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 state, should be exempted from capture; and had that proposition been so framed as to give full effect to the principle, it would have received my ready assent on behalf of the United States.  But the measure proposed is inadequate to that purpose.  It is true that if adopted private property upon the ocean would be withdrawn from one mode of plunder, but left exposed meanwhile to another mode, which could be used with increased effectiveness.  The aggressive capacity of great naval powers would be thereby augmented, while the defensive ability of others would be reduced.  Though the surrender of the means of prosecuting hostilities by employing privateers, as proposed by the conference of Paris, is mutual in terms, yet in practical effect it would be the relinquishment of a right of little value to one class of states, but of essential importance to another and a far larger class.  It ought not to have been anticipated that a measure so inadequate to the accomplishment of the proposed object and so unequal in its operation would receive the assent of all maritime powers.  Private property would be still left to the depredations of the public armed cruisers.

I have expressed a readiness on the part of this Government to accede to all the principles contained in the declaration of the conference of Paris provided that the one relating to the abandonment of privateering can be so amended as to effect the object for which, as is presumed, it was intended—­the immunity of private property on the ocean from hostile capture.  To effect this object, it is proposed to add to the declaration that “privateering is and remains abolished” the following amendment: 

  And that the private property of subjects and citizens of a belligerent
  on the high seas shall be exempt from seizure by the public armed
  vessels of the other belligerent, except it be contraband.

This amendment has been presented not only to the powers which have asked our assent to the declaration to abolish privateering, but to all other maritime states.  Thus far it has not been rejected by any, and is favorably entertained by all which have made any communication in reply.