his views as to the desirableness of "arriving at some regulation that would at once save the mails of neutrals from unnecessary interruption and exposure and at the same time prevent them from being made use of as auxiliaries to unlawful designs of irresponsible persons seeking to embroil friendly states in the calamities of war. Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Welles, Sec. of Navy, Oct. 31, 1862, Dip. For Mr. Seward's letter to Mr. Welles of Aug. 8, 1862, see Blue Book, "With very great deference for your views, I must confess that I remain of the opinion that there is no recognized sanction of the principle that a bona fide authenticated and sealed public mail of a friendly or neutral power, found on board of a commercial vessel navigating between two neutral ports, can be violated lawfully either by a naval officer or a prize court, merely because the vessel on which it is found is searched and seized as contraband; that the general terms in which the act of Congress is couched do not contemplate bona fide authenticated public government mails, among the papers which are directed to be delivered to the prize court and opened by them; that it is an unfavorable time to raise new questions or pretensions under the belligerent right of search, and that to insist upon opening the mails of the Peterhoff would be to raise such a question irritating to an extreme degree, not only in reference to the British Government but to all neutral commercial states. I think farther that the reservation in my note to you of the 31st of October, in regard to simulated or forged mails, is sufficient for ample protection to the rights of the United States, and that it would be inexpedient and injurious to the public welfare to search the mails of the Peterhoff unless there is reason to believe that they are spurious and simulated. "I have therefore, to recommend that in this case, if the district attorney has any evidence to show that the mails are simulated and not genuine, it shall be submitted to the court. If there be no reasonable grounds for that belief, then, that they be put on their way to their original destination." Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Welles, Sec. of Navy, April 15, 1863, 60 "In reply to your note of the 18th instant on the subject of the mails of the Peterhoff, it seems proper for me to say that when the question of detaining the public mails found on board of vessels visited and searched by the blockading forces of the United States was presented to this Department last year, I took the instructions of the President thereupon. Not only the note which I addressed to you on the 8th day of August last, but also the note which I addressed to you on the 31st of October last, concerning this question was written with the approval and under the direction of the President. The views therein expressed were then communicated to the British Government by authority of the President, as defining the course of proceedings which would be pursued when such cases should occur thereafter. On receiving your note of the 13th instant, intimating a view of the policy to be pursued differing from what had thus been determined by the President on the 31st of October last, I submitted to him that note together with all the previous correspondence bearing upon the subject, together with the act of Congress to which you have called my attention. I then asked his instructions in the case of the mails of the Peterhoff. The note which I addressed to you on the 15th was the result of these instructions and, having been read and approved by him, it was transmitted to you by his direction. I was also directed to communicate the contents thereof to the district attorney of the United States for the southern district of New York, and also to announce to Lord Lyons, for the information of the British Government, that the mails of the Peterhoff would be forwarded to their destination. I was also directed by the President to make some special representations to the British Government on the general subject of the mails of neutrals which are now in preparation. I need hardly to say, that no part of my note of the 15th instant was intended or was understood by me as imputing to you the having raised or being disposed to raise new questions. What was said on that subject, was said by way of showing that a course of proceedings, different from what I was recommending, would involve, on the part of this Government, the raising of a question which had been waived by it in my correspondence with the British Government in October last." 66 Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Welles, Sec. of Navy, April 20, 1863, 60 "I have the honor to acquaint you that, by the President's direction, I have had a conference with Lord Lyons, Her Britannic Majesty's minister accredited to this Government, on the subject of public mails found on board of vessels captured for a breach of the blockade. In the course of the interview, by the authority of the President, I informed his lordship that, until notice should be given after further experience, such mails would not be opened, but would be forwarded to their destination. The President consequently di rects that instructions to this effect be transmitted to the several officers commanding United States blockading squadrons." Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Welles, Sec. of Navy, May 21, 1863, 60 "The rule in Mr. Seward's instructions of 31st October, 1862, reiates only to public mails duly authenticated; and the capturing government reserves the right to make sure of the genuineness of the authentication. When the vessel is a private one, but carrying mails under a government contract, like the Cunard or Peninsula and Oriental steamers and the lines subsidized by the United States for that purpose, a government mail agent is usually on board, having them in charge. Although this fact does not in law protect the mails from search, yet it affords opportunity for general arrange ments between nations, and makes special arrangements between the captors and the mail agent, in particular cases, more probable.” Dana's Wheaton, § 504, note 228, p. 660. In May, 1898, a sealed package of mails from the Spanish consulate at Ponce, Porto Rico, addressed to the Spanish consulate at New York, found its way into the hands of the postmaster in New York City. The Postmaster-General expressed the opinion that the postal treaties had no bearing upon the question of its disposition. With reference to the general question of the disposition of mails found on board captured vessels, the Postmaster-General said: "Our treaty obligations in connection with them are contained in the Universal Postal Convention of Vienna, .. Article IV. (sec. 1) of which provides that the right of transit is guaranteed throughout the entire territory of the Union.' This provision is held to insure the safe transit under any conditions of closed mails passing from one country of the Postal Union to another country of the Union; but has no bearing on mails passing from one post-office to another postoffice in the same country." Mr. Smith, P. M. Gen., to the Sec. of State, June 1, 1898, MS. Misc. Letters. 4. RESISTANCE TO OR EVASION OF SEARCH. § 1202. "A persistent resistance by a neutral vessel to submit to a search renders it confiscable, according to the settled determinations of the English Admiralty. It would be much to be regretted if any of our vessels should be condemned for this cause, unless under circumstances which compromitted their neutrality." Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Buchanan, min. to England, April 13, 1854, H. Ex. Doc. 103, 33 Cong. 1 sess, 12, 13. "A vessel under any circumstances resisting visit, destroying her papers, presenting fraudulent papers, or attempting to escape, should be sent in for adjudication." U. S. Instructions to Blockading Vessels and Cruisers, General Orders, "14. Irrespective of the character of the cargo, or her purported destination, a neutral vessel should be seized if she "(1) Attempts to avoid search by escape; but this must be clearly evident. "(2) Resists search with violence. "(3) Presents fraudulent papers. "(4) Is not supplied with the necessary papers to establish the objects of search. "(5) Destroys, defaces, or conceals papers. "The papers generally to be expected on board of a vessel are: "(1) The register. "(2) The crew list. "(3) The log book. "(7) Bills of lading." Instructions to U. S. Blockading Vessels and Cruisers, General Orders, Stockton, in his Naval War Code, art. 23, gave the following as the papers generally expected to be on board of a vessel:” (1) Register (2) crew and passenger list, (3) log book, (4) bill of health, (5) manifest of cargo, (6) charter-party, if the vessel is chartered, (7) invoices and bills of lading. The British steamship Regulus was seized off Sagua la Grande, Cuba, by a United States cruiser. It appeared that the steamer was cleared for Vera Cruz, Mexico, or Kingston, Jamaica, and not for Sagua la Grande; that certain of the papers were missing, and that the master, when the vessel was seized, refused to state what was the nature of the cargo delivered by him to the Spanish authorities at Sagua la Grande. It subsequently developed that his orders were to proceed to Sagua la Grande, if not blockaded, and otherwise to Kingston, in accordance with his clearance, for orders. The United States district attorney agreed to the release of the vessel on the pay ment by her of costs and expenses. The Department of Justice, although holding that under the circumstances the condemnation should not be enforced, expressed the opinion that the seizure was justified, and that the costs and expenses were properly imposed on the vessel, but agreed, as the prize court had very full discretion as to costs, to resubmit the question of costs to the court. Mr. Day, Sec. of State, to Sir Julian Pauncefote, British amb., No. 1179, If a vessel has a Spanish register, and sails under Spanish colors, and has on board accounts describing her as Spanish property, there is probable cause for seizing her as belonging to Spanish subjects. Del Col v. Arnold, 3 Dall. 333. "It is certainly the duty of neutrals to put on board of their ships sufficient papers to show the real character of the property, and if their conduct be fair and honest, there can rarely occur an occasion to use disguise, or false documents. At all events, when false or colouring documents are used, the necessity or reasonableness of the excuse ought to be very clear and unequivocal to induce a court of prize to rest satisfied with it. To say the least of it, the excuse is not, in this case, satisfactory; for the disguise is as strongly pointed to elude American, as British or Spanish capture." The Dos Hermanos (1817), 2 Wheat. 76, 89, Mr. Justice Story delivering the opinion of the court. Under the Spanish treaty of 1795, stipulating that free ships shall make free goods, the want of such a sea letter, passport, or such certificates as are described in the seventeenth article of the treaty, is not a substantive ground of condemnation. It only authorizes capture and sending in for adjudication, and the proprietary interest in the ship may be proven by other equivalent testimony. The Spanish character of the ship being ascertained, the proprietary interest of the cargo can not be inquired into, unless so far as to ascertain that it does not belong to citizens of the United States, whose property, engaged in trade with the enemy, is not protected by the treaty. The Pizarro, 2 Wheat. 227. "A certificate under the authority of the United States must be taken by foreign powers as genuine, and can be impeached by them only by application to the Government of the United States." Wharton, Int. Law Digest, § 409, quoted in The Conrad (1902), 37 Ct. Cl. 459. Though under the treaty of amity and commerce with France of 1788 (arts. 25, 27) an American ship on the high seas having a pass |