel the wound it would inflict, unless, indeed, some other expedient as strong, at least, and as efficacious in all its bearings, can (as I fear it cannot) be substituted in its place. "War would seem to be the unavoidable result of such a step. If our commerce should not flourish in consequence of this measure, noth ing would be gained by it but dishonor; and how it could be carried on to any valuable purpose it would be difficult to show. If our commerce should flourish in spite of French and British edicts, and the miserable state of the world, in spite of war with France, if that should happen, it would, I doubt not, be assailed in some other form. The spirit of monopoly has seized the people and Government of this country. We shall not, under any circumstances, be tolerated as rivals in navigation and trade. It is in vain to hope that Great Britain will voluntarily foster the naval means of the United States. Even as allies we should be subjects of jealousy. It would be endless to enumerate in detail the evils which would cling to us in this new career of vassalage and meanness, and tedious to pursue our backward course to the extinction of that very trade to which we had sacrificed everything else. "On the other hand, if we persevere we must gain our purpose at last. By complying with the little policy of the moment we shall be lost. By a great and systematic adherence to principle we shall find the end of our difficulties."" Mr. Pinkney's view of the embargo. 3 Randall's Jefferson, 257. Mr. Clay, Speaker of the House, in a private letter, dated March 15, 1812, addressed to Mr. Monroe, Secretary of State, writes: "Since I had the pleasure of conversing with you this morning I have concluded, in writing, to ask a consideration of the following propositions: "That the President recommend an embargo to last, say, 30 days, by a confidential message. "That a termination of the embargo be followed by war. "That he also recommend provision for the acceptance of 10,000 volunteers for a short period, whose officers are to be commissioned by the President. "The objection to the embargo is that it will impede sales. The advantages are that it is a measure of some vigor upon the heels of Henry's disclosure; that it will give tone to public sentiment, operate as a notification, repressing indiscreet speculation, and enabling the President to look to the probable period of the commencement of hostilities, and thus to put under shelter before the storm. It will, above all things, powerfully accelerate preparations for the war." Monroe MSS., Dept. of State. "On April 1, 1812, the President sent a message to Congress, recommending an embargo. Mr. Grundy said that he understood it was 'as a war measure, and it was meant that it should directly lead to war,' and Calhoun afterwards declared 'its manifest propriety as a prelude."" Von Holst's Life of Calhoun, 19. As to embargo of 1808, see 9 John Adams's Works, 312, 604, 606, 607. The correspondence, in 1808, of Mr. Pinkney, minister to London, with Mr. The objections taken by the opposition in Congress to the first embargo are given in Quincy's Speeches, 31, 53, 247. As giving the policy of the Administration, sce 5 Jeff. Works, 227, 252, 258, 271, 289, 336, 341, 352. Curious notices of the social effect of the embargo are found in Lossing's Ency. As to evasion of embargo by surreptitious trade with Canada, see 1 Ingersoll's "I have read attentively your letter to Mr. Wheaton on the question whether, at the date of the message to Congress recommending the embargo of 1807, we had knowledge of the order of council of Novem ber 11; and according to your request I have resorted to my papers, as well as my memory, for the testimony these might afford additional to yours. There is no fact in the course of my life which I recollect more strongly than that of my being at the date of the message in possession of an English newspaper containing a copy of the proclamation. I am almost certain, too, that it was under the ordinary authentication of the Government; and between November 11 and December 17 there was time enough (thirty-five days) to admit the receipt of such a paper, which I think came to me through a private channel, probably put on board some vessel about sailing, the moment it appeared. "Turning to my papers I find that I had prepared a first draft of a message in which was this paragraph: The British regulations had before reduced us to a direct voyage, to a single port of their enemies, and it is now believed they will interdict all commerce whatever with them. A proclamation, too, of that Government of (not officially, indeed, communicated to us, yet so given out to the public as to become a rule of action with them) seems to have shut the door on all negotiation with us except as to the single aggression on the Chesapeake.' You, however, suggested a substitute (which I have now before me, written with a pencil and) which, with some unimportant amendments, I preferred to my own, and was the one I sent to Congress. It was in these words, the communications now made, showing the great and increasing dangers with which seamen, etc., ports of the United States.' This shows that we communicated to them papers of information on the subject; and as it was our interest and our duty to give them the strongest information we possessed to justify our opinion and their action on it, there can be no doubt we sent them this identical paper.” Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Madison, July 14, 1824. 7 Jeff. Works, 373. The embargo act of the 25th of April, 1808 (2 Stat. L., 499), related only to vessels ostensibly bound to some port in the United States, and a seizure after the termination of the voyage is unjustifiable; and no further detention of the cargo is lawful than what is necessarily dependent on the detention of the vessel. It is not essential to the determination of a voyage that the vessel should arrive at her orig. inal destination; it may be produced by stranding, stress of weather, or any other cause inducing her to enter another port with a view to terminate her voyage bona fide. Otis v. Walter, 2 Wheat., 18. Under the embargo act of the 22d of December, 1807 (2 Stat. L., 451), the words, "an embargo shall be laid," not only imposed upon the public officers the duty of preventing the departure of registered or sea-letter vessels on a foreign voyage, but prohibited their sailing, and consequently rendered them liable to forfeiture under the supplementary act of the 9th of January, 1808 (2 Stat. L., 453). In such case, if the vessel be actually and bona fide carried by force to a foreign port, she is not liable to forfeiture; but if the capture, under which it was alleged that the vessel was compelled to go to a foreign port, was fictitious and collusive, she was liable to condemnation. The William King, 2 Wheat., 148. VII. DISPLAY OF FORCE. § 321. "In reviewing these injuries from some of the belligerent powers, the moderation, the firmness, and the wisdom of the legislature will all be called into action. We ought still to hope that time and a more correct estimate of interest, as well as of character, will produce the justice we are bound to expect. But should any nation deceive itself by false calculations, and disappoint that expectation, we must join in the unprofit able contest of trying which party can do the other the most harm. Some of these injuries may, perhaps, admit a peaceable remedy. Where that is competent it is always the most desirable. But some of them are of a nature to be met by force only, and all of them may lead to it. i cannot, therefore, but recommend such preparations as circumstances call for. The first object is to place our sea-port towns out of the dan |