CHAPTER XII.

RELATIONS AND TREATY OF 1827 WITH DENMARK.

No diplomatic intercourse-Letter of Rosencrone to Franklin-John Paul Jones sent to Copenhagen-Erving sent to Denmark in 1811 -Account of spoliations-French and Danish privateers-Captures —Convoy cases—New aggression on neutral rights—Remarks on that subject-None of the condemnations of 1809, 1810, revised -Convoy cases not restored-Erving leaves Copenhagen-Treaty of 1826-Provisions-Wheaton chargé to Copenhagen-Settles the

Claim.

*

AMERICA has never had a regular diplomatic intercourse with Denmark; though some vexatious circumstances, that at first excited great uneasiness, made it necessary to send, in 1811, a special commissioner to that country. Denmark has been celebrated for her defence of the rights of neutrals, and she has taken an active part in the leagues that have been formed for that purpose. Though the Danish navy has never been great, the peculiar situation of that country, at the mouth of the Baltic, if it has not given her

* Denmark has had diplomatic agents in this country, embracing, however, we believe, also, a commercial character. In 1801, Mr. Blicher Olsen was minister resident and consul general; in 1803, Mr. Peter Pedersen was a chargé, also, with commercial functions, and latterly the same individual has become a minister resident and consul general. A "minister resident" is usually considered as of the third order of diplomatic functionaries, though, never having seen any of the powers or credential letters, with which the Danish agents are invested, we are not precisely aware of the nature of their commission, though, we believe, it does not extend to what is usually called negotiation;-beyond the making or receiving certain official communications. On the subject of consuls, all necessary information will, we believe, be found in the work on consular establishments, of Mr. D. B. Warden, late consul general of the United States at Paris.

the control, has, at least, put it in her power to harass the trade bound to the territories, bordering on those waters. Having possession of the passes or straits, that connect the Baltic and German seas, Denmark has asserted pretensions, not easily justified by the laws of nations, though consecrated by a very ancient custom. But her general treatment of neutral commerce has not been oppressive, though the United States have, undoubtedly, had cause to complain; -Danish and French privateers have committed acts of unwarrantable aggression on our commerce; unjust condemnations have taken place in her tribunals, and our seamen have been treated in a tyrannical way in her ports. On the other hand, few of the powers of Europe have been in a condition so weak and precarious, during the wars of the French revolution; accessible to the English by water, and to the French by land, the capital of Denmark has been twice taken by one belligerent within the century, and her whole fleet carried to England. Her territory and islands being occupied by French troops, Denmark was forced at an early hour into the continental system, which she executed with uncommon rigour; and in the autumn of 1807, England declared a war against her, that did not terminate till the treaty of Kiel, of 1814. Denmark was neither in a state to resist singly either of the belligerents, nor did her situation at the mouth of the sound make it possible for her to preserve even the appearance of neutrality. of neutrality. The government was compelled to take side with France, both from the superiority of the French armies, and because the allies refused peace to the crown prince on any other terms than the transfer of Norway to Sweden.

Before speaking of the grievances, suffered by this country during the continental system, we shall take an opportunity to introduce a letter written in 1783, by the Danish minister Rosencrone on the subject of a commercial convention, chiefly on account of the importance, that justly belongs to all the diplomatic events of that period in which America was engaged. In '82 and '83 a brief conversation took place between Dr. Franklin and M. de Walsterstorff, a diplomatic

agent of Denmark at Paris, concerning a treaty of commerce, and at the request of the latter, a copy of the usual draught was sent by the American envoy to the minister at Copenhagen. In reply, he wrote, as follows, to the agent at Paris:

"Copenhagen, Feb. 22, '83.—As I know you are on the point of 'making a tour to France, I cannot omit warmly recommending to you to endeavour during your stay at Paris, to gain, as much as possible, the esteem and confidence of Dr. Franklin. You will recollect what I said in my conversations with you of the high respect all the king's ministry have for that minister. You have witnessed the satisfaction, with which we have learned the glorious issue of this war for the United States, and how fully we are persuaded that it will be for the general interest of the two states to form, as soon as possible, reciprocal conventions of commerce and friendship. Nothing certainly would be more agreeable to us than to learn by your letters that you find the same dispositions in Dr. Franklin, and in that case it seems to me that the shortest mode of accelerating these new connexions would be to take the treaty between the Congress and the States General for the basis, and that Mr. Franklin should communicate his ideas on the changes or additions, which he thought reciprocally useful in the treaty of commerce Congress might conclude with us."

Franklin transmitted a copy of this letter to the President, and speedily received information that Congress would undoubtedly empower some one to make the treaty.

“November 1783”—Dr. Franklin writes-" the conclusion of the Danish treaty waits only for the commission and instructions from Congress." The negotiation, however, appears to have failed in consequence of the seizure by Denmark of three prizes, carried by the Americans into Bergen in Norway. And it was for the purpose of settling this claim of the Americans that John Paul Jones was despatched in February 1788, to Copenhagen.

The vexations, of which this country had to complain, took place from 1809 to 1812. They were the consequences of the political situation of Denmark; openly at war with England, forced to adopt the continental system, to admit French troops into her territories and French priva

teers into her ports. The government, however, still remained entirely sovereign, and to all appearances independent. In consequence, the claim of the United States was, immediately on the Danish government, for injuries committed by her subjects, and the subjects of her ally, apparently within her control. The principle of this demand differed from that of the Neapolitan and Netherlands; for in those cases, the depredations were confessedly committed by the new French dynasties,-but the original governments, having been restored, assumed in principle, the debts, as well as the power and revenues of the revolutionary ones.

The United States, having no diplomatic agent in any part of the Danish dominions, George W. Erving was sent, in 1811, special minister to Copenhagen, for the purpose of asserting the claims of the government, and of obtaining a discontinuance of the irregular proceedings of the French and Danish privateers. He received his audience from the minister of state, M. de Rosenkrantz, in June of the same year. During 1809 and 10, it appears, that 160 American vessels had been captured by the Danes; and in the subsequent years, there had been numerous captures by French privateers. In general these vessels had valuable cargoes. Of the captures, 42 had been condemned; and of the condemned, 16 were cases that had either violated the laws of the United States, such as the embargo and nonintercourse, or had forged certificates of origin, or in other respects were not legitimate. Many of these vessels were carried into Christiansand, in Norway. A principal item in the captures was, what has been called the convoy cases. We are not aware, that similar violations of the neutral rights of this country have ever before occurred; and as they affect an important provision of the laws of nations, we shall give an account of this business, and the representation concerning it, in Mr. Erving's own words :

"With my note of yesterday, I transmitted to your excellency a list of the "6 convoy cases," twelve in number; the two last in that list are now depending on appeal before the high court, as is mentioned in a memorandum opposite to their names; the first eight

vessels of the remaining ten were bound immediately from Petersburg and Cronstadt to the United States; they had all paid their sound dues, and several of them had been examined before the Danish marine tribunals, on entering the Baltic; and they were all arrested, in going out, by a British force, and compelled to join convoy. When that convoy was attacked by his Majesty's gun brigs, the Americans, not conscious of any illegality in the nature of their voyages, or of any irregularity in their own conduct, made no efforts to escape, and were captured and brought into port. These vessels have been condemned under the authority of the article 'D' in the 11th clause of his majesty's instructions for privateers, issued on the 10th of March 1810, which declares to be good prize" all vessels which have made use of British convoy,. either in the Atlantic or the Baltic.' At the time of this declaration, these vessels were in Russia, on the point of sailing, and wholly ignorant of it." That the belligerent has a right to ascertain the character of neutrals met with at sea, I am not disposed to deny; but to say that the neutral shall be condemned on the mere fact that he was found under enemy's convoy, is to impose upon him a necessity of sailing without protection, even against his own separate enemies; for the case might well happen, indeed has happened, that though neutral with regard to the belligerent powers, he has had an enemy, against whom either of the belligerents might be disposed to protect him. Of such protection, the American commerce has often availed itself, during the war between the United States and the Barbary powers; nor was it ever supposed, by either of the great belligerent powers, that such commerce, so protected by its enemy, had thus become liable to capture and confiscation. The case might also occur, that of two allied belligerent powers, a third power should be enemy as to one, and neutral as to the other. I state these arguments against the broad ground taken in the royal instructions above quoted. But it will be said, that the belligerent, having also an unquestionable right to ascertain the neutrality of vessels, and belligerent rights being paramount to neutral rights, where the two happen to be in collision, hence the attempt of the neutral to deprive the belligerent of his right, by putting himself under convoy; forms of itself a ground of capture and confiscation. To this I answer, first, that the belligerent rights, where they come in collision with those of