Page:Cambridge Modern History Volume 7.djvu/355

 1798-9] Neutral trade; "broken" voyages. 323 negotiation, laid aside the question of indemnity, and turned what was intended to be a temporary adjustment into a permanent adjustment of all past difficulties. That this might not be misunderstood, Napoleon, when he in turn ratified the convention, wrote across it these words "Provided, That by this omission (retranchemeni) the two States renounce the respective pretensions which are the objects of that article." The claims thus renounced by the United States were the claims of private citizens for injuries done under the decrees issued by France between 1793 and 1800, and constitute what have been subsequently known as the French Spoliation Claims. Thus were the commercial troubles with France arranged. But those with England went on continuously. The Order in Council of 1794, forbidding direct trade between France and her colonies, had been amplified in 1798 by another forbidding direct trade between France, Spain, and Holland, and their colonies. The restriction, however, fell lightly on neutrals, and they were soon evading it in two ways. Some would load at colonial ports and, under pretence of sailing to their own country, make direct voyages from the colony to the parent State. This was the favourite trick of the neutrals of northern Europe who, as they passed the coast of France or Holland, would run in. To stop this, Great Britain in 1799 declared the whole coast of Holland under blockade. Following this way of trading, the American merchant would send his ship to a port in the French or Spanish West Indies, take in a cargo suitable for the European market, sail to Charleston, and enter the cargo for import. This done, the captain would immediately export the goods, draw back the duties, and, with a clearance from an American port, set sail for a port in France or Spain. The voyage was not direct ; it had been broken at Charleston, and did not fall under the Order in Council. But a test case soon arose and was carried on appeal to the High Court of Admiralty in England, where the rule was laid down that such a voyage was not broken, because the cargo had not been put ashore. This decision necessitated a further change of plan. The American captain now took his vessel to some ship-building town in New England, landed the cargo, and stored it in a warehouse, while his ship was cleaned and repaired. This done, he reloaded the goods, and with an American clearance sailed for an Old- World port. Again a test case was brought before the High Court of Admiralty, which now ruled that the goods had been truly imported into the United States, and that the voyage had been " broken," thus legalising this method of trade. To trouble with France and Great Britain had meantime been added trouble with Spain. During twelve years after the recognition of the independence of the United States by Great Britain, Spain ignored the southern boundary, occupied the greater part of what is now Alabama and Mississippi, and closed the Mississippi river to American trade. In 1795 the war in Europe forced her to give way. A treaty was made, in CH. ix. 21 2