A = ^ = ,ST SERIES, NO. 64 == v o i m i SEPTEMBER 1, 1922 JNIVERSITY OF IOWA STUDIES STUDIES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES VOLUME vm NUMBER 2 DANISH-AMERICAN DIPLOMACY 1776-1920 BY SOREN J. M. P. FOGDALL PUBLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY, IOWA CITY Issued semi-monthly throughout the year. Entered at the post office at Iowa City, Iowa as second class matter. Acceptance for mailing at special rate of postage provided for in Section 1103, Act of October 3, 1917, authorized on July 3, 1918. UNIVERSITY OF IOWA STUDIES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES A. M. SCHLESINGER, Editor C. M 1 . CASE, Advisory Editor J. VAN DER ZEE, Advisory Editor VOLUME VIII NUM;BER 2 ^DANISH-AMERICAN DIPLOMACY I776-1920/ BY SOREN J. M. P. FOGDALL, Ph. D. PUBLISHED BY THE UNIVEKSITY, IOWA CITY IH3I V3 CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION 5 AUTHOR'S PREFACE 7 I. EARLY RELATIONS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND DENMARK, 1776-1800 9 II. PROBLEMS OP THE NAPOLEONIC ERA, 1800-1815 - - 29 III. THE NEGOTIATION OF TREATIES AND THE SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS, 1815-1847 47 IV. THE ABOLITION OF SOUND DUES AND OTHER PROBLEMS, 1841-1860 66 V. DANISH- AMERICAN RELATIONS RESULTING FROM THE CIVIL WAR, 1860-1872 93 VI. MISCELLANEOUS PROBLEMS OF THE LATTER PART OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY, 1868-1900 - - - - 110 VII. RECENT RELATIONS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND DENMARK, 1900-1920 140 APPENDICES 152 BIBLIOGRAPHY 159 INDEX 166 EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION Dr. Fogdall sets forth in this volume the relations of the United States with one of the smaller countries of northern Europe. His account makes it amply evident that these re- lations have, at times, been of more than ordinary impor- tance. To Americans of to-day it is a matter of peculiar interest that the waterway connecting the Baltic Sea with the Atlantic Ocean was converted into a free international highway largely upon the initiative of the United States. It is also a matter of gratitude that during the Civil War, when certain more powerful nations were unfriendly to the United States government, Denmark was found in the ranks of our friends. Finally, the transfer of the Virgin Islands to the United States in our generation is an earnest of the future harmonious relations between the two nations. ARTHUR M. SCHLESINGER. AUTHOR'S PREFACE This work was originally intended to cover the diplomatic relations between the United States and Denmark from the Kevolutionary War to the end of the nineteenth century. Because of the recent purchase of the Danish "West Indies, a short chapter has been added in which a brief survey has been made of the leading events that have taken place during the last twenty years. An attempt has been made to arrange the chapters of this volume in chronological order, but it has been found necessary at times to allow them to overlap. In preparing this volume the author wished to use the files of the Department of State at Washington, D. C., but was unable to gain access to them. Having asked for permission the following reply was received: "The Depart- ments regrets to say that it has discouraged application to do research work of this character as it has not the facilities or space to properly supervise and examine the work, and that therefore it is reluctantly compelled to decline your request at this time." It has thus been necessary to rely on the material found in the various libraries and archives mentioned below. In the city of Des Moines, Iowa, the author has worked in the Des Moines University Library, the Iowa State Law Library, and the Library of the Historical Department of Iowa. Most of the material in foreign languages has been obtained in the Library of Congress at Washington, D. C. The libraries of the University of Iowa and of the State Historical Society of Iowa, both located at Iowa City, have been of much value in verifying references. During the summer of 1921 it was the author's privilege to spend four months in Europe. Some of this time was spent in Copenhagen where access was obtained to the Koyal Library, the Archives of Foreign Affairs, and the Archives of the Kingdom (Rigsarkivet) . Some of the material 8 IOWA STUDIES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES in these archives is not yet released for general use, but three large packages of original dispatches were examined. These covered the period from 1783 to 1850. It must be said, however, that the material so far released by the Danish government is practically the same as that which is already published by the government of the United States. The author is indebted to Mr. Herbert Putnam, Librarian of Congress, and his assistants for the personal interest shown and the valuable privileges extended to him while in Wash- ington during the winter 1920-21. Thanks are also due to Kristian Erslev and his assistants at Copenhagen. Similar appreciation is extended to Mr. Arthur J. Small and Miss Mary Rosemond for valuable assistance in the Iowa State Law Library. Special thanks are due to Dr. Benjamin F. Shambaugh and Dr. Ruth A. Gallaher for privileges en- joyed in the library of the State Historical Society of Iowa. The author wishes to express his sincere appreciation to Professor Gilbert G. Benjamin, under whose guidance this work has been done, and to Professor A. M. Schlesinger, editor of the Studies in the Social Sciences. Their suggestions and criticisms have been very valuable. CHAPTER I EARLY RELATIONS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND DENMARK, 1776-1800 1. The Attitude of Denmark toward the American Revo- lution. One of the early problems that confronted the American patriots in connection with the Revolution was that of es- tablishing commercial and political relations with foreign nations. This was necessary in order to fight England suc- cessfully and also to establish the credit of the infant state. Consequently Silas Deane, a business man from Con- necticut and a delegate from that state to the First and Second Continental Congresses, was sent to France in Febru- ary, 1776, as government agent, to borrow money and se- cure supplies. It is in a letter from him to the Committee of Secret Correspondence, dated at Paris, August 18, 1776, that Denmark is mentioned for the first time in connection with our international relations. Explaining the political situation in Europe, Silas Deane showed that Spain, France, and Prussia were likely to go to war against England, and he added: "With respect to Russia, it is as closely allied to Prussia as to Great Britain, and may be expected to be master in the contest. Denmark and Sweden are a balance for each other and opposites." 1 It will be remembered that ever since the days of Charles XII, Sweden had been hostile to Russia. Denmark on the other hand had generally been friendly to Russia. Silas Deane without doubt intended to convey the idea to Amer- ica that Denmark standing with Russia against Great Britain would be a friend of the new nation. That Denmark was considered as a nation that would at least not aid Great Britain in the struggle against her 1 Francis Wharton, Diplomatic Correspondence of the American Revolu- tion, Vol. II, p. 119. 10 IOWA STUDIES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES colonies was also brought out in 1777 when Arthur Lee, one of our commissioners to France, wrote to the Committee on Foreign Affairs: "As to the reenforcement of troops which Great Britain will receive from other powers of Europe for the approaching campaign I can assure you, sir. that your nation has nothing to fear from Russia or Denmark." This he again affirmed in the year 1778. 2 The previous year Franklin and Deane had written to the Com- mittee of Secret Correspondence urging that the American government try to get a free port or two in Denmark, for the sale of prizes as well as for commerce. 8 That the Danish people were in sympathy with the Amer- ican Revolution cannot be doubted. We shall see later, however, that the man who was at the head of foreign affairs in Denmark was decidedly hostile to the Revolution and the independence of the colonies. This was so in spite of tthe fact that he knew the people of the country were opposed to his views. His correspondence shows both his own stand on the subject as well as that of the people. 4 The fact that Denmark took a leading part in the formation of the League of Armed Neutrality is additional proof of the same fact, since that organization was created as the re- sult of hostility to Great Britain. 5 In the hope of negotiating a treaty of commerce, Stephen Sayre visited Copenhagen. In regard to this visit the foreign minister of Denmark, Andreas Peter Bernstorff, wrote to his friend Ditlev Reventlow December 30, 1777: "We have here an agent of the American colonies, the famous Sayre, who has come from Berlin. He proposes a 2 Ibid., Vol. II, pp. 429, 612. s Ibid., Vol. II, p. 288. * Bernstorff to Reventlow, October 26, 1776. "Le public d'ici eat ex- tremement port4 pour les rebelles (de 1'AmeYique), non par connoisance de cause, mais parce que le manie de 1 'inde'pendance a reellement infect^ tous les esprits, et que ce poison se rdpand impereeptiblement des ouvrages des philosophes jusques dans les ecoles des villages." Aage Friis, Bernstorffake Papvrer, Vol. II, p. 498. J. B. Scott, The Armed Neutrality of 1780 and 1800 is one of the best accounts of this alliance in English. DANISH-AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, 1776-1920 11 plan of commerce with America, very broad and very ad- vantageous. With precaution I have not seen him, but I am sufficiently instructed concerning his proposal, and I see very clearly that the inhabitants of the colonies continue to hate the French at the bottom of their heart and that their relations with them are based on necessity and are rendered indispensible. ' ' 6 What Bernstorff's answer was to Sayre 's proposal we are unable to say, but we may infer that in his own peculiar, crafty way he informed the American agent that Denmark wanted to make a treaty and would continue negotiations. At any rate, Sayre apparently was not offended. 7 He evidently got the impression that Denmark was not unfavorably inclined toward the colonists. Later John Adams wrote to Congress that Denmark was aiming to defend herself at sea against Great Britain. 8 It would thus seem that Denmark was a friend of the new nation or that at any rate she was a friendly neutral. 2. The Bergen Prizes. The event that tested Denmark's stand in regard to the independence of the American colonies came in the fall of 1779 and is known as the case of the Bergen prizes. The famous Scotchman John Paul Jones was plying the Eur- opean waters with an American squadron, bent on harass- ing British commerce. One of his frigates, the Alliance, was commanded by Captain Peter Landais, a Frenchman who had made himself famous in America by transporting war supplies to the colonies under very dangerous circumstances. While stationed in the North Sea Captain Landais captured three English merchantmen, the Betsy, the Union, and the Charming Polly. Soon after, he met with bad weather, which caused considerable damage to his prizes. He therefore sought refuge and aid in what he supposed to be the friendly port of Bergen, 6 Aage Friis, Bernstorffske Papvrer, Vol. Ill, pp. 12-13. 7 Stephen Sayre was an adventurer who went to Europe and attempted to force his service on the United States. Later he made a claim on Congress for money. His work was investigated and his claim refused. Wharton, op. tit. Vol. I, pp. 618-619; Vol. Ill, p. 107. s Wharton, op. oit., Vol. Ill, p. 505. 12 IOWA STUDIES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES Norway, a part of the Danish domain. The British consul in that port, learning of the presence of the prizes, reported it to the British minister at Copenhagen who insisted that Denmark should restore the vessels to the owners. The Danish foreign office complied with his demand and ordered them to be delivered to the British government on the ground that Denmark had not yet acknowledged the independence of the United States. The American seamen were left to shift for themselves without any means of subsistence. M. de Chezaulx, the French consul at Bergen, made a report of the affair to Benjamin Franklin, who on December 22, 1779, wrote a long letter to Andreas Peter Bernstorff, Danish Premier and Minister of Foreign Affairs. In this letter Franklin showed that the law of nations recognized every people as a friendly nation unless it had committed a hostile act. As the United States had never committed a hostile act toward Denmark, she could by the rights of humanity claim that Denmark should treat her as a friend. In ancient times among barbarous nations, none was recog- nized as a friend except by treaty, but it would not be well for Denmark to revive that rule. He therefore re- quested that, if the three prizes had not left Bergen, they should be given back to the lawful captors. If on the other hand the vessels had left, it became his duty to claim the value of the prizes, which, as he understood, was about fifty thou- sand pounds. The amount, however, might be settled ac- cording to the best information obtainable. 9 This affair excited much attention among our diplomats abroad. John Adams who was at Paris in the spring of 1780 proposed to John Jay that if Denmark should be un- willing to make restitution, we ought not to allow her pro- ducts to be consumed in America. 10 Congress passed a res- olution approving the conduct of Franklin and pledged its For full text of the letter see Wharton, op. oit., Vol. Ill, pp. 433-435; Jared Sparks, Diplomatic Correspondence of the American Bevolution, Vol. HI, pp. 121-124. As the works of Wharton and Sparks largelj contain the same material, no subsequent references will be made to Sparks unless the material is found there only. 10 Wharton, op. cit., Vol. Ill, pp. 678-679. DANISH-AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, 1776-1920 13 support in asserting our rights as an independent and sov- ereign nation. 11 As Denmark had not answered yet, Frank- lin confidently hoped that she would make amends for her action, and he so informed Jones under whom Landais had acted. 12 In the late spring of 1780 Count Bernstorff replied, that, had it not been for the fact that Franklin was such a sage, he would have believed that he was simply trying to place Denmark under a new embarrassment. Since, however, Franklin's integrity was universally recognized, he would divest himself of his public character and answer his letter, thereby proving that he was a friend of merit, truth and peace. Turning to the question of the prizes, he wished to state that the whole unfortunate affair had from the be- ginning caused him much pain. There was, however, situa- tions where it was impossible to avoid displeasing either one party or the other. He appealed to Franklin's magnanimity asking him to consider the dilemma in which the Danish government was placed. The Danish representative in France, Baron de Blome, would be instructed in regard to the matter and it was hoped that the affair might be settled to the sat- isfaction of all concerned. 13 It is clear from this letter that Bernstorff wanted Franklin to believe that it had been a disagreeable duty for him to de- liver the prizes to England, but that he had done so to avoid unpleasantness with his next door neighbor. For the present we do not care to deal with the question of inter- national law pertaining to the case, but it is desirable to set forth the motives for Bernstorff 's action. One of the memorable periods in Danish history is that which is known as the "Era of Struensee. " In November 1766, King Christian VII of Denmark had married the six- teen year old princess, Caroline Mathilde, sister of George III of England. The King was mentally weak and inclined 11 Secret Journals of Congress, Vol. II, p. 313. 12 Wharton, op. tit., Vol. Ill, p. 528. is Wharton, op. cit., Vol. Ill, p. 528. The letter was signed R. Bern- storff. We know of no reason for this as his initials were A. P. 14 IOWA STUDIES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES to immorality, drunkenness and brutality. He soon found the marriage tie to be an inconvenience, and to the chagrin of the young queen indulged in a ridiculous love affair with a woman of the street, known popularly as "Boot Kathrine," who became his special and much favored companion at social functions of the court. In her misery the queen formed an intimate friendship with Fru Plessen, a woman of parts who was opposed to the levity of the court. This displeased the king and his friends, who styled Fru Plessen the queen's "flea catcher" and had her dismissed from court. In 1768 the king made an extended trip through Europe. When he returned in 1769 two things were noticeable : first, his mind was rapidly failing; and second, he had fallen entirely under the influence of his private physician, Johan Frederik Struensee. Morally this man was of the king's type, but intellectually he was his master. With marvelous rapidity he advanced from one position to another until in 1770 he had concentrated all governmental powers in the hands of the king and made himself "Maitre des requetes." In view of the mental condition of the king this meant that Struensee was de facto king in Denmark. With wonderful skill he now inaugurated a reform movement which compares favorably with the work of the most enlightened of the absolute mon- archs. His activities created a large number of enemies among the conservatives, who sought diligently for an op- portunity to ruin him. He then committed the inexcusable blunder of becoming too familiar with the queen, who wel- comed his attentions as a variation from the monotony of her dreary life. This situation afforded his enemies their opportunity. A coup d'etat was carried out in the early morning of January 17, 1772. Struensee and his close friend, Enevold Brandt, were arrested, as was also Caroline Mathilde, who was taken to the famous castle Kronborg at Elsinore as a prisoner. Thp two men were condemned to death and executed with barbaric cruelty, while a court of thirty-five judges declared the king and queen divorced. It was the intention to immure her in the castle Aalborghus; but through Sir Robert M. Keith, the British minister to Denmark, George III, backed by public DANISH-AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, 1776-1920 15 opinion in England, secured her release. The queen, however, was -forced to leave her two little children in the hands of strangers. She was taken to Celle in Hanover where she died brokenhearted at the age of twenty-two. 14 A conspiracy was soon formed by a number of Danish malcontents, who had been exiled as a result of the coup d'etat of January 17, 1772. This was backed by Sir N. W. Wraxall, an English nobleman. In spite of the fact that George III denied it, rumor would have it that the British monarch was back of it all. The evident object was the overthrow of the Danish government and vengeance for the treatment of Struensee and Caroline Mathilde. 15 At any rate those in power in Denmark felt very uneasy. This was accentuated ' by the fact that George III became so angry, as a result of the unjust treatment of his sister, that he broke off all diplomatic relations, as soon as the queen left Denmark. When France became a partner with the colonies in the war against Great Britain, England's need for friends changed the attitude of her king and government toward Denmark somewhat, and an envoy was again sent to Copen- hagen in 1778. 16 With this as a background we believe the Danish historian, Edvard Holm, is correct when he says of Bernstorff: ''Without doubt it was pleasant for him under those conditions to have the opportunity to put himself on the side of England. Some English trading vessels were captured in the fall of 1779 by an American privateer near the Norwegian coast and taken into Bergen. As Denmark had not yet recognized American belligerency, Bernstorff 14 For a complete account of the Era of Struensee and Caroline Mathilde, "the Queen of Tears," see John Steenstrup, et al., DanmarJcs Riges Historic, Vol. V, pp. 281-380; "Caroline Mathilde, Queen of Denmark," Blackwood's Magazine, Vol. IX, pp. 142-147; "Danish Revolution under Struensee," Edinburgh Review (1826), Vol. XLIV, pp. 360-383; "Count iStruensee and Queen Caroline Mathilde," Westminster Review, (1882), Vol. CXVIII, pp. 336-361; P. Uldall, Efterladte Optegnelser, passim, is Lascelles Wraxall, "The Hapless Queen of Denmark," Eclectic Maga- evn, (1864), Vol. LXIII, pp. 296-297. The author was the grandson of N. W. Wraxall and claimed he had access to his grandfather's papers, is Edward Holm, "Danmarks Neutralitetsforhandlinger 1778-1780," Eis- torislc Tidsskrift, 3dje Rsekke, Vol. V, pp. 4-8. 16 IOWA STUDIES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES forced the privateer to give up the prizes." 17 The political situation, supplies us with one of the deeper reasons for the action of the Danish foreign minister. A second motive for Bernstorff's action in regard to the Bergen prizes was his unrelenting hatred of Sweden. Holm calls him "an untiring and irreconcilable enemy of Sweden." 18 For nearly three hundred years the two countries had been enemies. Recently a secret treaty had been agreed upon between Prance and Sweden, by which France was to pay to Sweden one and one-half million livres a year for six years beginning January 1, 1779. Although this was sup- posed to be secret, Bernstorff had gotten wind of its existence. 19 He knew that it was the custom of the great powers to play off ^Sweden and Denmark against each other in case of a European conflict. He was therefore hostile to the Franco- Swedish-American combine. Consequently he was unwilling in any way to offend England. But probably after all the most potent reason why Bern- storff was pro-English was a personal one. He was against revolution and the liberal tendencies of his times. He had been one of the powerful opponents of the reforms of Struensee. He complained that the Danish people were in favor of the American rebels because they had been poisoned in the village schools by the philosophy of the day. 20 He also believed that the independence of the colonies would be a positive menace to Denmark. He feared that it would endanger the safety of the Danish possessions, cause a de- crease in the Baltic commerce, which on account of the Sound Dues was a source of revenue to Denmark, create a nation which would become a commercial rival, make France too strong, and interfere with Danish trade in general. 21 " Edvard Holm, Danmark-Norges Historic, 1766-1808, pp. 310. i Edvard Holm, "Danmarks Neutralitetsforhandlinger 1778-1780," Eis- torisk Tidsskrift, 3dje Rsekke Vol. V, p. 78. i Bernt von Schinkel, Minnen ur Sveriges Nyare Historic, Vol. I, p. 283; Edvard Holm, Danmark-Norges Historic, 1766-1808, pp. 294-296. I have been unable in any of the great collections of treaties to find the text of this document. It is supposed to have been signed in December, 1778. 20 Aage Friis, Bernstorffske Papirer, Vol. Ill, p. 498. 21 For an expression of this sentiment by Bernstorff, see Appendix A. DANISH-AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, 1776-1920 17 Within the Council of State, which had been reestablished after the coup d'etat of 1772, there was a feeling, however, that Bernstorff was too favorably inclined toward England. The Prince Royal, a half brother of the demented king, who was a member of the Council of State, addressed a letter to his fellow members, which was clearly intended for Bernstorff, asking point blank why Denmark was pursuing a pro-English course. This letter was written March 9, 1780, a short time after the American prizes had been returned to England. "Can Denmark," he asked, "by becoming a special friend of England afford to become the object of the suspicion of Russia, of the dissatisfaction of Prussia, of the hate of Spain and France, and of the hostility of North America? Are we working for England or for Denmark, when at the present time we are seeking to induce Russia to become favorable to England? 22 Bernstorff felt that the letter had been written for his benefit, and he was much annoyed by its contents, as it cast a reflection on his foreign policy. He addressed an answer to the Council, which, of course, was intended for the Prince Royal, in which he defended his foreign policy in general but especially his stand on the American situation. He stated that he felt it was his duty to set forth the reasons why he was opposed to American independence. Briefly they were as follows: (1) Denmark would be unable to protect her West Indies if they should be attacked by the Americans; (2) the new nation would demand cash in payment for pro- ducts; (3) the United States would become a dangerous rival in the export of foodstuffs; and (4) the independence of the colonies would reduce the Sound Dues. 23 Bernstorff 's anti- American feeling was also shown when in 1780 the city of Amsterdam made a treaty with the colonies. In a letter he stated that the states of Holland ought to punish the mag- istrates who had signed the treaty, or they ought to allow England to take revenge on the city. 24 22 Edvard Holm, "Danmarks Neutralitetsforhandlinger 1778-1780," His- torisk Tidsslcrift, 3dje Esekke, Vol. V, p. 73. 23 For an extract from the letter, see Appendix B. 24 Bernstorff to Eeventlow, October 31, 1780. Aage Friis, Sernstorffske Papirer, Vol. Ill, p. 633. 18 IOWA STUDIES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES It is now clear why Bernstorff acted as he did in regard to the Bergen prizes. It was unfortunate for the United States that, when the Danish people and, it would seem, even the Danish court were favorable to the colonies, such a strong statesman as Count Bernstorff was hostile to our in- dependence. On the other hand, he was not, fortunately, at the head of a large powerful state. Franklin had been informed that Baron de Blome, the Danish minister to France, would be given instructions in regard to the Bergen prize case. This gentleman stated that an old treaty existed between England and Denmark, ac- cording to which the Danish government was under obliga- tion to deliver the prizes to the British. He did, however, not show the treaty to Franklin nor was Franklin able to discover such a treaty upon inquiry. 25 Denmark consequently claimed that being bound by a treaty to England she was under no obligation to the United States. After Franklin's letter to Bernstorff, the Danish government changed its at- titude toward the American sailors at Bergen. By an order from court their expenses for the winter were paid, and food, clothing, and passage from Bergen to Dunkirk were given them at the king's expense. 26 When Congress was informed of all the facts in the case, it instructed Franklin to continue to press the claim on Denmark. 27 Although he did so several times, he was unable to obtain any satisfaction. 28 3. Danish Counter-Claims. While Franklin was pressing these claims two incidents happened which gave Denmark an opportunity for counter- claims. On February 6, 1782, he was informed that on December 2, 1781, three American vessels had committed outrages on two English merchantmen in Danish waters near Flekeroe, Norway. The suggestion was made that it was an act of piracy. A demand was made for the punish- ment of the offenders and for indemnification for the vessels 25 Wharton, op. cit., Vol. Ill, p. 744. 26 Ibid., Vol. Ill, p. 744. 2* Secret Journals of Congress, Vol. II, p. 313; Ibid., Vol. Ill, p. 413. zs Sparks, op. cit., Vol. Ill, p. 201. DANISH-AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, 1776-1920 19 and cargoes. Congress was informed of the complaint and that body through its president, Robert Livingston, informed Franklin that he should communicate to the Danish govern- ment that the miscreants had been punished by a higher hand as they had been lost at sea. 29 Shortly afterwards Franklin was informed in a dispatch from the Danish minister at Paris that the ship Providentia of Christiania, on her way from London to St. Thomas with a cargo of merchandise, had been captured by the Amer- ican privateer Henry under Captain Thomas Benton, and had been taken to a port in New England under the pretense that the cargo was English. Denmark demanded restitution and payment of damages, and reminded the United States of their privileges in the Danish West Indies. A hope was expressed that friendship might continue to exist between the two nations in their dealings with each other. It does not appear that any attention was paid to this representation until two years later. On May 16, 1784, Congress passed a resolution to the effect ''that a copy of the application of the Danish minister to Dr. Franklin, and a paragraph of his letter to Congress, on the subject of the capture of the Danish ship Providentia, be sent to the su- preme executive of Massachusetts, who is requested to order duplicates and authentic copies of the proceedings of their court of admiralty, respecting the said ship and cargo, to be sent to "Congress." 30 It does not appear that the governor of Massachusetts ever reported on this case, nor have any court records been found regarding it. As no further cor- respondence concerning these counter-claims is on record, the cases seem to have been dropped. A rather interesting suggestion was made by Robert Liv- ingston in connection with these claims. The Danish govern- ment had not corresponded with Franklin directly but through the French minister, Vergennes. This was done by Bern- storff to avoid giving the appearance of recognizing the inde- pendence of the colonies. Livingston wrote to Franklin on ze Wharton, op. tit., Vol. V, pp. 148, 202, 426. so Ibid., Vol. V. p. 321; Journals of Congress, Vol. IV, p. 350. 20 IOWA STUDIES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES May 30, 1782, that if the powers which had complaints against us continued to consider us under England they should pre- sent their claims through that nation, but if they considered us as independent they should deal with us directly. Frank- lin was ordered to act accordingly. 81 From the fact that we find no more communications received through the French foreign office the conclusion seems valid that Franklin made the European powers accept that view. Upon inquiry at London it was found that the value of the three vessels we had lost amounted to 50,000 pounds sterling, hence Franklin presented a claim to Denmark for that amount. 32 Bernstorff caused an offer of 10,000 pounds sterling to be made to the United States, not as a payment of the 'claim but as a means of closing the incident. He claimed that if the cases had been carried into the Danish courts the Americans would have lost all, as by Anglo-Danish treaty the ships belonged to England. Franklin, however, refused the offer. 33 As this case continued to come up for nearly seventy years, the discussion of international law, as it bears on this affair, is left till a later chapter. But it may be well to have it clear that Denmark gave two reasons for delivering the ships to England. The first was the argument that she had not recognized the independence of the United States, and the second, that her treaty with England forced her to return the prizes to the owners. Although Franklin stated that he had been unable to discover the treaty, as a matter of fact it did exist, and is known as the Anglo-Danish treaty of 1660. 3 * It would seem, however, that the two governments were not quite satisfied with the stipulations put forth in this document, for on July 4, 1780, a new treaty was made between Denmark and Eng- land explaining more definitely Article III of a treaty of 1670. The new treaty provided that the two powers would si Wharton, op. ci*., Vol. V, p. 462. 32 Secret Journals of Congress, Vol. Ill, p. 413; Wharton, op. cit., Vol. VI, p. 743. as Ibid., Vol. VI, pp. 583-584. 3 * For the part of the treaty of interest to this work, see Appendix C. DANISH-AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, 1776-1920 21 not assist the enemies, the one of the other, by giving shelter to soldiers or vessels, and that they would punish those of their subjects as infractors of peace who should act con- trarily. 35 4. Early Treaty Negotiations. When it became evident that the American colonies would become independent, it was but natural that Denmark should try to establish treaty relations. In December, 1782, the Danish charge d'affaires at Madrid inquired of William Carmichael, our representative in Spain, concerning the meth- od Congress proposed for the interchange of ministers. It does not appear whether or not this was done at the request of the Danish government. More definite steps were taken in February, 1783, when the new Danish Minister of Foreign Affairs, Baron Rosencrone, who had succeeded Count Bernstorff, instructed Baron de Walterstorff, who was leaving Copenhagen to take up his duties as Danish minister to France, to get in communica- tion with Benjamin Franklin for the purpose of making a treaty with the United States. Rosencrone was not in agree- ment with the attitude of his predecessor, Bernstorff. He pointed out the advantages of such a treaty to both nations, and referred to the "glorious issue of this war to the United States of America." He suggested that the treaty already made between the United States and Holland be taken as a basis on which to work, and that Franklin be asked to suggest any changes or additions to the court of Denmark. 36 Walterstorff did not fail to carry out his instructions; and in April, 1783, Franklin submitted a draft of a treaty based, as suggested by Rosencrone, on our treaty with Hol- land. He expressed the desire of the United States to enter into treaty relations with Denmark, but did not forget to suggest that to smooth the way for the negotiations Denmark would do well to hasten to settle the affair of the Bergen prizes. 37 as Danske Tractater, 1751-1800, p. 379. se Wharton, op. tit., Vol. VI, pp. 186, 261. 37 Hid., Vol. VI, pp. 372-373. For the text of the treaty with Holland, see W. M. Malloy, Treaties, etc., 1779-1909, p. 1233. 22 IOWA STUDIES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES In aswering Franklin's communication, Baron Rosencrone called attention to the fact that Denmark had already made an offer, which he hoped Congress would consider as a distinguished proof of the friendship of the court of the King. He also enclosed a counter-project of a treaty of amity and com- merce. With the exception of a few points relating to the Revolutionary War, the making of passports, and the gen- eral arrangement of articles, this treaty was almost identical with the one made with Holland. 88 Franklin was satisfied with the document and in July, 1783, sent it to Congress with the hope that it would be rat- ified speedily. 39 Almost a year passed and nothing was done. On April 2, 1784, a resolution was passed to the effect that it would be advantageous to conclude a treaty with Denmark; and the following June Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and John Adams were appointed to negotiate with the Dan- ish government. 40 In September they agreed to invite Baron de Walterstorff to meet them at Passy to confer respecting the mode of procedure in the negotiations. In February, 1785, when de Walterstorff was about to leave Copenhagen, he asked the American ministers for such suggestion as in their judgment might be useful to hasten the making of a treaty. This request was made at the order of Count A. P. Bernstorff, who through a cabinet crisis had returned to the head of the ministry April 14, 1784. 41 The joint com- mission made a draft similar to the one sent to Congress in 1783. 42 It is difficult to understand why Congress did not ratify the treaty of 1783 with Denmark. The records do not indicate that it was ever taken up for discussion. At that time Rosen- crone, a man favorable to the United States, was at the head of Denmark's foreign office. Now Bernstorff, with whose sentiments we are familiar, was back in power. It is ss Wharton, op. tit., Vol. pp. 519-527. This gives the text of the treaty, so Hid., Vol. VI, pp. 585-586. 40 Ibid., Vol. VT, pp. 698, 721, 801, 805; Journals of Congress, Vol. Ill, p. 456; Diplomatic Correspondence, 178S-1789 Vol. II, pp. 193, 197. 41 John Steenstrup, et al., Danmarks Eiges Historic, Vol. V, p. 435. 42 Diplomatic Correspondence, 1783-1789, Vol. II, pp. 259-260, 265. DANISH-AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, 1776-1920 therefore not surprising that in May, 1786, Baron de Blome, who was sent to Paris because he was a friend of the re- instated chief, informed Jefferson that de Walterstorff would not return to France. He was furthermore given the power to state that the commerce of Denmark and the United States might well be conducted under the conditions then pre- vailing without resorting to a definite treaty. If on the con- trary the United States were anxious to establish treaty re- lations, Denmark would be willing to enter into further negotiations. 43 There were apparently no further negotiations on the subject at this time, a circumstance which may be explained by the fact that Denmark became involved in war with Sweden, and the United States went through that era of uncertainty often called the "Critical Period." In the light of future events it is regrettable that a treaty was not made as it might have saved the United States from a good deal of trouble during the Napoleonic Wars. 5. Negotiations through John Paul Jones. The fact that no treaty was made did not mean that we gave up our claim based on the Bergen prizes. In Novem- ber, 1783, Congress had empowered John Paul Jones to go to Europe to solicit payment from Denmark under the di- rection of Franklin. 44 Jones went to France but was un- able to accomplish anything and consequently left the affair in the care of his friend Dr. Bancroft in London, who was to work through the Danish minister at the court of St. James. 45 Dr. Bancroft, however, was no more successful than Franklin had been. 43 Ibid., Vol. Ill, p. 21; Vol. IV, p. 504. The original documents in Danish, German, English and French as well as the correspondence con- nected with them are found in Rigsarkivet at Copenhagen. Several of the letters are in cipher but are translated into Danish and French. The material is found under the following heading: "Akter vedrorende For- handlingerne om en Handelstraktat mellem Danmark og Nordamerika, 1783-1786". Dept. F. A. Nord-amerika I. a. The dispatches are tied together and marked "Ffirste Pakke." 44 Ibid., Vol. VII, p. 291-293; Journals of Congress, Vol. Ill, pp. 311, 430, 796. 45 Diplomatic Correspondence, 178S-1789, Vol. VII, p. 293. 24 IOWA STUDIES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES Finally Jones decided to go to Denmark to present his claim in person. After some delay he obtained permission from Congress on the condition that the final settlement should not be made without the approbation of our minister to France. This was a fatal error, for it gave the slippery Count Bernstorff a chance to shift the negotiation. Armed with the authorization of Congress, copies of the documents relative to the Bergen prizes, a letter from an insurer of London stating that each of the prizes was worth 16,000 to 18,000 pounds sterling, a letter of introduction from Ver- gennes to De La Houze, the French minister at Copen- hagen, and finally a personal letter of introduction from Thomas Jefferson to Count Andreas Peter Bernstorff, Jones ar- rived in Denmark in March, 1788. 46 He was very cordially re- ceived and was presented to the King of Denmark, who did not speak when anyone was presented, 4T as well as to the pleasant young crown prince. 48 Thus far Jones had been successful, but he had not come for these civilities. Days and weeks passed, but the minister avoided the subject of the Bergen prize claim. Finally Jones grew tired of waiting and sent the following note to Bern- storff: "Monsieur: Your silence on the subject of my mission from the United States to this court, leaves me in the most painful suspense; the more so as I have made your Excellency acquainted with the promise I am under, to proceed as soon as possible to St. Petersburg. Since this is the ninth year since the three prizes were seized it is to be presumed that this court has long since taken an ultimate resolution respecting the compensation demanded by Congress." He continued by stating that while he was appreciative of his favorable reception at the court, yet he was much concerned because he had heard nothing of the matter which was the object of his mission. He closed his note by asking for a prompt reply. 49 In due time Bernstorff 46 Ibid., Vol. VII, pp. 340, 342, 355-62, 365; Secret Journals of Congress, Vol. IV, p. 413. 47 Jones probably did not know that the king of Denmark was demented. 48 Diplomatic Correspondence, 178S-1788, Vol. VII, pp. 365-368. *9 Ibid., Vol. VII, pp. 371-372. DANISH-AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, 1776-1920 25 replied that "a train of circumstances naturally brought on through the necessity of allowing a new situation to be developed of obtaining information concerning reciprocal interests, and avoiding the inconvenience of a precipitate and imperfect arrangement," had delayed the matter. He also stated that the Danish King was anxious "to renew the negotiations for a treaty of amity and commerce, and that in the form already agreed on, as soon as the new constitution (that admirable plan so becoming the wisdom of the most enlightened men) shall be adopted by a state which requires nothing but that to secure it perfect respect." He further stated that, since Jones did not have the final plenipotentiary power from Congress to settle the matter, it would be unnatural to change the place of negotiations from Paris to Copenhagen, especially since they had never been broken off but only temporarily suspended. He concluded by wishing that friendly relations might continue to exist and that a treaty might be negotiated. 50 This letter terminated the mission of Jones in Copenhagen. The wily Bernstorff had been able to defer the settlement of the question again. Soon after this, Jones entered the service of Czarina Catharina II as commander of the Wolodimer. He inquired several times of Jefferson and Baron De La Houze as to the status of the Bergen prize claims; but not until March, 1790, did he obtain a reply that conveyed anything definite. De La Houze wrote to him at that time as follows: "As to the affair concerning which you speak to me, and in which you have been witness to my zeal, it remains still at the same point where you left it on your departure for St. Petersburg, the 15th of April 1788." He went on to comfort him by saying that the fact that Jefferson, who understood the case so well, had become Secretary of State would be of great value in the future negotiations. At the present time, however, the disturbed conditions in Europe would be likely to make a settlement difficult. 51 so Ibid., Vol. VII, pp. 394-396. si Ibid., Vol. VII, pp. 399-401. By the "disturbed conditions" was 26 IOWA STUDIES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES Another year passed. By this time Jones had left the Russian service and had come to Paris, from which place he wrote to Jefferson on March 20, 1791 : ' ' But I must further inform you, that a few days after my arrival from Denmark at St. Petersburg, I received from the Danish Minister at that court, a letter under the seal of Count de Bernstorff, which, having opened, I found to be a patent from the King of Denmark, in the following terms: " 'Having reason to wish to give proof of our good will to the Chevalier Paul Jones, Commodore of the navy of the United States of America, and desiring, moreover, to prove our esteem on account of the just regard which he has borne to the Danish flag, while he commanded in the Northern seas, we secure to him, from the present date, during his life, annually, the sum of fifteen hundred crowns, currency of Denmark to be paid in Copenhagen without any deduction whatever.' "The day before I left the Court of Copenhagen, the Prince Royal had desired to speak with me in his apartment. His Royal Highness was extremely polite, and after saying many civil things, he said he hoped I was satisfied ; with the attention that had been shown to me, since my arrival and that the King would wish to give me some mark of his esteem. " 'I had never had the honor of rendering any service to his Majesty.' " 'It matters not; a man like you should be an exception to the ordinary rules; you have shown yourself delicate, none could be more so with respect to our flag; everybody loves you here.' "I took leave without further explanation. I have felt myself in an embarassing situation, on account of the King's patent, and I have as yet made no use of it, although three years are nearly elapsed since I received it. I wished to consult you; but when I understood you would not return to Europe, I consulted Mr. Short and Mr. G. Morris, who both gave me as their opinion, that I might with meant war, which had broken out between Sweden and Denmark, Russia aiding the latter. DANISH-AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, 1776-1920 27 propriety accept the advantage offered. I have, in con- sequence, determined to draw the sum due; and I think you will not disapprove of this step, as it can by no means weaken the claims of the United States; but rather the contrary. ' >52 From this letter it is clear that Bernstorff, who did not wish to pay an indemnity for the Bergen prizes, now at least wanted to be on friendly terms with our government. The patent given to Paul Jones was evidently given for the purpose of soothing his feelings and making him satisfied vSO that he would not further press his claims. The indi- viduals involved in the case being satisfied the government of the United States would naturally drop the matter, and the whole unfortunate affair would be forgotten. For some time, at any rate, the matter was lost sight of, but we shall meet the problem again at a future date. 6. Ordination of Episcopalian Ministers. In 1783 an American gentleman, who had gone to London to receive ordination as a clergyman in the Episcopalian church, wrote to John Adams, our representative at The Hague, stating that he had been refused ordination by the Bishop of London and the Archbishop of Canterbury, be- cause he would not take an oath of allegiance to the Eng- lish crown as required of the clergy of the Church of Eng- land. He was desirous of learning whether it would be possible for a ministerial candidate to "have orders from Protestant Bishops on the continent." Soon afterwards when John Adams by chance met M. de St. Saphorin, the Danish envoy to The Hague, he inquired for the sake of curiosity what stand Denmark would take on the matter. Although Mr. Adams only intended this to be current conversation, the Danish envoy referred the matter to his home government which took it up with the Faculty of Theology of the University of Copenhagen. The decision which was favorable, was transmitted by the Danish Privy Councillor, Count Rosencrone, to John Adams through M. de St. Saphorin in the form of regular diplomatic cor- 52 Ibid., Vol. VII, pp. 408-413. 28 IOWA STUDIES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES respondence for the Congress of the United States. It stated that candidates for the Episcopalian ministry could be ordained in Denmark according to Danish rites, and without taking any oath of allegiance. The services would be performed in Latin. 83 Adams reported the matter to the president of Congress on April 22, 1784. In March, 1785, this body sent a communication to Adams instructing him to thank his Danish Majesty through M. de St. Saphorin for the liberal decision rendered. 64 It does not appear, how- ever, that the Episcopalian clergy in America ever took advantage of the offer. Ibid., Vol. II, pp. 127-130. Secret Journals of Congress, Vol. Ill, p. 550. CHAPTER II PROBLEMS OF THE NAPOLEONIC ERA, 1800-1815 1. Interchange of Representatives. As early as 1785 it was realized by the United States that it would be advantageous to have a regular representative in Copenhagen. Congress proposed "that at courts where no ministers reside the charge d'affaires of the United States be empowered to exercise the duties of consul general. That consuls shall reside at Copenhagen." The proposal, how- ever did not pass. 1 Since the diplomatic posts at Madrid, Berlin, and St. Petersburg were filled only occasionally, it could not be expected that such small posts as that at Co- penhagen should be taken care of. Since Denmark discriminated against the trade of nations which had no relations with her through treaties or represen- tatives, American Merchants were very much at a disad- vantage in Danish ports. During the latter half of Wash- ington's first administration Thomas Jefferson, the Secretary of State, proposed that we appoint a consul to be located at Copenhagen. He suggested the name of Hans Rudolph Saaby, a wealthy Danish merchant. Our custom had been to make a foreigner only vice-consul; but as that would not be in harmony with Danish custom, the higher rank was proposed, and Mr. Saaby was appointed March 6, 1792. 2 During the early days of our national existence state affairs were negotiated between the United States and Denmark through their ministers to France. Such negotiations were later carried on in London. Thus in 1799 a question of an alien inheritance tax was handled by Rufus King and Count Wedel de Jarlsberg, the representatives at the court of St. James, 1 Secret Journals of Congress, Vol. Ill, pp. 593-595. 2 Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. V, pp. 421-422; J. D. Eichardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Vol. I, p. 117. 30 IOWA STUDIES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES from the United States and Denmark respectively. 3 Den- mark, however, realized that it would be of value to have a representative in America; and on November 23, 1800, the American government was informed through Rufus King that Sir Blicher Olson would be sent to the United States as Minister Resident and Consul General.* 2. The Case of the Brig Hendrick. During the rupture of diplomatic relations between the United States and France, following the X, Y, Z affair, sev- eral cases arose which are of interest in the present narrative. It appears that the brig Hendrick 6 under Captain Peter Scheelt, of Altona which at that time was under Danish jurisdiction sailed from Hamburg for Cape Francois in the West Indies. On October 3, 1799, it was captured by a French privateer, and on October 8 it was recaptured by the American sloop of war Pickering under the command of Benjamin Hillier and brought into the port of Basseterre, in the British island of St. Christopher, also known as St. Kitts, one of the Leeward Islands. Here the American cap- tors brought it before the British court of Vice-Admiralty, which ordered that in accordance with the laws of the United States the ship should be sold and one-half of its value awarded to the captors as salvage, while the other half, after deducting court expenses, was to be given to the owners. Denmark made demands on the United States for the value of the ship and its cargo. The government investigated the case and found that the British admiralty court had a Life and Correspondence of Bufus King, Vol. HI, p. 161. Tbid., Vol. Ill, pp. 334-35, 338-339. A gentleman by the name of Campbell had presented himself to Jefferson as minister from Denmark in 1790. He did not have any credentials and was most likely an ad- venturer. Jefferson asked William Short, charge d'affaires at Paris, to inquire of Count de Blome concerning the man, but it does not appear that a reply was received. Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. V, pp. 235-236. 6 We use the Danish form. J. B. Moore in his work International Arbi- trations, p. 4553, evidently makes a mistake by stating that there was a Henry and a Hendrick case. These are without doubt the English and the Danish forms of the name of the same vessel. The forms H enrich and Heinrich also appear in the documents. DANISH-AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, 1776-1920 31 erred in its interpretation of the laws of the United States. The rate of salvage awarded the Americans for recapturing the brig from the French privateers had been adapted from laws of the United States, which were applicable to recap- tures of American property and of such as belonged to belliger- ent powers in amity with the United States. It had no refer- ence to recaptures of neutral property. It was found that in certain peculiar cases of danger, a proportionate rate of salvage had been allowed in the past in neutral cases, but this case was different because the vessel was bound from a neutral port to a French port. Having been captured by a French vessel it would therefore not be in danger. The Danish government gave proof that, for a year preceding the capture of the Hendtrick, most vessels carried into the French island Guadeloupe had been released, and in some cases even damages had been paid. Besides Denmark claimed that the rate of salvage in this case had been too high. It was shown that the vessel and cargo were worth $44,500; but after satisfying the decree of salvage and paying the court expenses, not more than $8,374.41 was left for the owners. In February, 1803, President Jefferson laid the case before Congress and recommended that, since the Danish government had observed a friendly attitude toward the United States and since no remedy was now obtainable in the ordinary judicial course, that body should take the matter under consideration and vote an appropriation to the Danish government for the loss sustained. 8 In accordance with the President's recommendation to Congress, the House very soon passed a bill to reimburse Den- mark but it was defeated in the Senate. 7 The matter was taken up in the next Congress but with the same result. 8 Denmark, however, did not drop the case. She claimed that it was clearly the duty of the United States to pay for the vessel since even the officers of the government had ac- e American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Vol. II, pp. 483-486, 609-612, Vol. IV, pp. 629-632. 7 Annals of Congress, 7 Cong., 2 Sess., pp. 264, 265, 268. s Ibid., 8 Cong., 1 Sess., pp. 235, 236, 239, 252, 257, 261, 276, 552, 562, 787, 798, 881, 883, 887. 32 IOWA STUDIES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES knowledged that a mistake had been made. The commander of the Pickering had erred in taking the captured vessel be- fore a British court, the sentence of which the United States had no power to review. The American government did not deny these facts but was impotent in the matter so long as Congress failed to make an appropriation for the purpose. The reason for the Senate's action became evident later. In February, 1805, President Jefferson again laid the matter before Congress with the additional documents and arguments Denmark had produced. He stated that the owners of the Hend/rick were entitled to relief and that ac- cording to the policy of the United States Congress should make provision for payment. 9 As a result the following bill was introduced in Congress: "Resolved: that the sum of dollars ought to be appropriated, out of the monies in the treasury, not otherwise appropriated, to enable the president of the United States to make such restitution as shall appear to be just and equitable, to the owners of the Danish brigan- tine called Hendrick, and her cargo, which were recaptured by an American armed vessel, in the year 1799, and sold by order of the Vice Admiralty Court, in the British island of St. Christopher: Provided; the Government of Denmark shall make compensation for the seizure of certain prizes, captured by the armed vessels of the United States, during the late Revolutionary war with Great Britain and carried into the port of Bergen in the year 1779, and which by order of the Danish Government were, without a judicial trial, restored to their original proprietors" 10 This bill like its two predecessors passed the House but failed in the Senate. The action of the Senate seems hardly fair as the bill proposed to give justice to Denmark only in case she paid for the Bergen prizes. Congress was incident- ally reminded of the latter just at this time. Peter Landais, the French- American commander of the Alliance, which cap- tured the three prizes, kept pressing his claim on Congress. 8 J. D. Richardson, op. oit., Vol. I, p. 377. For the documents referred to, see State Papers and Public Documents, 1789-1815, Vol. V, pp. 43-48. 10 Annals of Congress, 9 Cong., 1 Sess., p. 476. DANISH-AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, 1776-1920 33 The very Congress in which the bill just quoted was presented voted him $4,000.00 to be subtracted from his final award. 11 As long as the United States government continued of the opinion that her claim on Denmark was fair, it is evident that the Senate was unwilling to pay indemnity for the Hendrick until a prior settlement was reached about the Bergen prizes. Since the Danish government steadfastly refused to recognize that claim, the Senate would not move. It evidently felt that when the State Department should reach an agreement with Denmark that was satisfactory to Congress, there would be plenty of time to appropriate money, if indeed any were needed. While direct evidence is lacking, it is possible that an additional reason why the Senate did not act favorably was the fact that Denmark had recently imposed discriminating duties highly favorable to her own carrying trade. 12 Each nation, to be sure, is master of its own laws, but often selfish laws produce friction, or at least prejudice, between other- wise friendly powers. 3. Murray vs. Charming Betsy. A case similar to the one just mentioned is that known as Murray vs. Charming Betsy. An American-built vessel called Jane sailed for the West Indies where its cargo was sold. Later the ship itself was sold to Jared Shattuck, a naturalized Danish subject in St. Thomas, who had been born in the state of Connecticut. Under the new ownership, with the name changed to Charming Betsy, it sailed for Guadeloupe in the French West Indies and was seized by a French privateer. Later it was recaptured by the United States warship Constellation under Captain Murray and taken to St. Pierre in Martinique. Its master was Thomas Wright, a Scot who had also become a Danish citizen residing in the Danish West Indies. In Martinique Captain Murray sold the cargo of the Charming Betsy because he believed Shattuck was an Amer- 11 Ibid., For the bill, pp. 142, 143, 162, 164, 189, 191, 281, 476, 480, 510, 516. For the award, 435, 453, 516, 520, 779, 799, 824, 838. See also Statutes at Large, Vol. VI, p. 61. 12 American State Papers, Commerce and Navigation, Vol. I, p. 504. 34 IOWA STUDIES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES lean citizen carrying on an unlawful trade with the French. After that he took the ship itself to Philadelphia. Jared Shattuck claimed the vessel and sued to gain pos- session of her as well as to secure damages for the loss of her cargo. The case was tried in the Federal District Court of Pennsylvania under Judge Peters, who awarded the ship and damages to Shattuck on the ground that he was a Danish citizen. This conclusion he had reached from the fact that Shattuck was holding real estate in St. Thomas, which according to Danish Law he could not do as a for- eigner. The case was appealed to the Circuit Court and finally to the Supreme Court of the United States where in February, 1804, Chief Justice John Marshall handed down a decree containing the following points: (1) Jared Shattuck was before the law a Danish citizen, hence the Charming Betsy was Danish prop- erty; (2) the American recaptors were not entitled to salvage because the vessel, being captured on her way to a French port by the French, was not in imminent danger of condemnation; (3) Captain Murray was not justified in breaking up the voyage of the Charming Betsy, because no American citizen has a right to interfere with the property of Danish citizens when sailing under neutral flag on the high seas; and (4) Captain Murray, therefore, must release the Charming Betsy to Jared Shattuck and pay dam- ages. 18 This case arose under the same circumstances as the case of the Hendrick. The reason the case was so easily settled was because the sentence of the court was directed against a private individual, who could not take advantage of the Bergen prize claim. As Captain Murray was an officer in the United States navy and as such had acted in good faith, it was natural that Congress should reimburse his loss. In Murray vs. Charming Betsy, 2 Cranch, pp. 64-125. DANISH-AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, 1776-1920 35 1805 he was paid the original amount and interest by the government. 1 * 4. Shattuck vs. M-aley. This case was also connected with the name of Jared Shattuck ; and took an even more prominent place in our diplomatic relations that that of the Charming Betsy. Through Richard Soderstrom, who was for a time in charge of the consular affairs pertaining to Denmark, the facts of the case were presented to our foreign department in June, 1801. In 1800 the schooner M&rcator, owned by Jared Shattuck, laden with a cargo of merchandise and consigned to Toussaint Lucas, the master of the vessel, sailed from St. Thomas for Jacmel and Port Republican in the island of St. Domingo. The cargo was valued at $13,920. On May 14 as the vessel was entering the port of Jacmel, it was met by the Experiment, an armed schooner of the United States navy under the command of Lieutenant William Maley. The Amer- ican commander took possession of the Mercator and put on board of her a prize-master and four seamen who took the vessel to some place not known to the owner. The ship was never brought to legal adjudication in any court of the United States to the knowledge of Jared Shattuck. In the petition to the State Department Mr. Shattuck asked for redress of grievances. James Madison, our Secretary of State, informed Soder- strom that the regular way to handle this case would be through the courts of the United States. Soderstrom in re- turn stated that in Europe, as well as in America, such cases were often settled through the foreign department. In this case, he added, the leading individual involved, Lieu- tenant Maley, was insolvent and outside of the United States; therefore it would be difficult to pursue the case to any ad- vantage in the courts. To this Madison replied that it would be best to follow the regular procedure and that suit should be brought by the Minister Resident of Denmark, P. Blicher Olson, as he was the only proper organ through whom Statutes at Large, Vol. VI, p. 56. 36 IOWA STUDIES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES Danish subjects could demand reclamation. 15 Accordingly the case was taken up in the Federal District Court of Pennsyl- vania, appealed to the Circuit Court, and finally to the Supreme Court of the United States. In his usual masterly style Chief Justice John Marshall rendered the decision in 1806. 18 In the trial Maley claimed that the Mercator was an Amer- ican vessel carrying on an illicit trade with the French West Indies. When he met her she was on her way from Balti- more to Port-au-Prince, a place in the possession of British troops, although her papers declared she was proceeding from St. Thomas to Jacmel. He also declared that the name of the master of the Mercator indicated that he was a Frenchman or perhaps an Italian, while his crew were largely Portuguese. According to Danish law foreigners could not legally com- mand and navigate a Danish vessel. He further declared that Jared Shattuck was an American who had gone to St. Thomas to carry on an illicit and clandestine commerce with French ports. In order to make no mistake he had left undisturbed the papers on board the vessel, and had sent her with an officer and four seamen to Cape Francois to be delivered to Silas Talbot, then commander of the public vessels of the United States in those waters, with instructions that she should be de- livered to her master if Commodore Talbot cleared her. About six hours later the Mercator was captured by the British privateer General Simcoe, commanded by Joseph Duval, who brought her to Jamaica where she was libeled as French or Spanish property in spite (of the denial of Jared Shattuck. She was condemned as a lawful prize and confiscated to the cap- tors. Maley therefore contended that since peace existed be- tween the United States, Great Britain and Denmark, the Mercator would have been cleared in the British court if she had been Danish property. Jared Shattuck presented proof that though born in Con- necticut he was a Danish citizen, that Port-au-Prince, was not held by the British but by General Toussaint L'Ouverture. that all the papers were in good and regular order, that the is American State Papers, Foreign Relation, Vol. Ill, pp. 344-347. i Maley vs. Shattuck, 3 Crunch, 458. DANISH-AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, 1776-1920 37 master, though Italian by birth, was a Danish citizen, and that Danish law did not require the crew of a vessel under the flag of Denmark to be Danish citizens in time of peace. The District Court had awarded the owner $41,658.67. This was changed in the Circuit Court to $33,244.67. From this decree Maley appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States which sustained the lower court. While Shattuck had won his case in the courts he had not yet obtained the money. As Maley was an officer of the Navy and insolvent, the government was asked to pay the damage. This in turn necessitated action by Congress. Here the same difficulties were met as in the case of the Hendrick. In 1810 the Danish Minister Peder Pedersen requested that the award of the court be paid. By a Senate resolution the President was asked to lay before that body all the correspondence and documents connected with the case. This was done but the claim was not paid, 17 for other circumstances had now arisen, which will be presented in a later connection. 5. Danish Aid in Tripoli. While the cases mentioned above were pending, the United States was involved in what is known as the Tripolitan War. Several times Americans had been captured and imprisoned in Tripoli. The consul of Denmark, Nicholas C. Nissen, re- siding at Tripoli did all in his power to aid the Americans. In 1802 Andrew Morris, captain of the brig Franklin wrote to a friend: "Through the interference of Mr. Nissen, his Danish Majesty's consul here, I have the liberty of the town." When in the year 1803 Captain William Bainbridge was captured with the officers and crew of the ship Philadelphia and im- prisoned under such conditions that it was impossible for them to procure the necessary food and clothing. Mr. Nissen took care of the American prisoners for more than nineteen months, part of the time at his own expense. 18 In sending a request to Commodore Samuel Barren for a person to come ashore, Bainbridge suggested that it would be best for that i 7 Senate Journal, 9-11 Cong., Vol. IV, p. 466; Annals of Congress, (1810), 11 Cong., Pt. II, pp. 2158-2166. is American State Papers, Naval Affairs, Vol. 1, pp. 122-124, 150-151. 38 IOWA STUDIES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES individual to come under the guaranty of the Danish consul as he was "a man of unquestionable integrity" and was "actuated by a desire to serve. 19 The negotiations between Tobias Lear, commander of the United States frigate Constitution, and the Bashaw of Tripoli, which led in 1805 to the final settlement of the Tripolitan trouble were also carried on through the Danish consul. 20 It was therefore natural that Congress should show its appre- ciation by passing a joint resolution in 1806 thanking Nicholas C. Nissen for his disinterested services. 21 6. Danish Spoliation of American Commerce. The treaty of Tilsit in 1807 created a situation in which England was forced to act quickly and effectively. Con- sequently she demanded of Denmark that her navy should be surrendered to the safe keeping and control of the British fleet, but promised that it would be restored after the war. As England probably expected, Denmark rejected the proposition as it would make her a vassal of her pow- erful neighbor to the west. Great Britain, however, was confronted with a situation which had to be settled without delay. As a result, on September 2, 1807, she bombarded Copenhagen and forced the surrender of the Danish fleet, consisting of twenty-two ships of the line, ten frigates, and forty-two smaller vessels. 22 The natural outcome of this action was that Denmark joined France in her war against England. A large num- ber of privateers were fitted out for the express purpose of preying on the English Baltic trade, which was being carried on in spite of the fact that Alexander I of Russia had joined Napoleon. By a royal order issued at Rendsborg on Sep- tember 14, 1807, Danish privateers were instructed to bring into port all English vessels and property of any kind. 23 i State Papers and Public Documents, Vol. V. p. 412. 20 American State Papers, Foreign Affairs, Vol. II, pp. 717-718. 21 Annals of Congress, 9. Cong., 1 Sess., p. 1296. 22 Cambridge Modern History, Vol. IX, pp. 237-39, 243, 294-300, 344. as American State Papers, Foreign Belations, Vol. Ill, pp. 327-328; Law of September 14, 1807. See Bibliography. DANISH-AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, 1776-1920 39 This order made it very hazardous for English vessels to ply through the Danish Sound and Belts. England tried very hard to continue her trade, and a large number of her merchantmen sailed under armed convoy. The demands on the British navy, however, were so great that it was impossible to protect her whole merchant marine; consequently a large number of vessels found it necessary to protect themselves by posing as neutrals. With false papers and under the flag of the United States, the only nation that was neutral, they attempted to deceive the Danish privateers. As a result Denmark felt obliged to take measures to capture all ships under false flag. This course, of necessity, carried with it the danger of seizing a large number of vessels that were truly neutral, and of trying them under the smallest and flimsiest pretexts pos- sible. To this danger was added the fact that the captains and crews of privateers shared a great part of the booty thus obtained, which made them greedy to capture vessels and secure their condemnation no matter whether they were enemy or neutral. It was under these circumstances that in July, 1809, forty-three American citizens in Christiansand, Norway, pe- titioned the President of the United States for aid, since they had been captured by Norwegian privateers, subject to Denmark, while pursuing their lawful business. They ad- mitted that many Americans had connived with England to cheat Denmark, and that England was fitting out her vessels to look like those of the United States; yet they felt that they had not been treated fairly in the courts of Norway. Even though they had proved in court that their property was neutral, their voyage legal, and their capture conse- quently illegal, yet they had been forced to pay from 400 to 600 rixdollars to their captors. The American consul, Mr. Saabye, of Copenhagen, had been unable to aid them. They hoped for help from America as they were liable to starve. They also recommended that the President make a certain Peter Isaacsen, .who had given them much aid, American consul in Norway. 24 24 Ibid., Vol. Ill, pp. 328-333; State Papers and Public Documents, Vol. VII, pp. 314-330. 40 IOWA STUDIES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES Closely following upon this request came a communication to the State Department from Peter Isaacsen himself, dated August 11, 1809. In this he stated that there were twenty- six American vessels held captive in Norway at that time. Eighteen of these had been tried and eight were still await- ing trial. Of the eighteen, eight had been cleared and ten condemned. He explained that England had used every con- ceivable means to deceive Denmark, so that navigation had practically ceased to be considered an honest business. False, falsified or double sets of papers were so common that the strictest inquiry was absolutely necessary to ascertain the true identity of a vessel. This was the cause of the hard- ships experienced by American sailors in Norway. He promised to watch over the interests of Americans as well as circumstances would permit. 25 In October of the same year, the American consul at Copenhagen sent a list of fifty-one ships, which were claimed by Americans but which had been captured by Danish privateers. Twenty-one of these had been condemned, and the cases of all but two of these had been appealed to a higher court. Twenty-two had been cleared. Seven had been cleared in the prize courts but the captors had appealed the cases. One was still pending. About the same time, also, seventy individuals and firms sent a com- munication from Philadelphia in which they claimed loss for damages sustained as a result of Danish privateering. They requested the government to intervene in their behalf. 26 By this time Denmark had become aware that, though her privateers were doing effective work in disturbing Brit- ish trade in the Baltic, they were also shutting off the im- portation of food supplies to Norway. On August 6, 1809, Prince Christian August wrote to the King of Denmark that the conditions in Norway were very serious and that he believed a prohibition of privateering would be advantageous. The king replied that he had already repealed the order of September 14, 1807, until further notice. 27 It was hoped that 2 American State Papers, Foreign Eelations, Vol. Ill, pp. 330-331. 2e Ibid., Vol. Ill, pp. 332-333. 27 J. V. Boeder, Danmarks Krigshistorie, 1807-1809. Vol. Ill, pp. 534- DANISH-AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, 1776-1920 41 the prohibition of privateering would cause England to al- low ships to enter Norwegian harbors, but it had the op- posite effect. The English war vessels that had been busy fighting Danish privateers were now employed to blockade the Norwegian ports. It was therefore of no use for the Danish government to offer a bonus of two and one-half rixdollars for each ton of food shipped to Norway. 28 Denmark now made a very wise move. On December 10, 1809, she established peace with England's ally, Sweden, in the treaty of Jonkjobing. This made it possible for Norway to secure food through Sweden and immediately the Danish privateers were sent out to harass English shipping. 29 This explains President Madison's statement to Congress in his annual message December 5, 1810, to the effect that: "The commerce of the United States with the North of Europe, hitherto much vexed by licentious cruisers, particularly under the Danish flag, has lately been visited with fresh and extensive depredations. 30 In view of these conditions in Europe, the American gov- ernment soon realized that it was necessary to have a rep- resentative in Copenhagen. It was therefore decided to send George W. Erving as special envoy to the Danish govern- ment. As soon as he arrived at his post he got in touch with the Danish Premier, Baron Rosenkrantz, who also had charge of foreign affairs. Erving requested that the action of Danish prize courts be temporarily suspended in Amer- ican cases in order that more definite knowledge might be obtained concerning each case before them. This request was made 'on June 6, 1811, shortly after he arrived in Copenhagen. At the same time he sent to Baron Rosen- krantz two lists of captured American ships, the cases of- which were pending before the Danish courts. The first list containing the names of twelve ships, dealt with vessels, concerning ten of which there was no question in regard to 536. Saabye in his report, mentioned in the text, stated that the order was repealed August 1, 1809. 28 Ibid., pp . 570, 589. 29 Ibid., pp. 629-689, passion. so American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Vol. I, p. 77. 42 IOWA STUDIES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES nationality. They had been captured under "clause *D' of the eleventh article of the royal instructions of March 10, 1810, declaring as a cause of condemnation, 'the making use of English convoy.' ' The second list was made up of sixteen ships which had been captured because among their papers were French certificates of origin, that were sup- posed to be forgeries, as Denmark had been informed by France that French consuls in America had been ordered to discontinue issuing them. 81 Erving did not wait to receive a reply to this letter, but on the following day sent another note to Baron Rosen- krantz in which he entered more fully into the problem of the ships under English convoy, henceforth referred to as the "convoy cases." Two of the twelve were laden with goods for England and no contention was made for them. The other ten, however, were on their way from Baltic ports to America. They had passed the Sound and paid the Sound Dues. When they entered the Cattegat they had been arrested by a British naval force and "compelled to join convoy." He contended that the Danish instructions of March 10, 1810, were unfair and contrary to international law in this instance because they did not take into con- sideration the circumstances that had brought the ships under the enemy convoy. He asked the Danish authorities to cite "examples of the practice of nations" to support the legality of the instructions. On the other hand he claimed that even England had never gone so far as to condemn a vessel on the mere ground that it had been captured under enemy convoy. He called Denmark's attention to the brave fight she herself had undertaken to maintain the rights of neutrals in 1780 and 1800, and he closed the letter with expressing the hope that justice might be done, which would be so much easier in this case because the vessels had been captured by national ships and not by privateers. 32 On June 28, 1811, Erving received a reply from Rosen- krantz. After expressing his satisfaction because friendly feeling had always existed between Denmark and the United si Ibid., Vol. HI, pp. 522-523. 82 Ibid., Vol. HI, pp. 524-525. DANISH-AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, 1776-1920 43 States, Rosenkrantz went on to explain the cases involved in their correspondence. In regard to the "French certifi- cates of origin" it was now clear that the cases rested on a misunderstanding. On September 22, 1810, the French government had : informed Denmark that the consuls in America had been instructed not to issue them. It now appeared these orders had not reached the consuls in Amer- ica until November 13. The Danish government had there- fore ordered her judges of admiralty courts not to adjudge French certificates as evidence against the ships, providing they were issued prior to that date. In regard to the "con- voy cases" the Danish government felt that the rule laid down in the instructions must be followed, as enemy convoy destroyed their neutral character. He held that this prin- ciple was just and would even be enforced if a Danish vessel should use English convoy. He called Erving's attention to the fact that at the time when all other European ports were closed to American vessels those of Denmark were open. This should convince the United States that Denmark desired their friendship and was doing nothing from hostile motives. 33 In answer to this communication Erving immediately re- plied that he was thankful for the spirit expressed, which, of course, he had expected knowing the general trend of the Danish court. He was sorry, however, that the Danish prize courts did not always follow the spirit of His Majesty, and he mentioned the decision of the High Court on March llth, 1811, in the Swift case in which a vessel had been con- demned on the sole statements of the privateers, who, it had been proved, had perjured themselves. American evidence was not admitted in this trial. He was unable, however, to agree with the arguments given in the "convoy cases." The United States would not dispute the right of Denmark to enforce the instructions of March 10, 1810, on her own citizens; but it was quite a different matter when other nations were involved. In fact it was inconceivable that a Danish ship, subject to capture by the British, could be found under British convoy. S3 Ibid., Vol. Ill, pp. 525-527. 44 IOWA STUDIES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES Such a ship would be carrying enemy property and would therefor be guilty of treason. It would merit the severest punishment. He insisted that the words "using convoy" in the royal instructions must surely be construed to mean "voluntary convoy," and could thus not cover the "convoy cases." To condemn vessels under such unfortunate cir- cumstances would not be a just course for any power to pursue toward a friendly neutral. In spite of this strong reasoning, Rosenkrantz declared in his next communication that His Majesty could not make any change in his instructions to his privateers. Any American vessel under the convoy of British war vessels, if captured in the future by Danish ships, would be considered a lawful prize. No European power had called in question the justice of this rule. In later correspondence Erving showed that two of the "convoy cases" were ships that had been captured by Denmark and released by the Danish courts because their neutrality was fully established. It was thus clear that the vessel had not voluntarily joined convoy. In the case of the Hope, Captain Rhea, the British commander, Charles Dash- wood of H. M. S. Pyramus, had boarded the vessel and entered on the ship's papers that he had ordered her to join convoy to prevent her going to an enemy's port with provisions and to prevent her from being captured by England's enemies. 84 In Erving 's report to the Secretary of State, he made a summary of the arguments that he had put before the Danish government in behalf of the Americans. The most flagrant violations made by Denmark were those connected with the "convoy cases." He enclosed tabulated reports of the sit- uation of American claims which show the following status on May 30, 1811: Captures in 1809 , 63 Captures in 1 810 124 Total. 187 Cleared 114 Condemned 31 Pending . . ....... ^^ 14 * Ibid., Vol. Ill, pp. 527-529; State Papers and Public Documents, 1789-1815, Vol. VIII, pp. 307-308. DANISH-AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, 1776-1920 45 Condemned cases of a desperate character _ 16 Cases transferred to Paris 2 Convoy cases pending _ 10 Total 187 As privateering at this date was still going on, the number swelled to much greater proportions. 35 Because many vessels had been condemned and sold by Danish prize courts, and because it was impossible to re- verse such action, Erving, finally on November 4, 1811, pre- sented reclamation claims to the Danish government. His communication was soon after answered by Baron Rosen- krantz who sent a counter-claim to Mr. Erving for 'the Hendrick and the Mercator cases, which have been described above. Soon after this Rosenkrantz sent a direct reply to Erving 's note of November 4, the gist of which was that as Denmark had been fair in her prize decisions it would be impossible to pay for the condemned vessels. Erving 's counter- reply was clear and straightforward. He reminded the Danish government that in the two cases mentioned the United States had broken no international law, but that the cases had arisen through error of officers, for which errors Denmark might yet expect to receive redress. The action of Denmark, on the other hand, was a direct violation of the laws of nations. If this were not so, he had invited the Dainish Minister of Foreign Affairs to discuss the principle upon which the reclamation was founded. "Can it be deemed to be a satisfactory answer to such a reclamation that other nations have submitted to similar decisions? Can it be imagined that the term 'defini- tive' as applied to such decisions is conclusive against the United States? Can it be expected that they will acquiesce in a decision as just, because it is termed 'definitive'?" He ex- plained that the various governmental instruments, such as courts, were created by the sovereign who was responsible for their action. When a foreign nation was injured by a tribunal, the sovereign could not refer it for justice to the instrument ss Ibid., Vol. VH, pp. 314-342; Ibid., Vol. VIII, pp. 205-233, 305-323; American State Papers, Foreign Eelations, Vol. Ill, pp. 521-536, 557-567. These references give the correspondence and the reports in full. 46 IOWA STUDIES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES that caused the complaint. ''What is this but to adopt the injustice complained of?" Once the decisions of courts were made the controversy was no longer between individuals, the ship-owners and the privateers, ljut between the American government and the Danish king. As Denmark could rest assured that America would pursue her reclamation claim, he hoped that a plan might be adopted which would satisfy our government. In a very conciliatory note of May 8, 1812, Rosenkrantz declared to Erving that, if it could be proven that American subjects had just cause for complaints, his Danish majesty would be very willing to redress their grievances. From this statement it would appear that the Danish foreign minister did not recognize that 'it had become a government affair only. 36 The last communication from George W. Erving to Baron Rosenkrantz was dated April 18, 1812. As stated, Rosenkrantz' reply came May 8. Soon after this Erving left Copenhagen for Paris and the United States consul at Hamburg, John M. Forbes, was sent as charge d'affaires to take care of the few cases that were still pending before the courts of Denmark. As the War of 1812 started in June, the Danish situation nat- urally became a minor affair compared with the task of fight- ing England. At the same time it became impossible for American merchantmen to sail the high seas. Consequently Danish spoliation stopped for lack of material to capture. For the time being our claims on Denmark lay dormant. In a later chapter the adjudication of the spoliation claims will be taken up. 37 39 State Papers and Public Documents. Vol. IX, pp. 90-119. 37 Erving 's correspondence concerning the Danish spoliation is also found in Annals of Congress, 12 Cong., 1 Sess., Pt. II, pp. 1980-2016, and 12 Cong., 2 Sess., pp. 1201-1222. CHAPTER III THE NEGOTIATION OF TREATIES AND THE SETTLE- MENT OF CLAIMS, 1815-1847 Although the international relations that have been traced in the two preceding chapters covered a period of more than forty years, during which time a large number of disagree- ments had arisen, yet friendly relations continued to exist. This state of affairs could hardly be expected to continue, however, unless a settlement of the disputed points could be reached. It is the solution of these problems that will be set forth in this chapter. 1. Danish Claims against the United States. Denmark's efforts to obtain satisfaction for the loss of the Mercator and the Hendrick have already been set forth. In 1812 she renewed the claim in behalf of Jared Shattuck for the loss of the Mercator. A bill was introduced in Congress by the committee on claims, proposing that relief should be given. This bill passed both houses; but as no further trace of it appears anywhere, it is probable that it was handed to the president for his signature at the close of the session and dis- posed of by a "pocket veto". 1 In December, 1819, President Monroe laid before Congress the case of the brig Hendrick, for which Denmark had re- newed her claim, through her minister at Washington and C. N. Buck, consul-general of Hamburg at Philadelphia. The case was taken up in the Senate but reported unfavorably on account of existing claims of the United States against Den- mark. 2 2. The Treaty of 1826. It was a rule of Denmark to discriminate against nations 1 Annals of Congress, 12 Cong., 2 Sess., pp. 54, 64, 65, 66, 67, 197, 844, 849. 2 American State Papers, Foreign Eelations, Vol. IV, pp. 629-632; Annals of Congress, 16 Cong., 1 Sess., pp. 39, 801, 891, 1169, 2253-2259. 47 48 IOWA STUDIES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES with which she had no treaty relations, by putting higher duties on goods imported from them than was placed on im- ports from countries with which treaties were established. It was for this reason that Washington in 1792 placed a consul at Copenhagen. 3 This action, did not remove the discriminat- ing duties. 4 Several times the United States government was reminded by her consuls at that port that our merchants were paying half again as high duties as those of Great Britain, Holland, France and the other nations which had treaties with Denmark. 5 It seems probable that this situation caused the United States to take active steps to bring about treaty relations. Just how much preliminary correspondence passed between the two governments before a treaty was finally made we cannot say, for the dispatches in the archives at Copenhagen covering the period 1821-1829 do not even mention that correspondence had been carried on ; but on April 26, a " Convention of Friend- ship, Commerce and Navigation" was concluded between Peder Pedersen, the Minister Resident of Denmark at Washington, and Henry Clay, the American Secretary of State. The treaty of 1826, which, with a few changes, is still in force, consists of twelve articles touching on the most vital points of international relations. In brief outline the contents are as follows: Article I, contained the most favored nations clause. Article II, provided that, the coasting trade excepted there should be freedom of trade between the two countries. By Article III, mutual privileges were established in regard to importation, exportation, and re-exportation of all articles, which might be lawfully handled in the respective countries. The duties of one country upon vessels of the other should not be higher than on native vessels. Article IV, provided that duties and prohibitions should not be placed on imports and exports between the two countries unless the same became equally binding on other powers. Article V declared that, in s Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. V, p. 421. * Ibid., Vol. VI, p. 476. 6 American State Papers, Commerce and Navigation, Vol. I, p. 504; Ibid., Vol. H, pp. 353, 3G7. DANISH-AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, 1776-1920 49 regard to the duties in the Sound and Belts, the United States should be on the same basis as the most favored nations. Article VI stated that the convention should not pertain to the northern possessions of Denmark nor to the direct trade between Denmark and the Danish West Indies. According to Article VII, taxation in either country, in case of removal of the respective subjects of the other, should not be higher than that paid by its own citizens. By Article VIII, mutual exchange of consular representatives on the basis of the most favored nations clause was to be established. It was provided by Article IX that, exequatur having been granted, the repre- sentatives of the two powers should be recognized by all authori- ties and inhabitants in the district where they resided. Accord- ing to Article X, consuls, and their foreign servants, should be exempted from services and taxes, and the archives of the consulate should be inviolable. Article XI declared that the convention should be in force for ten years, and further until the end of one year after either party gave notice to terminate it. Under Article XII, ratifications were to be exchanged within eight months. 6 Before the Secretary of State was willing to affix his signa- ture to this document, he sent a note to Chevalier Pedersen, Minister Resident from Denmark, to the effect that this treaty should not be interpreted to mean that the United States waived her claims for indemnities due to her citizens from the Danish government. The minister was requested to transmit the note to Denmark together with the text of the treaty. Upon the acknowledgment of the receipt of this note by Pedersen, Henry Clay signed the treaty. 7 Soon after the treaty was ratified Steen Bille took up the work of Chevalier Pedersen as Danish representative at Wash- ington. In November, 1826, Henry Clay inquired of him whether he had received any information as to the interpreta- tion that Denmark placed on Article VII of the treaty. It e W. M. Malloy, Treaties, etc., Vol. I, pp. 373-377. American State Pa- pers, Foreign Eelations, Vol. V, pp. 905-907, Department of Foreign At- fairs. Philadelphia Beretninger 1881-1829. Nordamerika II. Supporter. (American dispatches, package 2. Rigsarkivet, Copenhagen.) f American State Papers, Foreign Eelations, Vol. V., p. 907. 50 IOWA STUDIES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES had been rumored in the United States that American citizens could not remove their property from the islands without paying the tax known as "sixths" and "tenths." It was ex- pressly for the benefit of these citizens that the clause had been inserted. Steen Bille answered immediately that he had an- ticipated such fears, and as soon as he arrived he informed his government of the interpretation that might be made by the authorities of the islands. He had received answer that the Danish government well understood why the article was in- cluded in the treaty. Americans could rest assured that noth- ing would be done which would defeat the original intent. 8 3. The Arbitration Treaty of 1830. In pursuance of the intention to press our claims against Denmark, the House of Representatives in May, 1826, requested the Secretary of State to lay before it a full report of the claims for indemnity due from that country. This report, given in January, 1827, revealed that there were in all 167 claims amounting to $2,662,280.36. 9 It was evident that if we were ever to obtain payment for those losses we would have to send a minister to Denmark. Consequently Henry Wheaton was appointed to go to Copenhagen to negotiate a settlement. In May, 1827, Henry Clay sent instructions to Wheaton and stated that where his instructions were silent he should follow international law and always keep in mind that we wanted a friendly feeling to exist between the United States and Den- mark. After reviewing the history of the spoliation cases, which was based on the correspondence of George W. Erving and Baron Rosenkrantz, Clay proceeded to set forth the details connected with the cases. He showed that the seizure and condemnations had been made on the following grounds: (1) possession of false papers making British property appear to be American; (2) sailing under British convoy, hereby losing the immunity our flag afforded; (3) possession of French con- sular certificates of origin after the French consuls had been For the correspondence between Clay and Bille see Niles' Weekly Register, (1826) Vol. XXXI, pp. 220-221. American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Vol. VI, pp. 384-385, 504- 535. 614-624. DANISH-AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, 1776-1920 51 prohibited from issuing them, except to vessels bound for France. In regard to the first of these grounds, Clay stated that the principle followed by Denmark was entirely correct. We were as anxious as any that those who sailed under our flag un- lawfully should be punished. In these cases it was only a question of establishing the facts proving whether the vessels condemned were truly American or not. He further held that in regard to the "convoy cases" it was a question of whether or not convoy had been joined voluntarily. Even in the case of voluntary assumption of convoy it would depend on the purpose for which it had been joined. If neutrals had not joined convoy for an unlawful purpose, there would be no reason why they should be captured and condemned by Den- mark. Being unarmed they would not add to England's strength. Indeed, they would weaken her power, as they ex- panded her sphere of protection. If a friend's goods on an enemy's vessel were not liable to condemnation, there would be no reason why a friend's goods in a friend's vessel should be liable to condemnation just because that vessel was under enemy convoy. In an enemy's vessel the goods of a friend would surely be more closely blended with that of the enemy than in the case of convoy. The third ground for condemna- tion, as alleged by Denmark, was void of basis of fact. French consuls could legally issue certificates of origin to the date they received orders to discontinue the practice, which was on November 13, 1810. The vessels seized had received them earlier than that date. Even if these certificates were not genuine, that would not change the condition so far as Den- mark was concerned. They might have warranted detention by the French and possibly condemnation in a French court, but to Denmark they were unimportant no matter whether they were genuine or false. Having set forth these general principles, Clay proceeded to state that Wheaton should keep in mind that, after the arrival of George W. Erving, Denmark had changed her atti- tude, a fact shown by the restraint placed on her privateers and courts. She had, however, not given redress for those already wrongfully condemned, the reason given being that the 52 IOWA STUDIES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES king could not reverse the sentences of his courts. We had already made clear to Denmark through Erving, that we were not now asking for a reversion of the sentences of the courts, but for indemnity due as a result of those sentences. The government would have to be responsible for the mistakes made by the courts, because the courts received their instruc- tions from the government. This was especially true in regard to the "convoy cases," which were condemned by authority of a special order. Clay then related, in some detail, the subsequent negotiations in the affair and closed his instructions by suggesting that a board of commissioners should ascertain the amount due the United States. The method, however, was not vital. To pro- cure indemnity was the real object. If Denmark was finan- cially unable to pay the full sum, we might be willing to accept a compromise. 10 Henry Wheaton was somewhat delayed in presenting these matters to the Danish officials for two reasons. The cases of the Commerce and Hector were pending between the United States and Russia. One of these cases involved the question of reviewing a sentence pronounced by a prize court. This the Russian government refused to do, but finally consented to pay an indemnity. The point of reviewing a court decree was precisely the one at issue between the United States and Den- mark. Therefore Wheaton waited to see what would be the outcome of the Russian case. The fact that Russia had paid an indemnity in a similar case naturally gave added strength to the arguments later presented by Wheaton. Further delay took place because of a royal marriage which for, the time being, completely engrossed the attention of the court. 11 In July, 1828, however, Wheaton was able to present the matter to Count Schimmelman. He stated that he had full plenipotentiary power to negotiate and terminate the whole matter. He followed closely the instructions sent him by Henry Clay, and stated that the United States would be very willing to have a joint commission appointed to cover the 10 Executive Documents, 22 Cong., 1 Sess., Vol. VI, Doc. 249, pp. 2-10. 11 n\d., pp. 10-11. DANISH-AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, 1776-1920 53 whole field of spoliation claims, but that, if Denmark prefered a settlement en bloc, that method would be satisfactory to the United States. After a great deal of discussion, Wheaton was at last able to report to his government on January 31, 1829, that the king had appointed Count Schimmelman and the Min- ister of Justice, Count de Steman, as a committee to treat with him on the subject. 12 In the spring of that year a change of administration took place in the United States and the new Secretary of State, Martin van Buren, sent Wheaton a full copy of all the claims against Denmark, under the direc- tion of John Connell, a Philadelphia lawyer who was the special representative of many of the claimants interested in the indemnity. 13 In August, 1829, a conference was held between the Danish commissioners and our representative in which the whole field of argumentation was gone over again. To close the matter and avoid the consideration of individual cases, Denmark finally made a verbal offer to pay us 500,000 marcs banco of Hamburg, and to waive her claims to indemnity for the M creator and the Hendrick. This offer was made on the condition that all claims of the United States for captures by Danish cruisers should be forever abandoned. Putting the value of the marc banco of Hamburg at thirty-five cents and the two Danish ships at $65,000, which was approximately what Denmark claimed they were worth, the offer of the commissioners would amount to about $230,000. This offer was wholly inadequate to cover the claims presented, which, as stated, amounted to $2,662,280.36. Wheaton so informed the Danish commissioners and after a conference with John Con- nell made a counter-proposition stating that we would accept 3,000,000 marcs banco of Hamburg, and Denmark should re- nounce her claims for the Mercator and the Hendrick. If that offer was accepted our indemnity would amount to about $1,700,000. In September a second conference was held. On this occa- sion the Danish commissioners argued that the United States could not support their claims on the mere assertion that they 12 Ibid., pp. 12-16. is ibid., pp. 16, 18. 54 IOWA STUDIES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES had sustained losses, because their vessels had been condemned. They must prove that the evidence which was to establish their neutral character was actually produced in court by those to whom they had entrusted the property. It must also be proved that the judges had pronounced arbitrary sentences and acted contrary to the duties of their office. It was to avoid the enormous work of going into details of each case that Denmark had been willing to make a proposition for settlement. 14 This meeting adjourned without making a reply to the new arguments. Later Wheaton showed that, according to the principles of international law as exemplified in specific cases connected with Russia, Prussia, England and the United States, there was no legal way for Denmark to avoid paying the in- demnity. Besides if the sentences of the Danish tribunals were to be considered conclusive, it would mean that a belligerent state was invested with legislative power over neutrals. It was clear that the decision of an admiralty tribunal could only be conclusive so far as the 'individuals were concerned; they could not be binding on foreign nations. He also discussed the three points upon which Denmark based her right to capture and condemn foreign vessels, and dealt with them along the lines laid down in his instructions. 15 When a report of the conferences and the Danish offer was made to the American government, the Secretary of State sent new instructions to Henry Wheaton in January, 1830. Martin Van Buren, under the influence of his chief, Andrew Jackson, expressed regret that Denmark was not more willing to make a settlement. Wheaton was instructed that if nothing could be done to complete a settlement he was to inform the govern- ment of Denmark that "the present Executive would not be wanting in all suitable exertions" to make good the declaration that a just indemnity was wanted. 16 In a friendly but firm note the Danish commissioners were informed of the attitude of the American government. 17 i* Ibid., pp. 19-21. fbid., pp. 22-29. i Ibid., pp. 39-40. 76 id., pp. 40-42. DANISH-AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, 1776-1920 55 Without question the Danish authorities realized from this communication, which was dated February 25, 1830, that affairs were approaching a crisis. Denmark's trade with the United States might in a comparatively short time suffer more than the price of a settlement. Something must be done if friendly relations with the United States were to continue. At this point King Frederick VI of Denmark took matters into his own hands and ordered his commissioners on March 23, 1830, to make an offer to Henry Wheaton to settle the case py paying ''650,000 Patagons." Upon the condition that Den- mark would relinquish her claims for the Mercator and Hen- drick the offer was accepted and embodied in a treaty. This document was signed at Copenhagen on March 28 and later rati- fied by the Senate of the United States. Ratifications were ex- changed in Washington on June 5, 1830. 1 * The treaty is very brief, containing only six articles. The 'first of these provided for the relinquish ment of the claims for the Mercator and the Hendrick, and the payment of $650,000 by the Danish government to the United States. The second and third described how the money should be paid and dis- tributed. The fourth and fifth articles released Denmark from any further payment of indemnity for spoliation claims. The last article dealt with the manner of the ratification of the treaty. 19 It had been a long and tedious procedure to secure this settlement. The provisions, however, were promptly carried out by the Danish government. In agreement with the terms is J. D. Richardson, op. tit., Vol. II. pp. 481-482. The minutes of the conferences held between Henry Wheaton and the Danish commissioners are found in Danish and French in the Department of Foreign Affairs, Rigsarkivet, Copenhagen. The letter from King Frederick VI is in his own handwriting. Dept. F. A. Nordamerika I, &, Alcter vedrdrende Konvcntionen af 1830, 28 Marts, 1825-1830. (American dispatches, pack- age 3.) is For a full statement of all the claims, see House Executive Documents, 19 Cong., 2 Sess., Vol. IX, Doc. 68: For the diplomatic correspondence connected with the treaty, see also American Annual Eegister, (1831-32), Vol. VII, Appendix, pp. 214-261. For text of the treaty, see W. M. Malloy, Treaties, etc. 1776-1909. Vol. I, p. 377; also, Niles Eegister, Vol. XXXVIII, pp. 307-308. 56 IOWA STUDIES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES of the treaty a necessary act was passed by Congress. To provide for the distribution of the money among the claimants a commission was appointed by President Jackson. It con- sisted of George Winchester, Jesse Hoyt, William J. Duane, and Robert Fulton. When its work was completed in March, 1833, the commission made a final report to the Secretary of State. 20 At the close of the year 1833 all the money had been paid by Denmark and distributed by the commission. 21 4. Proposal of Reciprocity with St. Croix. The measure known as the ' ' Tariff of Abominations, ' ' passed in 1828, was very detrimental to the trade between the United States and the Danish West Indies. To create a better situation Denmark sent General P. von Scholten as a special envoy to Washington in the fall of 1830 to arrange for a reciprocity treaty, the operation of which should be limited in its scope. General von Scholten, who was Governor-General of the Dan- ish West Indies, reminded the American government that Den- ' mark reserved the whole trade of the islands to herself and the United States. On account of proximity, the islands ob- tained practically all their supplies from the United States and we in turn imported the raw products of the islands. Denmark felt that it was unfair for the United States to place very high duties on her imports, thus leaving a very small profit for the islands. If this condition continued it would become necessary to levy a duty on goods imported from the United States to the islands, thereby shifting the trade to other countries. To avoid this he proposed an extension of Article VI of the treaty of 1826, which would bring about a state of reciprocity. He suggested the following amendments: (1) only ships under the Danish and the American flags 20 For the text of this report, see J. B. Moore, International Arbitrations, Vol. V, pp. 4569-4572. 21 Senate Journal, 21 Cong., 2 Sess., p. 218; House Journal, 21 Cong., 2 Sess., p. 396; Statutes at Large, Vol. IV, p. 446. Soon after the treaty was made several insurance companies presented claims to the United States for the Hendrick on the plea that according to the treaty Den- mark had now released her claim. The committee which had the matter in charge made an unfavorable report. House Journal, 21 Cor.g., 2 Sess., p. 346. DANISH-AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, 1776-1920 57 should be allowed to carry on trade in St. Croix; (2) corn and corn meal should enter the island free of duty; (3) other commodities should be arranged in a tariff schedule in such a way that not more than five percent ad valorem could be put on necessities of life and not more than ten percent ad valorem on luxuries; and (4) in order to keep reciprocity in amount as well as in rate, the islands of St. Thomas and St. John should not be included in the treaty. 22 After due consideration Van Buren informed General von Scholten that we were unable to make such a treaty because of the most favored nations clause which was included in almost all of our treaties. If we should give concessions to Denmark, other nations could immediately claim the same privileges. We hoped that whatever measures Denmark should see fit to carry out, she would always be guided by principles consistent with the existing treaty, and directed by motives in harmony with the present friendly feeling between the two nations. 23 The Danish envoy expressed his regret because of the existing diplomatic situation. He requested, however, that the whole matter be laid before Congress for its consideration. Being assured of this by the Secretary of State, he left the subject in the hands of the Danish charge d'affaires. Steen Bille. 24 The president laid the matter before Congress in December 1830. 25 It was reported to the House by Mr. Cam- breling, of the committee on commerce, in March of 1831. The whole situation was explained in the report together with General von Scholten 's proposals. It was shown that the Danish West Indies were virtually a commercial appendage of the United States. On account of the diplomatic difficulties which would arise if the proposals were put into operation, the report, when read, was laid on the table. 26 Denmark, how- 22 Senate Documents, 21 Cong., 2 Sess., Doe. 21, pp. 2-9. 23 rbid., pp. 9-11. 2* ma., pp. 11-15. 25 Biehardson, op. tit., Vol. II, pp. 531-532. 26 The total imports to the United States from the Danish West Indies for the year ending September 30, 1826 amounted to $2,067,900. The 58 IOWA STUDIES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES ever, did not carry out the threat, made by von Scholten, of laying duties on American goods. On the contrary, she passed a law more liberal than any former one. President Jackson in his message to Congress intimated that she had set a good example in her colonial policy, which it would be well for other nations to follow. 27 5. The Termination of the Jones Claims. In March, 1806, Congress had paid $4000 to Peter Landais, the French captain of the Alliance which had captured the Union, the Betsy and the Charming Polly in 1779 and brought them into Bergen. 28 It is possible that other claims arising from the Bergen affair were put before Congress prior to 1812; but as many governmental records were destroyed in the burning of the capitol during the War of 1812, no definite record remains of some things that had been transacted. From records extant it appears that Secretary Monroe on December 14, 1812, sent a note to the Danish charge d'affaires at Wash- ington, stating that a report was current that Denmark had decided to pay the claims. If this report were true our government was interested to learn how it would be executed. A few days later an answer was received in which it was stated that Denmark had never recognized the claim "as a fair and legal one and it had for many yeaTs already considered it as a superannuated and abandoned affair." 29 In January 1820 a claim, which the previous month, had been presented to Congress by James Warren, a lieutenant on export to the islands for the same period equalled $1,391,004. In that same year our direct commerce with Denmark equalled $100,582. in ex- ports and $49,246. in imports. Congressional Debates, 19 Cong., 2 Sess., Vol. m, Appendix a, folder. 27 Richardson, op. tit., Vol. Ill, pp. 24-25; Senate Documents, 23 Cong., 1 Sess., Doc. 1, p. 7. For the correspondence between General P. von Scholten and Martin Van Buren, see Congressional Debates, (1830-31), Vol. VII, Appendix, pp. 159-166. For the report in the House of Representatives, see ibid., Vol. VII, pp. 846-847; Beports of Committees, 21 Cong., 2 Sess., Doc. 117; House Journal, 21 Cong., 2 Sess., pp. 134, 405. zs Senate Documents, 24 Cong., 1 Sess., Vol. Ill, Doc. 198, p. I; Beport of Committees, 29 Cong., 1 Sess., Doc. 206, p. 6. 2 Annals of Congress, 16 Cong., 1 Sess., Vol. I, pp. 256-258. DANISH-AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, 1776-1920 59 board the Alliance, was acted upon unfavorably by that body. 30 From this time no claim seems to have been pre- sented till December, 1836, when Janette Taylor, a niece of John Paul Jones, who had become his legal heir, presented a memorial, asking for the money due as a result of the Bergen prizes. She called the attention of Congress to the fact that in 1806 relief had been granted to Peter Landais, although at that time he was a disgraced officer incapable of serving in the United States navy, as the result of being court martialed on January 6, 1781. Besides, Jones was his superior in rank. She reminded Congress that it was Jones who had first dis- played the flag of the United States on board the Alfred before Philadelphia. On board the Ranger in Quiberon Bay, Febru- ary 14, 1778, he had claimed and obtained from Monsieur La Motte Picquet the first salute received from a foreign power. Papers were presented to prove that Jones had taken enough British prisoners to redeem all our prisoners in Great Britain. In spite of repeated requests for relief he had died without receiving the money due him for the Bergen prizes. 31 At about the same time, several other claims of a similar nature were presented to the government of the United States. William C. Parke claimed a share in the Bergen prizes on behalf of his father Mathew Parke, who had been a captain of marines on board the Alliance. Nathaniel Gunnison pre- sented a claim in behalf of his father John G. Gunnison, who had worked on board the same vessel as a carpenter. Still another claim was advanced by Lucy Alexander, who likewise held an interest in the prizes. 32 As a result, the president was requested by Congress to present the matter to the govern- ment of Denmark. 33 It seems, however, that nothing was done at this time. Consequently the heirs of Jones again called the attention of our government to the claims; and in so Ibid., pp. 33, 257, 277. i For the legal documents connected with the Jones' claim, see Execu- tive Documents, 24 Cong., 2 Seas., Vol. I, Doc. 19, pp. 1-29. a Report of Committees, 24 Cong., 2 Sess., Doe. 297. pp. 1-3; House Journal, 25 Cong., 2 Sess., pp. 49, 259-60, 305, 311. S3 Senate Journal, 24 Cong., 2 Sess., pp. 130, 385, 554. 60 IOWA STUDIES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES 1843 the House of Representatives asked for and obtained from President Tyler the correspondence connected with the affair. 34 From the material obtained by the House it appears that an inquiry had been made to discover whether the indemnity of $650,000 paid by Denmark in 1830 was supposed to cover the Jones claim. John C. Calhoun, who was Secretary of State at the time, had stated that he saw nothing in the treaty to that effect. A letter was also sent to Henry Wheaton, Minis- ter of the United States at Berlin, who had negotiated the treaty with Denmark in 1830, asking for his opinion on the matter. Henry Wheaton 's reply is very clear and throws much light on the subject. Dealing with the question whether the long time that had elapsed since the rise of the claims had invalidated them, he stated that, if this case should be given over to a third power for arbitration, the claim would most likely not be held valid, because almost seventy years had passed since it arose. He suggested therefore that, in order not to harm the case, his opinion on this point ought to be kept secret. He felt sure, however, that the claims were not precluded by the indemnity treaty of 1830. Nothing was said in that treaty about the Bergen prizes and it was expressly stated that the $650,000 were paid for "the seizure and con- fiscation of American vessels and property by the cruisers of Denmark, or within the Danish territory during the war which commenced between Great Britain and Denmark in 1807 and was terminated by the peace of Kiel in 1814. " 35 Touching the problem of international law involved in the Bergen prize case he made several comments. When a group of people form a revolution to shake off the government of the "metropolitan country" and to establish an independent na- tion, other nations may follow various courses while the struggle is still going on. They may remain passive; they s* J. D. Kichardson, op. oit., Vol. IV, p. 320; Executive Documents, 28 Cong., 1st Sess., Vol. II, Doc. 264. 85 The wording of Wheaton 's statement is faulty according to the text of the treaty. See W. M. Malloy, Treaties, etc., 1776-1909, Vol. I, p. 377. DANISH-AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, 1776-1920 61 may recognize the revolting portion formally and yet remain neutral in the struggle; and finally, they may form an alliance with one of the parties. With these facts in view, he asked, what attitude ought Denmark to have adopted toward the United States? A neutral state, without any doubt, had the right to forbid belligerent vessels to bring their prizes into her harbors, provided she acted impartially and let her inten- tions be known. She might even grant the privileges of her harbors to one of the belligerents and refuse it to the other if it had been so "stipulated by treaties existing previous to the war." Denmark, not being an ally of Great Britain, should as a neutral have shown hospitality to the vessels brought in by the Americans, provided she had no previous treaty with England which she was under obligation to ob- serve. Neither could Denmark defend herself on the basis of the right of postliminii or reversion of previous condition. This does not exist except between subjects of the same state or between allies. Again, as Denmark was not an ally of Great Britain, she could not take advantage of that international rule. 36 Denmark, he added, seemed to rest her case largely on the fact that she had not recognized the independence of the United States. The question, however, was not whether she had acknowledged our independence, but whether such a state of war actually existed between the nations as made it the duty of all nations to respect the rights of both. "Denmark must either have considered the United States as lawful belligerents, or as pirates, incapable of acquiring any of the rights of just war. In the former case, she was bound to perform towards them all the duties of impartial neutrality. In the latter, her conduct, if its motive had been avowed, might have provoked resentment, as an act of hostility, ac- companied with insult. In either alternative her interference to disturb the lawful possession of the captors would have justified immediate reprisals; though prudence might have 36 Under jus postliminn property captured by an enemy, upon its recap- ture by a friend, reverts to its owner. See also Monsieur de Vattel, Law of Nations, Chitty's edition, Bk. Ill, ch. 14. 62 IOWA STUDIES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES induced the American government to refrain from resorting to this extremity." Wheaton felt however, that allowance should be made for the circumstances under which the affair oc- curred and for the ideas of the day. Denmark had not yet en- tered the Armed Neutrality, and a colonial revolt was considered a crime. Besides, England probably brought very powerful pressure to bear on the rather weak Danish state. It was clear from the correspondence connected with the case that Denmark sought to "excuse and palliate" rather than to justify her action. 37 Wheaton 's letter, sent by the State Department to William W. Irvin, our representative in Copenhagen in 1843, formed the basis of his communication to the Danish foreign office, dated February 10, 1845. More than two years passed before the Danish government replied. Finally, on June 4, 1847, the Danish Minister of Foreign Affairs, Count Reventlow- Criminil, answered Irvin 's letter. In this communication every argument that had come up in the whole controversy was dealt with in detail. As Wheaton 's letter was a master- ly exposition of the American side of the question, so this letter was a close rival stating the Danish side. It is therefore important to give a full review of it. He expressed surprise because the United States at so late a period should revive a claim which arose during an age when the peace of the world was disturbed with a large number of serious and complicated questions. The first question with which he dealt was that of Denmark's obligations to the two belligerent powers. He informed Irwin that the United States was wrong in stating that Denmark was under no obligation to comply with the demand of the British government for the release of the Bergen prizes. On the contrary she was bound by a treaty of 1660, then in force, to do just what England demanded of her. No one could deny that the colonies were in revolt against England and were carrying on a civil war. As Denmark had not recognized the independence of the United States, the three prizes could not be regarded by her 37 For the text of the letter from Henry Wheaton see Executive Docu- ments, 28 Cong., 1 Sess., Vol. II, Doc. 264. DANISH-AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, 1776-1920 63 as anything but British property, which according to the treaty mentioned must be restored. 38 Under the existing circum- stances, therefore, Bernstorff could not have entered into official correspondence with Dr. Franklin without recognizing the inde- pendence of the colonies. This, he stated, must have been his reason for not producing the treaty in question. On the other hand, the offer made by M. de Walterstorff was styled a gratuitous donation, and was not to be regarded as an acknowledgment by the Danish government of a wrong com- mitted. On the basis of these arguments he held that the claims of Commodore Paul Jones were without legal founda- tion. But, he maintained, there were further reasons why no claim should be made at this time. Not only were the claims in themselves invalid, but they were now both superannuated and prescribed. The United States had only made one very indefinite demand since 1788. That demand, if indeed it might be considered as such, was in a letter from the Secre- tary of State to the Danish charge d'affaires at Washington, dated December 18, 1812. Mr. Pedersen had replied that Denmark had never recognized the claim as fair and besides that it was now superannuated. No further demands had been presented and the matter was dropped. If the claims were recognized by lack of action to be superannuated then, how much more now thirty-five years later? If the United States had still intended to put forth a claim it should have been presented in 1830 when a treaty was made for the express purpose of putting an end to all existing claims. Reventlow- Criminil closed by saying that he was firmly convinced that the arguments presented would "be sufficient to put an end to the claims forever," and "to remove all subjects of discord . . . between the government of the United States and that of his august sovereign." 39 ** The treaty provided that the contracting parties would not harbor the enemies or rebels, the one of the other, nor allow their subjects to do so. In the same way the property of the one, being brought into the realms of the other by enemies or rebels, should forthwith be restored. For the text of Article V, see Appendix C. 3 For full text of the letter from Reventlow-Criminil to W. W. Irvin, 64 IOWA STUDIES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES It is of interest to notice how well the arguments of Henry Wheaton and those of Reventlow-Criminil agree on the main points of international law. Both recognized statutes of limi- tation, although our government in the past had not accepted this principle. 40 The two men were also agreed in regard to obligations where a treaty existed. They did, however, not agree on the question of the recognition of independence. Wheaton took the stand that Denmark was under obligations to the United States no matter whether or not she had recog- nized their independence, while Reventlow-Criminil held that on account of the existing treaty Denmark was under obliga- tions to England at least until she had recognized the inde- pendence of the colonies. Till that time she would have to treat them as rebels and could not enter into diplomatic rela- tions with them. It seems quite clear that for two reasons Denmark was under no obligation to pay the Jones claims in 1846. The first of these is intrinsic in the case. When she gave back the Bergen prizes to Great Britain she was performing a duty under a treaty, hence could not be held culpable by a third party. The second reason is found in the principle of prescription, which operated in this case because of the lapse of time. On the basis of this principle the rights of the United States must have terminated, if not earlier, at least in 1830. Denmark, however, committed what might be called a moral wrong by see Eeports of Committees, 30 Cong., 1 Sess., Doc. 9, pp. 54-56. The diplomatic dispatches, connected with this affair, located in the Depart- ment of Foreign Affairs, Rigsarkivet at Copenhagen are not released for the use of the public. o Expressing the opinion of a former committee on foreign affairs, Mr. Maclay, chairman of the Committee on Naval Affairs, on February 10, 1846, made the following statement in the House of Representatives in regard to the Jones case. "It is not, as intimated by Mr. Pederson, an abandoned affair, nor is it a superannuated one. Questions of honor and right, as between sovereign states, are not to be summarily disposed of like the debt of an individual, by a statute of limitations. There is no lapse of time which discharges a nation of the right to demand of another nation reparation for a palpable wrong.". Report of Committees, 29 Cong., 1 Sess., Doc. 206, p. 6. DANISH-AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, 1776-1920 65 failing to set forth more fully and convincingly the facts of the treaty of 1660 in the early stages of the negotiation. It appears that the matter was dropped. The claims of the heirs of Jones and others connected with the Bergen prize affair were, however, still before Congress. To dispose of the whole affair, as well as to honor the name of the great revolu- tionary commodore, Congress passed an act on March 21, 1848, for the relief of all concerned. Thus ended the history of the Bergen prize case and of the Jones' claims the first and also the longest drawn out controversy between the United States and Denmark.* 1 *i For the documents in full connected with the Jones' claims, see ibid., pp. 1-29; House Journal, 30 Cong., 1 Sess., pp. 429-432, 626; Senate Journal, 30 Cong., 1 Sess., p. 229; Beport of Committees, 30 Cong., 1 Sess., Vol. I, Doc. 9; Senate Reports, 33 Cong., 1 Sess., Vol. I, Doc. 180; Senate Executive Documents, 37 Cong., 2 Sess., Vol. IV, Doc. 1; Status at Large, Vol. IX, p. 214. CHAPTER IV THE ABOLITION OF SOUND DUES AND OTHER PROB- LEMS, 1841-1860 1. Abolition of the Sound Dues. The Baltic Sea would be a mare clausum if it were not for the three narrow straits, which, by their continuation through the Cattegat and the Skagerak, connect it with the North Sea and the Atlantic Ocean. The Little Belt between Jutland and the island of Pyn (Fuenen) is too shallow to be of much use to navigation. The Great Belt between Fyn and Sjoeland (Zealand) does not run in a favorable direction for ships bound for the eastern Baltic ports. Consequently the Oresund, or, as it is known in the English tongue, the Sound, between Zealand and Sweden has always been the main entrance to the Baltic. From time immemorial the dues collected for the priv- ilege of passing through the Sound or Belts had constituted a rich source of Danish revenue. To understand why a difference should arise between the United States and Denmark in regard to the collection of the Sound Dues it is of importance to know approximately when and how these dues originated. Because of their early origin they were intrically interwoven with the political and economic systems, not only of Denmark, but of Europe. On account of their age Denmark insisted on her right to collect the dues, the right being a part of the law of nations; while on the very same ground the United States insisted on her right of ex- emption from paying the dues, as she had never been the benefi- ciary of the acts and movements through which the dues had originated. Students during the last fifty years have set forth the theory that the Sound Dues originated between the years 1423 and 1429. Their contention is based on a statement in the "Liibecker Tage" of July, 1423, where it is reported that the M DANISH-AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, 1776-1920 67 king at Copenhagen levied a toll on the ships in the Sound. 1 Their conclusion is somewhat strengthened by the fact that no records exist in the Danish archives dated before the year 1497. From that date till 1660, actual records are extant of the number of ships that passed the Sound, their nationality, and the amount of dues collected, for one hundred and ten years passim out of the one hundred and sixty three. 2 It appears, however that the date 1423 is not, after all, the year of the origin of the Sound Dues. The Danish historian, Baden, has advanced the theory that the early Danish kings had complete control over the Sound and Belts. They felt it to be their duty to keep them cleared of pirates. When strangers wanted to sail through, either for the sake of war, for trade, or for obtaining herrings in the Sound, they had to secure permission of the Danish king. This could only be obtained through the payment of money. Thus the dues originated because the king rendered a service. 3 This theory, although plausible, would not be of much value per se. Docu- ments, however, are extant which show the existence of the dues earlier than 1423. On April 4, 1436, the City of Danzig sent an inquiry to the City of Liibeck asking what was their understanding in regard to the status of the Sound Dues, since the peace with King Erick. 4 Liibeck answered on April 21, 1436, that according to the treaty between them and the King of Denmark (Erick of Pomerania) they were to enjoy all the old privileges, and as freedom from the payment of Sound Dues was one of those privileges they did not intend to pay the dues. 5 It seems clear, while not conclusive, that 1 This is the conclusion of the Danish historian, J. A. Fredericia, in his article, "Fra hvilken Tid skriver Sundtolden sig?" Eistorisk Tidsskrift, 4de Bsekke, Bind 5 (1875-1877), pp. 1-20. The same opinion is held by the German historian, Dietrich Schafer, in his article, "Zur Frage nach der Einfiihring des Sundzolls, " Hansische Geschichtsblatter 1875, pp. 31-43. For the basis of their statement see Appendix D. 2 These records have been published by Nina Ellinger Bang, Tabeller over Shibsfart og Varetransport gennem Oresund, 1479-1660. s Gustav L. Baden, Afhandlmger i Fcedrelandets Historic, Vol. II, pp. 221-260. * Hansereccesse, Abth. II, Vol. I, pp. 485-486. 5 Ibid., pp. 486-487. 68 IOWA STUDIES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES the dues according to this statement must antedate the year 1423, or the term "old privileges" must have a peculiar mean- ing in this place. On February 6, 1386, a treaty was made between Denmark and certain Prussian towns in which the latter were promised free navigation of the Sound, providing they would not station ships of war there, but trust to the Danish king to keep it clear. 6 In 1328 King Christopher II granted exemption from toll in the Great Belt to the monastery of Sorb'. It is self- evident that dues must have been charged in the Sound as early as they were in the Belts, otherwise there would have been no traffic in th Belts at all. Hence we may infer that the Sound Dues date back at least to 1328. 7 From time to time Denmark's right to collect the Sound Dues was recognized by treaty. It is not necessary to give here a history of the treaties dealing with this subject. It will suffice to state that the rate of dues was based on a schedule incorporated in the treaty of Christianople in 1645, between Denmark and Holland. Certain obscure portions in this schedule were explained in a supplementary treaty with the Dutch in 1701. Upon this basis dues were collected till 1841, when a treaty was made between England and Denmark establishing a new schedule. This treaty, with a few changes established in an amendatory treaty of 1846, remained the basis until the dues were abolished in 1857. 8 The Sound Dues were not collected with equal regularity Eegesta Diplomatica Historice, p. 426. For the text of the agreement, see Hanserecesse, Abth. I, Vol. II, pp. 372-373. 7 J. F. W. Schlegel, DanmarTcs og Hertugddmmernes Statsret, Chapter VTI. Macgregor states: "The most ancient charter extant, referring to toll payable in the Sound and Belts, is that granted by Erick Menved in 1319 to the Town of Harderwieck in Holland stipulating the rate of duty to be paid by Dutch ships at Nyborg, upon the conveyance through the Belts of cloth destined for sale." John Macgregor, Com- mercial Statistics, Vol. I. p. 165, Note. I have been unable to find any other reference to this document. 8 M. Thomas Antoine de Marien, Tableu des Droits et Usages de Com- merce Relatifs au Passage du Sund; F. Hessenland, On Sound-Dues; H. Scherer, Der Sundzoll. These works give a good resume of the sub- ject. DANISH-AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, 1776-1920 69 and for the same purpose at all times. By a royal decree of 1532 King Christain III ordered dues to be collected, 9 an un- necessary order if they were being collected. In 1633 Chris- tian IV caused special dues to be levied so that a better harbor might be built at Elsinore where the ships had to lay in to pay the dues. 10 In 1692 the dues were farmed out for the sum of 160,000 rixdollars, which sum must have been too large, as Eduart Krusse, the farmer of the revenue, complained he could not pay it. 11 This condition was probably the cause of a royal decree which ordered dues to be collected from Danish vessels as well as foreign. 12 The fact noted above that we have records for only one hundred and ten years between 1497 and 1660 may perhaps be explained on the same basis. During the seventeenth century much dissatisfaction arose on account of these irregularities. 13 When, however, the dues of every nation were put on the basis of the Dutch treaties of 1645 and 1701, the dissatisfaction disappeared. At least, complaints appeared to cease during the eighteenth century. The country that paid the greatest part of the Sound Dues was naturally Great Britain. As stated, she had secured con- siderable reduction by the treaties of 1841 and 1846. Because of the most favored nations clause incorporated in nearly every treaty, practically every country was benefited by the Anglo-Danish treaties. So far every nation acquiesced, legally at least, in their existence. The first nation that refused to pay the dues was the United States. The first popular discontent was expressed in the Boston Monthly Magazine of January, 1826. Here Caleb Gush- ing argued that it was not in harmony with our dignity to pay tribute to any nation, especially where no quid pro quo was received. Whether Denmark could justly claim the dues 9 For the text of the decree, see C. F. Wegner, EigsarTcivets Aarsberet- nvnger, Vol. Ill, p. 30. 10 For the text of the decree, see Appendix E. 11 "Diary of Bang Christian V." March 30, 1692. C. F. Wegener, GeheimerarTcivets Aarsberetninger, Vol. VI. p. 287. 12 Ibid., p. 274. is Ibid., Vol. Ill, pp. 97-98 Vol. VI, p. 315. 70 IOWA STUDIES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES in the past was of little importance to us as there was now no adequate reason why we should pay them. 14 In May 1841, Daniel Webster, the Secretary of State, called the attention of the President to the fact that even though we had comparatively little direct commerce with Denmark, yet we paid a yearly sum of about $100,000 in Sound Dues. Besides this, we paid port dues even though we did not enter Danish ports except to pay the Sound Dues. He recommended that our minister to Denmark enter into communication with the Danish government to have this condition changed. 15 When in 1844 Calhoun became Secretary of State, he wrote to Wm. W. Irvin for all the information he could get in regard to the navigation in the Sound, but requested that the matter be kept secret. Irvin sent this information and sug- gested that, if the United States intended to terminate the treaty of 1826 in order to bring the Sound Dues question to a head, she had better not wait too long "as the wheels grind slow in Denmark." 16 It appears that nothing further was done at this time. In 1848 the new minister, Robert P. Flenni- ken, in a conversation with the Danish Minister of Foreign Affairs broached the question of the abolition of the dues. The Danish minister, according to Flenniken, acknowledged that the dues were unfair and that he could not defend the principle upon which they were being collected. A little later the American Secretary of State, James Buchanan, in a letter to Flenniken expressed his satisfaction with the acknowledg- ment of the Danish minister. He suggested that, as the reciproc- ity in navigation arranged for in the treaty of 1826 was altogether one-sided in favor of Denmark, it was fair that Denmark should abolish the Sound Dues on our vessels to even up matters. Buchanan even suggested that Flenniken i* The article is reprinted from the Boston Monthly Magazine in the North American Review, April, 1826, Vol. XXII, pp. 456-459. is Executive Documents and Beports of Committees, 27 Cong., 1 Sess., Doc. 1, pp. 26-28. i "Letters of John C. Calhoun "Annual Report of the American Historical Association, 1899, Vol. II, pp. 590-591 ; Executive Documents, 33 Cong., 1 Sess., Doc. 108, pp. 28-30. DANISH-AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, 1776-1920 71 might offer Denmark $250,000 if such an arrangement could be made permanent. 17 At the time that Flenniken laid Buchanan's offer before Count A. V. Moltke, the Danish Minister of Foreign Affairs, Denmark was engaged in the Three Years' War. Count Moltke asked our minister to put his request and offer in written form; which he did. The reasoning followed in this communi- cation includes several points. It was pointed out that, accord- ing to the treaty of 1826, America was not allowed to enter all Danish ports, while Denmark was free to enter all of ours. Other nations paid Sound Dues for services Denmark had rendered to them in the past. Since we had never received any of those benefits we ought not to pay the dues. The Baltic being a free sea, the entrance to it ought to be free; this was in accordance with the best authorities on international law. The very fact that Denmark had to make treaties in regard to the Sound Dues, was a proof that they were not sanctioned by the law of nations. Before closing his communication he made it clear to the Danish government that if Denmark was unwilling to make a change the United States intended to terminate the treaty of 1826. 18 It was quite clear, however, that while Denmark continued at war with Germany nothing definite could be accomplished. Besides, the Danish government had borrowed money in Eng- land and her creditors had obtained a pledge that the Sound Dues should be kept sacred for the payment of interest on the loan. Added to this was the fact that Russia was favorable to Denmark and used Elsinore as a projected naval police station. It is evident, therefore, that those two countries would back Denmark in upholding the payment of the dues. 19 At the close of the Three Years' War, Robert P. Flenniken, who had become well acquainted with the facts pertaining to the Sound Dues, was no longer our representative in Den- mark. Two other men followed in quick succession. 20 In 1854 " ibid., pp. 38-42. is Ibid., pp. 42-49. i Ibid., pp. 49-51. 20 See Appendix I. 72 IOWA STUDIES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES Henry Bedinger was appointed to the post at Copenhagen. At this time William L. Marcy was Secretary of State under Presi- dent Pierce. Marcy instructed Henry Bedinger to bring the subject to the attention of the Danish government, as it must be settled. He showed to our representative that it was to England's advantage to keep up the Sound Dues because the duty on raw products was higher than on manufactured goods ; thus she gained by importing raw products into England and making it into manufactured goods which were shipped ito Baltic ports. Bedinger was further informed that the United States would not be willing to make any payments or give any commercial privileges in lieu of the abolition of the dues. 21 Henry Bedinger broached the matter to the Danish foreign office, but was informed that Denmark could not abolish the dues without remuneration. Later the Danish Minister of Foreign Affairs expressed the hope that the United States would not press the matter just at that time (April, 1854) because of the political situation in Europe. Some day, so he thought, there might be a possibility that Denmark, for a compensation, would abandon the dues altogether. Being re- minded that the United States government was unwilling to give any compensation, he stated that he had strong reasons to believe she would. 22 In spite of the request not to urge the matter while the Crimean War was in progress, Marcy endeavored to bring the matter to a speedy conclusion. Denmark was informed that the American government had decided to terminate the treaty of 1826. 23 In answer to this notification, the Danish govern- ment through Torben Bille, its representative at Washington, communicated to Secretary Marcy its views in regard to its right to collect the Sound Dues. The United States had claimed that the dues were not sanctioned by the law of nations, but were based on special conventions made between Denmark and 21 Executive Documents, 33 Cong., 1 Sess., Doc. 108, pp. 54-58. 22 Ibid., pp. 59-61. 23 Executive Documents, 34 Cong., 1 Sess., Vol. I, Doc. 1, p. 25. DANISH-AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, 1776-1920 73 the various powers. It was this point that Torben Bille especially sought to refute. The Sound Dues, he claimed, were based on the law of nations by immemorial prescription. The right to collect them had existed long before any treaties were made regulating the rate. If the right were based on treaties, it would mean that the various strong powers in Europe had voluntarily made a grant to Denmark. This was contrary to historical facts. Neither was it reasonable to suppose that Denmark was able to force her will upon the strong and powerful European states. In that case they would certainly never have incor- porated them voluntarily in their treaties with Denmark. While the origin of the Sound Dues was shrouded in the uncertainty of antiquity, yet it was clear that when inter- national affairs began to be regulated by definite rules, the right to collect the dues was so well established, that without protest it was incorporated in treaties. Although the Danish government would be willing to admit that, according to the present interpretation of international law, the imposition of similar duties now, for the first time, could not be sanctioned, yet she would not admit that this should be a criterion by which to judge rights that had been in existence since time immemorial. He further pointed out that the treaty of Vienna recognized the Sound Dues in the settlement of European affairs, at a time when similar arrangements were being remodeled. Under these circumstances, the abrogation of the treaty of 1826 would not affect a right which existed independently of the treaty. It would only leave the United States shorn of the rights and benefits which she enjoyed as a result of the treaty. Because of the existence of other treaties, it would be impossible to exempt the United States from the payment of the duties on their commerce, as every other nation would claim the same advantage. 24 Marcy did not even deem it worth while to answer Bille 's letter, but replied to the Danish government by instructing Henry Bedinger to request, in a final appeal, that American commerce be relieved of the burden. If this should prove s* Tor text of the letter, see ibid., pp. 25-28. 74 IOWA STUDIES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES unsuccessful, he was instructed to inform the Danish gov- ernment that the treaty of 1826 was abrogated and to request acknowledgment of the fact from the Danish foreign office. Bedinger carried out his instructions. 25 It may be of interest at this point to learn what was the general attitude of the leading powers towards the Sound Dues situation. Of the German states, Prussia was very much op- posed to the dues. The question was discussed in the Landtag by von Sanger who was backed by that body in his opposi- tion. Unfavorable articles appeared in the papers of Koln and Hamburg, and a letter from Hamburg, containing the same sentiment, appeared in the New York Tribune. 26 A vigorous pamphlet was published in Stettin in German, Eng- lish, and French condemning the dues as unjust and con- trary to international law. 27 In England, on the other hand, the sentiment in general does not appear to have been much opposed to the dues. We have found only one unfavorable expression, before the mat- ter was taken up in Parliament. It runs as follows: "When the ten year treaty between Great Britain and Denmark made in 1841 comes to a close, some means ought to be found for the perpetual redemption of the Sound Dues." 28 In 1856 Palmerston expressed his opinion to Count Persigny and Count Walewski, the French and the Russian Ministers at London, as being against the abrogation of the dues. 29 Similar opinions were offered at this time in Parliament. Bramley- Moore, sitting for Maiden, felt that to abrogate the dues by a money payment was to use public money for the benefit of a few traders. Besides, it would be unfair because the Sound Dues had been hypothecated in London for a loan to ibid., pp. 28-32. 2 De Bow's Review, (1855), Vol. XVIII, pp. 760-763; Executive Doc- uments, 33 Cong., 1 Bess., Doc. 108, pp. 26-28, 31-32; New York Tribune, September 2, 1856. 2* F. Hessenland, Le Droit du Sund, passim. 28 Edinburgh Review, (1845), Vol. LXXXII, p. 212. * "Aflfisning af Sund og. Belttolden," Historisk Tidsskrift, 1858-1859, 3dje Reekke, Vol. I, pp. 486-488. DANISH-AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, 1776-1920 75 Denmark. 30 In spite of these voices, however, England finally took a stand in favor of capitalization, as we shall see later. In February, 1854, Henry Bedinger wrote to Secretary Marcy that Russia was backing Denmark "by requiring her ports to refuse to receive the cargo of any vessel which has not paid the dues. ' ' 31 According to a statement made by Gen- eral D'Oxholm, the Danish representative at the court of St. James, to James Buchanan, our ambassador at the same court, Bedinger 's report was hardly correct, as it was not through an act of the central government, but by municipal regulations that the ports had acted. 32 Russia, however, had made it clear to the Danish government that she would stand by Denmark in her demands. 33 The question naturally arises, why was Russia in favor of letting Denmark continue to collect the Sound Dues? There certainly were economic reasons why she should be in favor of their abolition. It seems very probable that her attitude was based on dynastic grounds. During the fifties it was evident that King Frederick VII would not leave any legal heirs. This caused the rise of the very unfortunate Danish succession problem. There were three sets of pretenders to Denmark and Schleswig-Holstein. The nearest heir to the Danish throne was Princess Louisa, of the House of Olden- burg, who was married to Duke Christian of Gliicksburg, a gentleman who himself had a close claim to the duchies and a remote claim to Denmark. While Louisa could inherit Den- mark and Schleswig the Lex regia was against her in Holstein, as it did not recognize female succession. The second pre- tender really had no true claim, as his father had sold his right for 3,000,000 rixdollars which had been paid by Den- mark. This claimant, of the House of Augustenburg, held that, as he was of age when his father sold the claim, his right so Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, Vol. CXLIV, pp. 2400-2404. si Executive Documents, 33 Cong., 1 Sess., Doe. 108, p. 60. 32 Buchanan to Marcy, April 20, 1855. J. B. Moore, Works of James Buchanan, Vol. IX, pp. 345-346. 3 Letter from Berlin, dated September 15, 1855, New York Tribune, October 5, 1855. 76 IOWA STUDIES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES was not included. 84 The third pretender was Czar Nicholas I of Kussia, a descendent of Czarina Catharina II, who belonged to the House of Gottorp in Holstein. In order to secure a legal title to the Baltic provinces which Peter the Great had secured for Russia in the treaty of Nystad, she had made a treaty with Denmark on April 22, 1767 in which that country gave up all her claims to the provinces while Cathrina II renounced her right to the duchy of Schleswig. 35 While this treaty had referred only to Schles- wig, there was a historic indissoluble union between the duchies. It was further understood that whoever ruled in Schleswig would also rule in Denmark, so that the three ter- ritories were tied together in a personal union. 36 When the question of succession arose in Denmark Czar Nicholas began to hope that he might revive his claim, and thus secure for himself or some member of the Romanoff family the three Danish realms. It was his good fortune that he was able to make a treaty with Denmark on June 5, 1851, in which the provisions of 1767 in regard to the succession were changed in his favor. 87 With such prospects before him he would not want Denmark to give up anything that might become very valuable to him in the future. While the Protocol of London, 1852, settled the succession on Christian of Gliicksburg, "Russia .... never lost the possibility of the succession out of view. 88 When it became clear that the Sound Dues must be abol- ished, Russia became the leader in protecting the rights of Denmark. Even in the United States, where the movement for the final abolition took form, all were not in favor of the at- titude of the State Department. Thomas H. Benton in the Senate held that we should not do anything to abrogate the * G. FT. de Martens, Eeoueil, Vol. XVII, Pt. II, p. 332; Job. Steenstrup, op. oit., Vol. VI, Pt I, p. 341; Comb. Mod. Hist., Vol. XI, p. 226. so Danske Tractater, 1751-1800, p. 232. se Camb. Mod. Hist., Vol. XI, p. 224; Joh. Steenstrup, op. oit., Vol. VI, Pt. I, passim. ST DansTce Tractater, 1800-1863, pp. 220-223. Camb., Mod. Hist., Vol. XI, p. 224; See also letter from Karl Man from London in New York Tribune, May 6, 1853. DANISH-AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, 1776-1920 77 Sound Dues, but that we should by friendly negotiations always be sure that we were treated on an equality with the most favored nations. Having given the exact figures for the year 1850, he showed that our commerce in the Sound compared with that of Europe at the ratio of one to two hundred. "These figures show the small comparative inter- est of the United States in the reduction, or abolition of the dues large enough to make the United States desirous of reduction or abolition entirely too small to induce her to become the champion of Europe against Denmark; and, taken in connection with our geographical position, and our policy to avoid European entanglements, should be sufficient to stamp as Quixotic, and to qualify as mad, any such at- tempt." 39 One of the members of the House, Hugh F. McDermott, published a series of articles in the New York Times from June 1 to November 6, 1855. These were later published in pamphlet form. The letters argued that we should not disturb the Sound Dues as such action would be injurious to Denmark, a friendly nation, and would not benefit the United States. The Sound Dues were a part of the Baltic tariffs. All the dues paid by the Prussian cities were re- funded by the Prussian government to encourage eastern trade, hence our action would be a great aid to the Prussian treasury. It might be argued that we would be benefited by lower prices on Baltic products shipped to America. As a matter of fact this would not be so as all the Baltic countries levied an export duty as high as the trade would bear. The removal of the Sound Dues would give them a chance to raise the export duties and we would have gained nothing. He also showed that according to international law Denmark had a well established right to collect the dues. "To suppose that Denmark would quietly submit to having its ancient right treated as a wrong, merely because the Cabinet at Washington declares it to be such would be an insult to that small but respectable nation." 40 3 Thomas H. Benton, Thirty Years View, Vol. II, p. 365. *o Hugh F. McDermott, Letters on the Sound-Dues-Question, by Pax, passim. 78 Perhaps a more significant statement in regard to this subject was made by Secretary Upshur, when in 1843 he suggested that Denmark "renders no service in consideration of that tax and has not even such right as the power to enforce it would give. 41 When Denmark was informed by Henry Bedinger that we had decided to terminate the treaty of 1826, she realized that she would have to take definite action. In October, 1855, she sent a circular note to the powers inviting them to send delegates to a congress to meet in Copenhagen the following month, for the purpose of discussing the problem of the Sound Dues. The note stated that the time was un- favorable for a settlement of the question, but on account of the action taken by the United States, it was necessary for the powers to come to some agreement on the subject. Denmark wished to submit a proposition the plan of which she hoped would be favored by the various nations inter- ested, and especially by the United States. 42 Bedinger wrote to Marcy for instruction in the matter. Marcy put the matter before the President and it was de- cided and Bedinger so informed not to take part in the proposed congress for the following reasons: First, based on the hypothesis that Denmark had the right to collect the Sound Dues, the congress would assemble to arrange for their capitalization. The United States were unwilling to take part in such an arrangement, because they denied the basic hypothesis. Second, the American government wished to vindicate the principle that the sea was free to all. If Den- mark could collect dues at the Sound, so could others at Gibraltar, Messina, the Dardanelles, and other places. Third, the United States did not wish to become a party to the settlement of the balance of power in Europe. The govern- ment understood from the invitation that the Sound Dues would be discussed from that angle. Finally, the question would not be "considered as one of commerce or money, but as a political one. This would be in accordance with F. Hessenland, Le Droit du Sund, p. 5. *2 Executive Documents, 34 Cong., 1 Sess., Vol. I, Doc. 1, pp. 33-38; New York Tribune, November 16, 1855. DANISH-AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, 1776-1920 79 the history of the Sound Dues, and with the part which they have performed in the politics of the north of Europe." The American government insisted that our international rights should not be restricted by or sacrificed to European ex- pediency. The United States, however, would not be un- iwilling to pay her share of the expenses in the upkeep of lights, improvements and protection of the Sounds and, in fact, would be very liberal in compensating Denmark for such outlays. America would, on the other hand, absolutely refuse to pay anything for the use of the free waters of the Sound. 48 Although the United States refused to take part, the proposed congress met in Copenhagen. 44 Because of the short time which had been given to prepare for the sending of delegates, the congress did not meet, as originally in- tended, in November 1855. The first session was held on January 4, 1856. It was called to order by Count Bluhme, formerly Minister of Foreign Affairs but now Director of the Bureau of Sound Dues. He was assisted by Count Sponneck, Director-General of Tariff. Representatives were present from Austria, Belgium, France, Great Britain, Hol- land, Oldenburg, Prussia, Russia, Spain and Sweden. It was shown in this session that the dues naturally fell into two classes: first, those levied on merchandise according to the tariff schedules of 1841 and 1846; second, those levied on shipping. The second class was again divided into "light dues" and "expedition dues." The first of these were used for the upkeep of lighthouses and buoys, the second to de- fray the expenses of the custom-house. The Danish govern- ment did not claim any compensation for the "expedition dues," as the custom-house would not be needed if the dues were abolished. The Danish commissioner placed before the conference tables compiled from the books of the custom-house, showing Executive Documents, 34 Cong., 1 Sess., Vol. I, Doc. pp. 38-41. ** For the report of the British Ambassador, Andrew Buchanan to his government, see G. Fr. de Martens, op. oit,, Vol. XVI, Pt. II, pp 331- 337. For the Danish report, see "Aflosning af Sund og Belttolden," Historisk TidssTcrift, 1858-1859, 3dje Rsekke, Vol. I, pp. 455-559. 80 IOWA STUDIES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES that according to the income from the dues in the years 1851, 1852, 1853, Denmark should receive 60,913,225 rixdollars, basing the redemption "at 4 per cent, or 25 years' purchase." When some of the delegates ventured to state that this amount was exorbitant, the commissioners explained that, in putting those figures before the conference, they were not making a proposal but merely stating facts, which might be used as a basis of negotiation. The next meeting of the conference was held on February 2, 1856. On this occasion Count Bluhme presented figures to show that the average annual receipts on merchandise during the years 1842 to 1847 and 1851 to 1853, inclusive, amounted to 2,098,561 rixdollars. The years 1848 to 1850 were omitted as the figures for those years were inaccurate on account of the war with Prussia. The amounts collected annually during those same years on shipping as "light dues" averaged 150,018 rixdollars. This sum if redeemed at 4 per cent, or 25 years' purchase, would amount to 56,214,- 475 rixdollars. The Danish government, having given the question careful consideration, had authorized its repre- sentative to state that it would be willing to accept the sum of 35,000,000 rixdollars as a compensation for the total abolition of the Sound Dues. The quota to be paid by each nation was worked out in the following manner. The amount of dues collected from each nation on its ships passing the Sound for Baltic ports, during the years mentioned in Bluhme 's reports, was aver- aged with the amount collected from the same nation on ships going in the opposite direction. The annual sum was then multiplied by twenty-five. This as stated above equaled 56,214,475 rixdollars. As Denmark offered to settle for 35,000,000 rixdollars the amount to be paid would be equal to 62.27 per cent of the original sum demanded. The following table is worked out from the final treaty, Buchanan's re- port, and the Danish government's report. DANISH-AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, 1776-1920 81 PAYMENTS BY THE LEADING NATIONS FOR THE ABOLITION OF THE SOUND DUES ITg Nations CD M s Oi 03 N ? Is? AHH P ,2 &)r--g g C3 83 g 2 ** 3 & rS 5 3*3 Sie .ScM g a gT 1 * -s -3 1 ', lit % a SH 78 Hansen og Olsen, De Danske Baptisters Historic, pp. 74, 91. Ibid., p. 111. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1880, pp. 346-347. " Ibid., 1897, pp. 121-124. It does not appear from the correspondence what Risley did for the Mormons. DANISH-AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, 1776-1920 137 In March, 1900, the Mormon question came up again be- cause the Danish government banished two Mormon mission- aries. They appealed to Laurits S. Swenson, the American representative at Copenhagen, for protection. He succeeded in getting the foreign office of Denmark to stay the execu- tion of the decree of banishment, which had been issued by the Minister of Justice. An investigation was held concerning the work of the two missionaries, which revealed that they had done nothing contrary to law but had been banished for preaching Mormonism in general. It was shown by several affidavits that polygamy was no longer a tenet of Mormonism. The American minister therefore asked the Danish govern- ment to revoke its decree of banishment. He received the reply that, since the United States in 1879 and 1881 had re- quested Denmark to prevent the migration of Mormons to the United States and since the emigration records showed that a large number of people of the Mormon faith had been migrating to Utah to the detriment of the Danish state, the order could not be revoked. A month's stay of the execution of the decree was, however, granted. 79 Since 1900 the Mormon question has caused very little trouble as the Danish government has become more liberal on the subject. 80 Perhaps the fact that polygamy has disap- peared in the United States has done its part to remove the problem. 7. The Status of the American Representative to Denmark. Denmark has followed the principle of keeping the rank of her representatives to .foreign countries as low as pos- sible. This was generally done for economic reasons. It was the custom of the United States to give a representative to a foreign country the same rank which that nation's repre- sentative held in Washington. Consequently our representa- tive at Copenhagen held a rank very low compared with the size of the nation he represented. This was humilating to our representative for two reasons. Since his rank in the diplomatic service was low, his salary was very small. At a Foreign Eelations of the United States, 1900, pp. 413-422. so Ibid., 1901, pp. 140-141. 138 IOWA STUDIES IN TEE SOCIAL SCIENCES time when the representatives of the larger European na- tions at Copenhagen were paid $25,000 a year, our repre- sentative received only $5,000. Unless he was wealthy he was unable to take part in the court affairs and the social functions of the diplomatic corps. On the other hand, our representative felt humiliated when on various official occa- sions, because of his low rank, he would have to wait till the representatives of very small countries, holding high diplo- matic ranks, had finished their business at the foreign office. During the early part of the nineteenth century our rep- resentative in Denmark had held the rank of charge d'affaires. During the seventies he was styled Minister Resident and his salary was $7500. 31 In the latter part of that decade his rank was changed again to charge d'affaires and his salary reduced to $5000.* 2 In 1883 the rank was again changed to Minister Resident and the office of Consul-General was added, but the salary continued at $5000. 83 Thus it remained for sev- eral years. On account of this condition Rasmus B. Anderson recommended to the foreign office that the rank should be raised to Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, that the salary should be raised to $7500, and that there should be no secretary at the legation. 84 In spite of this recommendation nothing had been done in 1889 when Anderson left Copenhagen and Clark E. Carr took his place. The new minister found it even harder to get along on the small salary than his predecessor, for he had his family with him while Anderson had left his in the United States. 85 In 1890 the matter was brought before Congress by Senator John Sherman who was in favor of adopting An- derson's recommendations. Consequently the rank was changed and the salary raised by a law of July 14, 1890, to $7500. 8 * ique septentrionale n'avort pas d'autres suites que de mettre des bornes a 1 'ambition des Anglois et de les mettre hors d'etat d 'usurper 1 'empire tyrannique sur les mers, je la regarderois comme un bonheur, et je n'aurois pas besoin d 'arguments pour m'en consoler, mais quand je pense aux difficultes qu'il y aura de soutenir alors nos possessions dans ces parages e'loigne's, la diminution du commerce de la Baltique, le danger que la peche de Groenlande, si voisne de 1'Ame'rique, ne peut que courir, la rivalitS pour toutes les productions du nord en g6ne"ral et la superiority que la France re- prendra des 1 'instant que 1'Angleterre cessera de la lui disputer, alors je ne puis que m 'inquirer, et preVoir, un avenir rempli de doutes et d 'incertitudes. L'Angleterre se propose certainment de se stipuler, meme en reconnoissais 1 'independence de ses colonies, des avantages dans la commerce suffisants pour faire entrer les produits de 1'Amerique et surtout le tabac dans sa proper balance, mais cette ressource lui sera encore vivement contested. Je soubgonne qu'il existe d6j& un trait6 de commerce entre le congres et al France, qui asseure & celle-ci des avantages futurs decisive, et si mes conjectures sont fonde6s, je crains que ce sera Ik le germe d'une guerre presque certaine, que 1'Angleterre poussera jusque & son triomphe on jusques & son an^antissement parfait. L'emprunt de 25 millions que la France vient d'ouvrier, est uniquement destinS aux depenses que le retablissement de sa marine exige." 1 APPENDIX B An extract of a letter from A. P. Bernstorff to the Council of State, dated March 17, 1780. "Wachsen Uns vielleicht durch die Unabhangigheit von America solche Vortheile zu, die Uns wegen aller iibrigen zubesorgenden Folgen schadlos halten kfinnten? Nein! gerade das Gegentheil. Eg ist kein eintziger Staat von Europa, Engelland selber nicht ausgenommen, fur den diese Unabhangigheit so drohend und so nachtheilig ist, als fiir Dannemark; und es ist Pflicht fiir mich, die Hauptbeweise dieses von mir langst behaupteten Satzes anzufiihren. 1) Es is eine Unmoglichheit fur Dannemark seine Colonien, die als 1 Aage Friis, Bernstorfftke Papirer, Vol. Ill, pp. 541-542. 152 DANISH-AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, 1776-1920 153 Zuckerinseln ein besonderer Gegenstand des Neides der Nordamericaner sind, gegan kiinftige Angriffe derselben zu vertheydigen. 2) K6nnen wir verschiedene producten dieser Lander, als z. E. des Reises, Tobaeks, und Indigo nicht ganzlich entbehren, haben aber selber keine, die innen niitzlich seyn kfinnten und zum Tausche dienlich waren; miissen sie also mit baarem Gelde oder rait Zucker bezahlen. 3) Bind sie in Ansehung aller unseser zur Ausfuhr dienlichen Wahren, fast ohne Ausnahme, unsere Rivcde: Insonderheit was das Korn, das Holz, und was noch bedenklicher ist, die Fiseherey betrifft. Ja sie haben in Ansehung des Wallfish .... wegen ihre Lage solche natiirliche Vortheile, dass so bald sie nicht mehr werden bezwungen seyn, diese Ihre Wahren nach Engelland zu fiihren sondern nach alle Markte und Hafen von Europa bringen Konnen sie Uns ohnfehlbar von denselben ganzlich aussehliessen werden 4) Wird durch ihre directe Farth nach den Hafen der Mittel- landische See, der Handel mit den production der an dem Ostsee belegenen Lander, dergestalt fallen, dass der Zundzoll so betrachtlich leiden wird, dass der Schade wohl vorausgesehen, aber gewiss nich berechnet werden kann "2 APPENDIX C The treaty to which the Danish diplomat referred in his negotiation with Franklin was that between Charles II of England and Frederick III of Denmark. It was concluded February 13, 1660, Old Style, or February 23, 1661, New Style. Article V reads as follows: "Concordatum quoque est, quod neuter praedietorum Regum alterius inimicos seu rebelles in Regnis et Provinciis suis recipiet, aut tolerabit dummodo inimicos ejus aut rebelles esse reseiverit. Et si forte aliqua tapeta .... vel alia cujuscunque bona mobilia ad Regum Magnae Britanniae spectantia penes Regem Daniae et Norwegiae, aut aliquem subditorum suorum jam nunc sunt, aut de futuro, protimus restituantur, et transmittantur ad Regem Magnae Britanniae, aut tradantur iis quos sua Majestas ad ea recipienda deputaverit. Item, si qui eorum, qui rei sunt illius nefandi paricidii in Regem Carolum Pri/mum Britanniae Magnae admissi, ac legitime de eodem scelere attincti, condamnati et convicti, vel jam sunt in Dominiis Regis Daniae, vel post illuc ad- venient, statim quam Regi Daniae, vel aliquibus officiariis innotuerit, vel relatum fuerit, prehensi in custodiam dentur, et vincti in Angliam remittantor, vel in corum manus tradantur, quos dictus Rex Magnae Britanniae iis custodiendis, denique revehendis praef ecerit. "3 The treaty is thus introduced: "De konincklijcke Denemarcksche Secretarius hier door passerende communiceerde dit volghende Tractaet 2 Ed. Holm, "Danmarks Neutralitetsforhandlinger, 1778-1780" Historisk Tide- skrift, 3 dje Rsekke, Vol. V. pp. 77-78. 3 Jacques Bernard, Recueil des Trailez, Vol. IV, p. 30; Lieuwe van Aitzema, Zaken van Staat en Oorlogh, Vol. IV, p. 845. 154 IOWA STUDIES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES /tusschen sijn koningh ende die van Engelandt gemaeckt/hoewel Bonder dato/ofte onderechrijvinge. "* The following footnote is also found in Du Mont, op. oit., Vol. VI, p. 340. "Ce meme Traite" se trouve deux fois dans la premiere Edition de ce Grand Becueil de Hollande Tom. IV. la premiere fois pag. 29, avec un Preambule, sur la Copie d'Aitzema, et la seconde fois pag. 697, sur une Copie manuscrite; datee du Fevrier 1660. Celli-ci difere en quelque de toutes les autres et peut passer pour authentique, ayant 6i6 publiee sous les yeux de la Cour et du Parlement, par 1'Imprimeur da Roi. On croit que la Date en doit etre entendue selon le stile d'Angleterre qui revient au mois de Fevrier 1661, stile Gregorien." APPENDIX D The statement upon which the historians, Fredericia and Schafer base their conclusions in regard to the origin of the Sound Dues reads as follows : "Vom Lubecker Tage im July 1423 erfahren wir: 'Na der tiid begherden se (des koninges rad to Kopenhavene), uppe dat de crone wat hebben mochte to erer herlicheyd, int erste, dat eyn islik schip in dem Orssunde streke unde geve also vele, alse de stede sulven wolden, dat redelik were, edder dat alle Zeevund der cronen halff worde unde deme dat tovoren tobehorede, efte dat men den tollen to Schone vorhogede, wente de schepe vormerden sik van dage to dage unde de penning vorerghede sik. Unde bii dem sulven lesten artikele bleven se' " 5 APPENDIX E Aabent Kongebrev. Juli 20de, 1633. "Efftersom vi haffucr ladett sette brokar ved den haffn for vor kjobsted Helsingor, da haffuer vi naadigste for guod andseet, at her effter skall ungiffues haffne penge i saa maader som effterf olger : f first skall huer skude eller skibe giffue aff huer lest om sommeren to schilling Dansch, och huer som vil legge offuer om vinteren skall giffue 4 schilling Dansch; desligeste skall huer baad giffue om sommeren I scaling og om vinteren I skilling Dansch. "8 4 We have obtained the date from Ivaro Quistgaard, Index Chronologicut, 1200- 1780, p. 104. B Dietrich Schafer, "Zur Frage nach der Einfuhrung des Sundzolls," Hantitche Getchichttblaetter, Jahrgang, 1875, pp. 34-35. Sjaelandske Registre No. 19, fol. 143. Quoted by C. F. Wegener, Geheimerarkivctt Aarxberetninger, Vol. Ill, p. 94. DANISH-AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, 1776-1920 155 APPENDIX F Table of Money Values. 7 Danish Currency before 1873. 1 Bosenoble - ._ 4% Bixdollars - 1 Specie dollftr.. ......., .. a j 2 Bixdollara . ..._... ^_ ... 12 Mark _ _ 1 Specie dollar 192 Skilling .. 1 Specie dollar 48 Stivers 1 Goldgulden 1 Rixdollar . _ ....=1 1/3 Bixdollars = 3 Marc banco of Hamb 7 g 1 BixdoUar 1 BixdoUar 1 Ort = 6 Mark (Danish) = . = 4 Ort (or Bixort) = ._ . 24 Skilling - 1 Mark _ . 16 Skilling _ 1 Rixmark. _ 20 Skilling 1 Stiver. . 4 Skilling _ 1 Skilling. _ _, Modern Danish Currency. 1 Krone 1 American Dollar =100 ore =3 Kroner 76 ore. = $2.27 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 .71 .53% .53% .53% .08% .11 .021/5 .0055 = $ .26.8 APPENDIX G Sundzollpass.s BEI SB. KCENIGL, MAJEST^T VON DANEMABK, DEB WENDEN, ETC. ETC. Zollkammer in Oeresund hat sich gebiirlich gemeldet der Schiffsfiihrer N. N. Schiff N. N. 131. N. Lasten von Stettin, kommt von Stettin mit umstehender Ladung gehend nach Sunderland und hat klarirt, wie sieh gebiirt. Oeresund-Zollkammer, den 25 November 1844. Holten. Vorbemeldeter Schiffsfuhrer hat geladen: 819 Stuck eichener Schiff hfilzer Zoll: 24 Bthl. 28 St. Foring: Bthl. 47 St. 23 Bthl. 29 St. Feuergelder: 4 Ethl. 24 St. 28 Bthl. 5 St. G. Prosch. 7 This table is worked out from facts presented in Executive Document*, 33 Cong., 1 Sess., Doc. 108, p. 3; William Guthrie, A New Geographical, Historical, and Commercial Grammar, p. 662, folder; and John Macgregor, Commercial Statistice, Vol. I, p. 158. 8 Each ship passing the Sound had to obtain a similar certificate as a receipt that Sound Dues were paid. This sample is taken from H. Scherer, Der SundzoU, Beilage B, pp. 302-303. 156 IOWA STUDIES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES Sp. Edlr. 8t. Zollamts-Gebiiren 3 Inspecteur 1 6 - N. B. weshalbf % Unvollst. Schiffspapieret Copie 8 N. B. Fur Abschrift des Passes Mulct 1 N. B. Weil die Papiere wahr- acheinlich nicht durch den Capt. oder Steuermann zur Zollkam- mer gebracht sind. $ 34 der Conv. G. Prosch APPENDIX H Specifications of the Sound Dues p. Constantia of Fayal, Captain J. Chriszostomo from Fayal bound for Baltic. SHIPPERS CONSIGNEES Joao d 'Almeida Lima A. Vieira Maciel. JAL 17/1 & 3/2 & 9/6 Pipes Wine Sp. 40 Domingos Eibeiro de Carvalho Do. D. R. G. 20 Pipes Wine Sp. 40 Schultz in Stettin. A. V. Maciel FRLP. 71/1 Pipes Wine IFPS 3/2 Pipes Wine 5/6 Pipes Wine 2/2 Pipes Wine A. J. F. Rocka AIFR 49/1 Pipes Wine' MIR Sp. 147 A. V. Maciel. EEIS 22/2 Pipes Wine Without bills of Lading according to the Manifest 4/1 & 4/2 & /8/6 Pipes Wine _J3 p . 21 24 Belonging to the Captain 1/2 Pipe Wine free Sp. Spc. Rdlrs. 368 24 Sound Customhouse the 8 Juli, 1843 Pr. Olrik. Engelsen. 9 A similar bill was made out by the customhouse officers for the cargo of each ship. This sample is taken from H. Scherer, Der Simdzoll, Beilage N, p. 812. DANISH-AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, 1776-1920 157 APPENDIX I UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVES AT COPENHAGEN Name and residence Bank Time of Service George W. Erwing, Mass -Special Minister 1810-1812. John M. Forbes. Charge 1 d 'affaires 1812-1819. No representative 1819-1827 Henry Wheaton, N. Y Charge 1 d'affaires 1827-1835 Jonathan F. Woodside, Ohio Charge d'affaires 1835-1841. Isaac E. Jackson, Pa -Charge 1 d'affaires 1841-1842. William W. Irwin, Pa -Charge 1 d'affaires 1842-1846. Robert P. Flenniken, Pa Charge 1 d 'affaires 1847-1849. Walter Forward, Pa Charge" d'affaires. 1849-1851. Miller Grieve, Ga -Charge" d'affaires 1852-1853. (Charge d 'affaires! Minister Resident (. 1853-1858. James M. Buchanan, Md Minister Resident 1858-1861. Bradford R. Wood, N. Y -Minister Resident 1861-1865. George H. Yeaman, Ky Minister Resident. 1865-1870. Michael J. Cramer, Ky , Minister Resident I 1870-1882. Charge" d 'affaires 1 James P. Wickersham, Pa Charge" d'affaires 1882 Henry B. Ryder -Charge 1 d 'affaires ad interim 1882-1883. Wickham Hoffman -Minister Resident 1883-1885. Rasmus B. Anderson, Wis -Minister Resident 1885-1889. "Minister Resident ; En-"j Clark E. Carr, 111 voy Extraordinary and(. 1889-1893. Minister Plenipotenitary I John E. Risley, Ind " (1893-1897. Lauritz S. Swenson, Minn Envoy Extraordinary 1897-1905. Thomas J. O'Brien, Mich and 1905-1907. Maurice F. Egan, D. C "Minister Plenipotentiary" 1907-1918. Norman Hapgood, N. Y 1919. Joseph C. Grew, Mass 1920-1921. DANISH REPRESENTATIVE AT WASHINGTON Name J. Blicker Olson. Peder Pederson. Steen Bille Torben Bille W. R. Raaslflff J. Hegermann-Lindencrone. Carl Steen Anderson Bille Rank Time -Minister Resident ..Minister Resident ..ChargS d'affaires Charge" d 'affaires Charge" d 'affaires Charge 1 d 'affaires ....Minister Resident. of Service ...1800-1805. ...1805-1826. ...1826-1854. ....1854-1858 ...1858-186C. ...1866-1880. -.1880-1884. P. L. E. de L&VenSrn Minister Resident . 1884-1888. 158 IOWA STUDIES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES F. W. Sponneck... F. de Eeventlow Constantin Brun Count Moltke Congtantin Brun... Minister Resident. 1888-1894. Minister Resident 1894-1895. 'Envoy Extraordinary' and Minister Plenipo- -.1895-1908. tentiary ' Envoy Extraordinary 11908-1913. and I | Minister Plenipotentiary 1 1913- BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. PRIMARY SOURCES Adams, John Q., Writings of John Quincy Adams. Edited by Worthington C. Ford. 7 vols. New York 1913-1917. Aitzema, Lieuwe van, Zaken van Stoat en Oologh. 6 vols. Graven- Haghe, 1669. American Annual Register, 18S1-183S, Vol. XII. 8 vols. New York, 1825-1833. American Journal of International Law, 1908, Vol. II, "Official Documents." New York, 1908. American State Papers, Naval Affairs, Edited by Lowrie, Walter, and Clarke M. St. Glair. 2 vols. Washington, 1832-1834. American State Papers, Foreign Relations. Edited by the Secretary of State. 6 vols. Washington, 1832-1859. American State Papers, Naval Affairs. Edited by the Secretary of State. 4 vols. Washington, 1834-1861. Annals of Congress of the United States, 1789-1884. 42 vols. Wash- ington, 1834-1856. Anon., "Aflfisning af Sund og Belttolden," Historislc Tidsskrift, 1857-1858, 3dje Roekke, Vol. I. A collection of documents in the Danish language connected with the abolition of the Sound Dues. Anon., "The St. Thomas Treaty." A translation from Dagbladet, April 24, 1869. Copenhagen. Appleton's Annual Cyclopedia, 1868, New York. For the political platforms of 1868. Bang, Nina Ellinger, Tabeller over Skibsfart og Varetransport gennem Oresund, 1497-1660. Leipzig og Kobenhavn, 1906. Bilingual, Danish and French. Bayard, James A., "Papers of James A. Bayard." Edited by Elizabeth Donnan. Annual Eeport of the American Historical Association, 1913, Vol. II. Washington, 1915. Benton, Thomas H., Thirty Years' View, or, a History of the Work- ings of the American Government for Thirty Years, from 1820- 1850. 2 vols. New York, 1854-1856. Second edition, New York, 1897. Bernard, Jaques, Eecueil des Traites. 5 vols. Amsterdam, 1700. Bernstorff, Andreas P., BernstorffsTce Papirer, TJdgivet af Aage Friis. 3 Bind. Kfibenhavn, 1913. A collection of letters. Bigelow, John, France and the Confederate Navy. New York, 1888. Contains much of the correspondence connected with the Stonewall case. 159 160 IOWA STUDIES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES Buchanan, James, The Works of James Buchanan. Edited and col- lected by John Bassett Moore. 12 vols. Philadelphia, 1908-1911. Calhoun, John C., The Works of John C. Calhoun. Edited by Richard K. Crall6. 6 vols. New York, 1888. "Letters of John C. Calhoun," Editted by J. Franklin Jameson. Annual Report of the American Historical Association, 1899, Vol. II. Washington, 1900. Census Reports. The Seventh Census of the United States, 1850. By J. D. B. De Bow. Washington, 1853. The Eighth Census, Population of the United States in 1860. By Joseph C. G. Kennedy. Washington, 1864. Ninth Census Volume I, The Statistics of the Population of the United States, 1870. By Francis A. Walker. Washington, 1872. Congressional Globe, 18S4-187S. 108 vols. Volume used, 40 Cong., 1 Sess., Appendix. Washington, 1867. Congressional Becord. 45 Cong., 2 Sess., Vol. VII, Pt. IV. 51 Cong., 1 Sess., Vol. XXI, Pt. VIII. 64 Cong., 2 Sess., Vol. LIV, Pts. IV and VI. Washington, 1873 Cranch, William, Beports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Supreme Court of the United States. 9 vols. Washington, 1817. Danske Tractater, 1751-1800. Kfibenhavn, 1882. 1800-1863. KSbenhavn, 1871. Du Mont, Jean, Corps Universelle Diplomatique. 6 vols. Amster- dam, 1728. Franklin, Benjamin, The Works of Benjamin Franklin. Edited by Jared Sparks. 10 vols. Boston and New Orleans, 1840. Complete Works of Benjamin Franklin. Edited by John Bigelow. 10 vol New York, 1887-1888. Foreign Belations of the United States, Papers relating to. 47 vols. Washington, 1861-1908. General Collection of Treaties, A, 1495-17S1. 4 vols. London 1733. Quthrie, William, A New Geographical and Commercial Grammar. London, 1790. Hansard, T. C. (and others), Parliamentary Debates. Vols. CXLI, CXLII, and CXLIV. London, 1812. Hanserecesse. 1st Serie, 8 Band; 2te Serie, 7 Band; 3te Serie, 9 Band. Leipzig, 1870-1913. This is a collection of reprints of old documents pertaining to the Hansa towns. Jefferson, Thomas, Writings of Thomas Jefferson. Edited by Paul Leicester Ford. 10 vols. New York and London, 1894. Journals of the American Congress, 1774-1788. 4 vols. Washington, 1823. DANISH-AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, 1776-1920 161 Journals of the American Congress, 1774-1789. 23 vols. Vols. 1-15, edited by Worthington C. Ford. Wash- ington, 1904-1909. Vols. 16-23, edited by Gaillard Hunt. Wash- ington, 1910-1914. Edited from the original records in the Li- brary of Congress. Keith, Robert M., Memoirs and Correspondence. London, 1849. King, Charles B., Life and Correspondence of Eufus King. 6 vols. New York, 1894. Law for the Government of Privateers and Prise-Courts in the Do- minion of Denmark. Rendsburg, September 14, 1807. Translated by Peter Frellsen. Christiansand, 1809. McDermott, Hugh F., Letters on the Sound Dues Question. I- VII. By Pax. New York, 1855. Macgregor, John, Commercial Statistics. 5 vols. London, 1844-1848. Malloy, William M., Treaties, Conventions, International Acts, Pro- tocols and Agreements between the United States and other Powers, 1776-1909 2. vols. Washington, 1910. Marien, M. Thomas Antoine de, Tableau des Droits et Usages de Commerce Eelatifs au Passage du Sund. Copenhagen, 1776. Martens, G. Fr. de, Eecueil des Traites. 1494-1874. Gottingne, 1876. 1776-1907. Gottingne, 1900-1910. 96 vols. in all. New York Tribune, 185S-1856. Niles' Weekly Register. (1826), Vol. XXXI, pp. 220-221; (1832), Vol. XXXVIII, pp. 307-308. Baltimore. Oresund und Stromzollrolle. Kopenhagen, 1842. Law of 1841. Politiken. Copenhagen, 1916. Quistgaard, Ivaro, Index Chronologicus, 1&00-1789. Gottingae, 1792. Richardson, James D., A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1697. 10 vols. Washington, 1896-1899. Eegista Diplomatioae Historiae Daniae. Kobenhavn, 1880. Eegister of Debates in Congress. (Congressional Debates), 1824-1834. 19 Cong., 2 Sess., Vol. III. Washington, 1826. 21 Cong., 2 Sess., Vol. VII. Washington, 1831. Rigsarkivet, Dept. F. A. Nordamerika I, A. Ftirste Pakke. 1783-1786. Nordamerika II. Anden Pakke. Bapporter 1881-18SS9. Nordamerika I, b. Tredje Pakke. 1825-18SO. Secret Journals of the Acts and Proceedings of Congress, 1775-1788. 4 vols. Boston, 1921. Sparks, Jared, Diplomatic Correspondence of the American Revolution. 6 vols. Boston, 1829-1830. State Papers and Public Documents of the United States, 1789-1815. 12 vols. Third edition. Published by Thomas B. Wait. Boston 1819. Statutes at Large of the United States, 1789-1919. Washington, 1789-1919. 162 IOWA STUDIES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES The American Almanac, 1830-1861. 32 vole. Published annually. Boston. The Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States of America, from the Treaty of Peace to the Adoption of the Present Con- stitution. 7 vols. Washington, 1934. "Thingvalla Line vs. United States," 24 Court of Claims, 255. Also found in Lawyer's Reports Annotated, Book V. Edited by Robert Desty. Rochester, N. Y., 1889. Toldforordning for Hertugdommerne Slesvig og Holsten, Mai 1, 1838. Kjfibenhavn, 1838. Uldall, P., Efterladte Optegnelse. Udgivet af Klausen og Rist. Kfibenhavn, 1914. This is the memoirs of the lawyer who de- fended Caroline Matilde in the divorce trial. United States Documents. Executive Documents 22 Cong., 1 Sess., Vol. VI, Doc. 249, Ser. no. 221. 24 Cong., 2 Sess., Vol. I, Doc. 19, Ser. no. 301. 28 Cong., 1 Sess., Vol. II, Doc. 264, Ser. no. 444. 33 Cong., 1 Sess., Doc. 108, Ser. no. 726. 34 Cong., 1 Sess., Vol. 1, Ser. no. 840. 35 Cong., 1 Sess., Vol. VII, Doc. 31, Ser. no. 950. 35 Cong., 1 Sess., Vol. IX, Doc. 36, Ser. no. 955. 45 Cong., 3 Sess., Vol. XVI, Doc. 33, Ser. no. 1858. Executive Documents and Reports of Committees. 27 Cong., 1 Sess., Doc. 1, Ser. no. 392. House Documents. 57 Cong., 1 Sess., Vol. XL VII, Ser. no. 4314. House Eexecutive Documents. 19 Cong., 2 Sess., Vol. IX, Doc. 68, Ser. no. 157. 37 Cong., 2 Sess., Vol. V, Pt. II, Doc. 78, Ser. no. 1131. 40 Cong., 2 Sess., Denmark, Ser. no. 1322. 53 Cong., 3 Sess., Denmark, Ser. no. 3292. House Journal 21 Cong., 2 Sess., Ser. no. 205. 25 Cong., 2 Sess., Ser. no. 320. 30 Cong., 1 Sess., Ser. no. 513. 37 Cong., 2 Sess., Ser. no. 1126. House Reports. 57 Cong., 1 Sess., Vol. IX, Doc. 2749, Ser. no. 4407. Miscellaneous Documents. 35 Cong., 1 Sess., Vol. 1, Doc. 50, Ser. no. 961. Report of Committees. 21 Cong., 2 Sess., Doc. 117, Ser. no. 210. 24 Cong., 2 Sess., Doc. 297, Ser. no. 306. 29 Cong., 1 Sess., Vol. I, 206, Ser. no. 488. 30 Cong., 1 Sess., Vol. I, Doc. 9, Ser. no. 524. DANISH-AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, 1776-1920 163 Senate Documents. 21 Cong., 2 Sess., Doc. 21, Ser. no. 203. 23 Cong., 1 Sess., Doc. 1, Ser. no. 238. 24 Cong., 1 Sess. Vol. Ill, Doc. 198, Ser. no. 281. 29 Cong., 2 Sess., Vol. II, Doc. 63, Ser. no. 494. 31 Cong., 1 Sess., Vol. I, Doc. 1, Ser. no. 549. 32 Cong., 2 Sess., St. Croix, Ser. no. 665. 35 Cong., 1 Sess., Vol. VII, Doc. 28, Ser. no. 924. 40 Cong., 2 Sess., Vol. II, Doc. 71, Ser. no. 1317. 57 Cong., 1 Sess., Vol. XX, Doc. 284, Ser. no. 4239. 59 Cong., 1 Sess. Vol. IV, Doc. 160, Ser. no. 4912. 61 Cong., 2 Sess., Vol. XLVII, Doc. 357, Ser. no. 5646. 61 Cong., 2 Sess., Vol. XLVIII, Doc. 357, Ser. no. 5647. Senate Executive Documents. 37 Cong., 2 Sess., Vol. IV, Doc. 11, Ser. no. 1121. Senate Journal. 9-11 Cong., Vol. IV. No serial number. 21 Cong., 2 Sess., Ser. no. 202. 24 Cong., 2 Sess., Ser. no. 296. 30 Cong., 1 Sess., Ser. no. 502. 37 Cong., 2 Sess., Ser. no. 1116. Senate Miscellaneous Documents. 51 Cong., 1 Sess., Vol. II, Doc. 135, Ser. no. 2698. 52 Cong., 1 Sess., Vol. V, Doc. 127, Ser. no. 2907. Senate Eeports. 33 Cong., 1 Sess., Vol. 1, Doc. 180, Ser. no. 706. United States Eeports, Cases Adjudged in the Supreme Court. J. C. B. Davis, Reporter. Vols. CXXII, CXXIV, and CXXX. New York and Albany, 1887-1889. Washington, George, Writings of George Washington. Edited by Worthington C. Ford. 11 vols. New York, 1889-1891. Wegener, C. F., Geheimerarlcivets Aarsberetninger. 7 Bind. Kflben- havn, 1852-1855. A collection of documents from the secret ar- chives of the Danish government. EigsarTcivets Aarsberetninger. 4 Bind. Kobenhavn, 1855. A collection of documents from the royal archives of Denmark. Welles, Gideon, The Diary of Gideon Welles, 1861-1869. 3 vols. Boston and New Kork, 1911. Wharton, Francis, Diplomatic Correspondence of the American 'Rev- olution. 6 vols. Washington, 1889. Wraxall, N. W., Posthumous Memoirs. London, 1836. II. SECONDARY SOURCES. Anon., "An unfortunate Princess," Harper's Magazine. (1864) Vol. XXIX, pp. 750-754. New York. 164 IOWA STUDIES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES Anon., "Count Struensee and Queen Caroline Matilda," Westminster Beview. 1882, Vol. CXVIII, pp. 336-361. London. Baden, Gustav L., Afhandlinger i Fcedrelandets Historic. 3 Bind. Kjfibenhavn, 1821. Bain, B. N., Soandinavia; a Political History of Denmark, Norway and Sweden from 151S-1900. Cambridge, 1905. Butler, Charles H., The Treaty-Making Power in the United States. 2 vols. New York, 1902. Cambridge Modern History. Planned by the late Lord Acton LL.D. Edited by Ward, A. W., Prothero, G. W., and Leathes, Stanley. 14 vols. New York and London, 1909-1912. De Booy, Theodore, and Faris, John T., The Virgin Islands, Owr New Possessions and the British Islands. Philadelphia and Lon- don, 1918. De Bow's Beview, (1855), Vol. XVEII, New Orleans and Wash- ington. Democratic Beview, (1855) Vol. XXXVI, New York. Falkenskiold, M. De, "Danish Revolution under Struensee." Edinburgh Beview, (1826), Vol. XLIV, pp. 360-383. Edinburgh. Fredericia, J. A. "Fra hvilken Tid skriver Sundtolden sigf" Historisk Tidsskrift. 4de Rsekke, Bind. V. Kfibenhavn. 1875- 1877. Garde, H. G., Den Danske og Norske Somagt. 4 Bind. Kjflbenhavn, 1835. Hall, James Parker, Constitutional Law. This is Vol. X of Amer- ican Law and Procedure. 12 vols. Chicago, 1911. Hansen, SSren, og Olsen, Peter, De Danske Baptisters Historic. Kfibenhavn, 1896. Hessenland, F., Le Droit du Sund. Stettin, 1854. Published in French, German, and English. Holm, Edvard, "Danmarks Neutralitetsforhandlinger, 1778-1780," Historisk Tidsskrift. 3dje Rsekke, Bind V. This contains much source material. Danmark-Norges Historie, 1766-1808. Kflbenhavn, 1906. Johnson, Willis F., American Foreign Belations. 2 vols. New York, 191C. Jones, W. Martin, "Two Great American Treaties," Beview of Beviews. (1898), Vol. XVII, pp. 549-561. New York. Mahlman, Augustus, "Caroline Matilda, Queen of Denmark," Blackwood's Magazine. (1821), Vol. IX, pp. 142-147. Edinburgh. Moore, John Bassett, History and Digest of International Arbitra- tion. 6 vols. Washington, 1895. Nation, The, (1869) Vol. VHI, pp. 248-249; (1902), Vol. LXXV, p. 320; (1903), Vol. LXXVI, p. 283. New York. North American Beview. (1826), Vol. XXII, pp. 456-459. Phil- adelphia. (1902), Vol. CLXXV, pp. 500-505. New York. DANISH-AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, 1776-1920 165 Ogg, Frederick Austin, Governments of Europe. New York, 1913, Eev. ed., 1920. Parton, James, "The Danish Islands; Are We Bound in Honor to Pay for Them? Boston, 1869. Pierce, Edward L., A Diplomatic Fiasco. Boston, 1889. A phamplet. Porter, David D., The Naval History of the Civil War. New York, 1886. Eaeder, Jacob von, Danmarks Krigshistorie, 1807-1809. 3 Bind. Kjfibenhavn, 1845-1852. Eubin, Markus "Sundtoldens Aflflsning," Historisk Tidsskrift. 7de Bsekke, Bind 6. K6benhavn, 1917. Sartorius, Georg F. C., Geschichte des Hanseatischen Sundes. 3 Band. GSttingen, 1802. Schafer, Dietrich, "Zur Frage nach der Einfiihrung des Sundzolles." Hansische Geschichtsblatter. Jarhgang 1875. Leipsig, 1876. Scharf, J. Thomas, History of the Confederate States Navy. Albany, 1894. Scherer, Hermann, Der Sundzoll. Berlin, 1845. Schinkel, Bernt von. Mvnnen ur Sveriges Nyare Historia. Utgifvet af C. W. Bergman. 11 vols. Stockholm, 1852-1872. Schlegel, J. F. W., Danmarks og Hertugddmmernes Statsret. Kjo'benhavn, 1827. Chapter "VTE of this volume has been trans- lated by Geo. P. March and published under the title "Origin and History of the Danish Sound and Belt Dues," Hunts' Mer- chants' Magazine. (1844), Vol. X. Boston. Scott, James Brown. The Armed Neutralities of 1780 and 1800. New York, 1918. Sherburne, John Henry, The Life and Character of John Paul Jones. Second edition. New York, 1851. Steenstrup, Joh., Erslev, Kr., Heise, A., Molerup, V., Fredericia, J. A., Holm, E., Jtfrgensen, A. D., og Neergaard, N., Danmarks Eiges Historic. 6 Bind. Ko'benhavn og Kristiania, n. d. This is the most complete history of Denmark we have. It is written on the same principle as Cambridge Modern History. Vattel, M. de, Law of Nations. Edited by Edward D. Ingraham. Philadelphia, 1883. Westergaard, Waldemar 0., The Danish Wett Indies. New York, 1917. Wraxall, Lascelles. "The Hapless Queen of Denmark." Eclectic Magazine (1864), Vol. LXIII, pp. 287-298. New York. INDEX Aabenraa, 95. Aalborg, Mormons at, 136. Aalborghus, 14. Adams, John, 11, 12, 27. Alabama, 100, 132, 144. Alexander I, of Russia, 38. Alexander, Lucy, 59. Alfred, flagship of John Paul Jones, 59. Allegiance, problem of, 100 ff. See also Yeaman. Alliance, American frigate, 11, 32, 58. American Emigrant Co., 111. Amsterdam, treaty with America, 17 ; stand- ard of sugar, 127. Anderson, Rasmus B., 112, 116, 120, 123, 157; takes up the Butterfield claims for arbitration, 133; on the problem of Am- erican ministers in foreign states, 138. Anglo-Danish treaty, of 1660, 18, 20, 62, 63, 153; of 1670, 20; of 1780, 20; of 1846, 68; of extradition, 115. Annan, shipbuilding firm at Bordeaux, France, 97, 98, 99. Azpurua, R., 88. Bacon, Robert, 142. Baden, Gustav L., Danish historian, 67. Bainbridge, Capt. Wm., 37. See also Nis- sen, Tripoli. Baltic sea, 80, 81. Bancroft, Edward, at London, 23. Bancroft, George, at Berlin, 144. Baptists, Danish, 101. Barbadoes, 89. Barren, Com. Samuel, 37. Bartram vs. Robertson, 121. Bashaw of Tripoli, 38. Basseterre, 30. Bayard, T. F., 114, 116, 120. Bedinger, Henry, 72, 75, 78, 157. Benjamin Franklin, 87 ff, 129, 132; claim disallowed, 135. Benson, John A., 116; case, 115. Benton, Capt. Thomas, 19. Benton, Thomas H., 76. Bergen, city in Norway, 11, 15, 32, 58. Bergen prizes, 11, 15, 18, 21, 32, 34; the case ended, 58-65; referred to, 134 note. Berg, H. H., governor of St. Thomas, 89, 90, 128, 131. Berg, Kristen, 146. Berlin, 29, 60, 144. Berlinske Tidende, 124. Bernstorff, Andreas Peter, Danish Premier, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 20, 21, 24, 63, 152; hostile to America, 17 ; letter to the royal Council in answer to the Prince Royal, 17; returns to power 1784, 22. Betsy, English merchantman, one of the 1 Bergen prizes, 11, 58. Bigelow, John, 100 note. Bille, Carl Steen Anderson, 157. Bille, F. de, 131, 132. Bille, Steen, Danish representative at Washington, 49, 85, 157. 167 Bille, Torben, Danish representative %t Washington, 72, 84, 129, 157. Blaine, James G., Sec. of State, 134. Bissel, Commodore, 106. Blome, Baron de, 13, 18, 23. Bluhme, Count, 79, 94, 98. "Boot Kathrine", 14. Bordeaux, 97, 98. Bornholm, Mormons at, 136. Boston Monthly Magazine, 69. Bramley-Moore, 74. Brandt, Enevold, 14. Bremen, 94, 116. See also Hanseatic towns, Hamburg. Bremerhaven, 86. British Royal Mail Steam Packet Co., 89. Broholm, Rev. August, 101 note. Brun, Constantin, Danish minister at Washington, 117, 140, 142, 149, 158. Bryan, William J., 142. Buchanan, James, 70, 75, 84. Buchanan, James M., 92, 157. Buck, O. N., 47. Bund, German, 85. Buren, Martin van, 53, 54. Butterfield claims, origin, 87 ff; arbitration of, 128 ff; claims disallowed, 135. Calhoun, John C., 60, 70. Cameron, J. B., 89. Cameron, Senator Simon, 108. Cammet and Co., 90, 91. Campbell, self styled representative from Denmark, 30 note. Cape Francois, 30, 36. Carmichael, William, 21. Caroline Mathilde, 13, 14; at Celle in Han- over, 15. Carr, Clarke E., 119, 123, 138, 145, 147, 157. Carstensen, Chamberlain, 106. Cass, Lewis, 84. Castonier, Major, 89, 131. Catharina II, of Russia, 25, 76. Catharine Augusta, 87 ff, 130, 132; claim disallowed, 135. Cattegat, 42, 66, 82, 97. Ceara, Brazil, 95. Charles II, King of England, 153. Charlotte Amalie, harbor at St. Thomas, 104. Charming Betsy, Murray vs., 33, 34. Charming Polly, English merchantman, one of the Bergen prizes, 11, 58. Cheops, 99. Cherbourg, 100. Chezaulx, M.de, French consul at Bergen, 12. China, America aids Denmark in, 125; trade-marks in, 140-41. Christian III, King of Denmark, 69. Christian IV, King of Denmark, 69. Christian V, King of Denmark, Diary of, 69. Christian VII, King of Denmark, 13. 168 IOWA STUDIES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES Christian IX, of Gliicksburg. King of Den- mark, 76. Christian August, Prince, in Norway, 40. Christian sborg castle, 146. Christianople, treaty of, 68. Christiansand, Americans at, 89; Stonewall at, 97. Christmas, Walter, episode, 148, 149. Christopher II, King of Denmark, 68. City of Mexico, 88. Clay, Henry, 48, 49, 60. Clayton, John M., 85, 86. Cleveland, Pres. Grover, 119, 147. Commerce, 62. Committee of Secret Correspondence, 9, 10. Confederacy, 93 ff; Confederate States, 98. Connell. John, 63. Ci'i-nUllation, U. S. warship, 33. Constitution, U. S. frigate, 88. "Convoy cases" 42-46, 60, 52. Copenhagen, Congress at, 78, 84; bombard- ed by England, 38. Counter-claims, Danish, 13 ff. Coup d'etat, Jan. 17, 1772, the fall of Struensee, 14, 15. Cramer, Michael J., 103, 111, 114, 118, 131, 132, 144, 145, 157. Crane, K. Newton, 141. Crimean War, 72. Criminals, importation of, 110. Crone, V. C., 110. Gushing, Caleb, 69. Dagbladet, 108. Danish Baptists, 101 ; archives of, 101 note; history of, referred to, 136 note. Danish National Church, in Virgin Isl- ands, 150. Danish West Indies, 19, 87, 93, 130. 140; Seward's attempt to purchase, 103 ff; plebiscite in 1867, 105, 107; plebiscite in 1917, 150; purchase of, 143-151. See alto St. Thomas. Dardanelles, 78. Danzig, 67. Dashswood, Charles, 44. Davis, John C. B., Acting Sec. of State, 112, 131. Deane, Silas, 9, 10. Democratic party, opposed to the purchase of the Danish West Indies, 147. Denmark, attitude toward American Revo- lution, 9, 10, 17; referred to by Henry Wheaton, 61-62; attitude toward the Civil War, 93 ff ; refuses to give England her fleet, 38. Dollner, H., 96. Doolittle, Senator, in Denmark, 105. Duane, Wm. J., 56. Dunkirk, 18. Dykes and Snow, Mormons in Denmark, 185. Eames, Charles, 88. Egan, Maurice F., 157. Elbe, 81. Elsinore, 69; used by Russia, 71; consul at, 97. England, captures Danish fleet, 38; treaty concerning Samoa, 141; willing to pur- chase Danish West Indies, 144, 145; bombarded Copenhagen, 38. "Era of Struensee," IS. Erving, George W., Envoy to Denmark, 41, 51, 167. Estrup, Jacob, Danish Premier, 145, 147. Evarts, Secretary of State, 114. Experiment, 36. Extradition, problem of, 114 ff. Faero Islands, 150. Farragut, Admiral, at Copenhagen, 105. Fenian movement, 103. Fish, Hamilton, 111, 125, 131, 132, 144. Flekeroe, Norway, 18. Flenniken, Robert P., American minister at Copenhagen, 70, 157. Flint, Charles R., 148. Florida, 98. Folkethinff, lower chamber of Rigsdag. 146, 149, 151. Forbes, John M., 46, 167. Forward, Walter, 157. Foster, John W., 147. France, in Revolutionary War, 15; might object to sale of St. Croix, 105: sends criminals to America, 113, 114. Franklin, 37. Franklin, Benjamin, 10, 12, 13, 21, 63, 153 Franks, J. C., U. S. marshal, 116. Franks, Wm. B., 116. Fredericia, J. A., 67, 154. Frederick, Fort, 89. Frederick III, King of Denmark, 153. Frederick VI, King of Denmark, 65. Fredericksted, 144. Frelinghuysen, F. F., 111. "French certificates of origin," 42-45, 50. Frijs, Count E. Juelwind, 105, 130. Fulton, Robert, 66. General Simcoe, British privateer, 36. Gener, Mr. Jose, 88, 90. Geoffrey, M. de, 104. George III, 13, 14. Germany, at war with Denmark, 71, 85, 94; sending criminals to America, 110, 114; opposed to American pork trade, 122, 124; treaty with, concerning Samoa, willing to purchase Danish West Indies, 144, 147, 149. Geyser, 121. Gibraltar, 78. Giraud, Lieut. P., 96. Great Britain, see England. Great Northern Telegraph Co., 125. Greenland, 160. Gresham, W. Q., 128, 139 note. Grew, Joseph C., 167. Grieve, Miller, 167. Gron, Niels, 148. Guadeloupe, 81, 33. Gunnison, John G., 59. Gnnnison, Nathaniel, 69. Hall, M., Danish Minister of Foreign Af fairs, 92, 93, 128, 129. Hall, J. P., 122. Hamburg, 30, 46, 47, 94, 122. Hanseatic towns, correspondence between 67-68; at the Copenhagen Confernce, 82. Hansen, George P., 97, 110. Hapgood, Norman, 157. Harlan, Senator James, 108. Havana, 95. Hawaii, 121. Hawley, Rev. Charles, 106. Hay, John, 117, 148, 149. Hector, 52. INDEX 169 Hegerman-Lindencrone, J., see Linden crone. Helm, Charles J., 88, 128, 129, 131. Hendrick, brig, 30, 32, 34, 37, 47, 53, 55, 56 note. Henry, 19; referred to, 30 note. Hillier, Benj., 30. Hoffman, Wiekham, 157. Hojre, Danish political party, 146 ff. Holm, Edward, Danish historian, 15. Homestead Act, 100. Hope, 44. Hornkvoeg (Kvceg), 124 ff. Horsa, alias United States, 87. Houze, De La, French minister at Copen- hagen, 24, 25. Hoyt, Jesse, 56. Hurst, C. J. B., 141. Iceland, 150. Icelandic books, 145. Irvin, William, W., American representa- tive at Copenhagen, 62, 70, 157. Isaacsen, Peter, 39, 40. Jackson, Andrew, 54, 58. Jackson, Isaac R., 157. Jacmel, 35. Japan, buys the Stonewall, 100. Jarlsberg, Count Wedel de, 29. Jay, John, 12. Jefferson, Thomas, 24, 32. Jensen, Mads, alias Jbrgensen, 111. Johnson, President Andrew, 107, 110. Jones, John Paul, in European waters, 11, 13; negotiating with Denmark, 23 ff. See also, Bergen prizes, Janette Taylor, Reventlow-Criminil, Benjamin Franklin, Wolodimer, Catharina II, De la Houze, Thomas Jefferson. Jonkjobing, treaty of, 41. Jiirgen Lorentzen, case of, 95 ff. Keith, Sir Robert M., 14. King, Rufus, American representative at the Court of St. James, 29. Kronborg, 14. See also Elsinore. Krusse, Eduart, 69. Kvoeg (Hornkvoeg), 124 ff. Lahn, 116. Landais, Capt. Peter, 11, 13, 32, 58. Landsthing, upper chamber of Rigsdag, 146, 149, 151. Landtag, opposed to Sound Dues, 74. Lansing, Robert, signs treaty of 1916, 149. League of Armed Neutrality, 10, 62. Lear, Tobias, 38. Lee, Arthur, 10. Leeward Islands, 30. Lewis and Cox, 129. Lex regia, of Holstein, 75. Lincoln, President, 95, 104, 143; sending Colt's pistols to the Danish king, 95 note. Lindencrone, J. Hegerman, 111, 125, 131, 132, 157. Livingston, Robert, 19 ; proposes that Eur- opean powers negotiate with U. S. through England if they will not recog- nize our independence, 20. Loening, U. S. consul, 116. London, Protocol of, 76. Lovenorn, P. L. E., 120, 157. Liibeck, 67. Lucas, Toussaint, 35. Lund, C. N., a Mormon, 136. McDermott, Hugh F., 77. McKinley, Pres. William, 148. Madison, James, 35, 41. Madrid, 29. Magee, Rufus, 114. Maley, Shattuck vs. 35; Lieut. William, 35. Mann, Dudley, 93. Marcy, William L., 72, 84, 129, 132. Marshall, John, Chief Justice, 34, 36. Martinique, 33. Mercator, 35, 45, 47, 53, 55. Messina, 78. Methodist Episcopal Church, seeks per- mission to operate in Denmark, 109 note. Mississippi valley, Danes in, 101. Moltke, Count A. V., Danish Premier, 71. Moltke, Count, representative at Washing- ton, 158. Money values, 155. Monongahela, 106. Monroe, James, 47, 58. Monroe Doctrine, 143. Monson, Sir Edmund, arbitrator in the Butterfield case, 133-35. Moore, Lieut. H. T., 95. Morganbladet, 113. Mormon problem, 135-137. Morning Light, warship, 95. Morris, Andrew, 37. Morris, Gouv., 26. Murray, Capt., 33, 34; reimbursed by Congress, 35. Nationaltidende, 150. Napoleon, 38. Napoleon III, 99. New York Times, 77. New York Tribwne, 78, 82. Niles, U. S. minister at Turin, 87. Nissen, Nicholas C., aid given by N. to Americans at Tripoli, 37; joint resolu- tion thanking, 38. Norfolk, 91. Norway, suffers during Napoleonic wars, 40 ff. See Bergen, Bergen prizes, Chez- aulx. Nystad, treaty of, 76. O'Brien, Thomas J., 157. Olcott, John N., 87, 90. Olinde, see Stonewall. Olney, Richard, 147. Olson, Sir P. Blicher, 30, 35, 157. Ordination of Episcopalian Ministers, 27. Oxholm, General D', 75. Paez, Gen. Jose A., 88. Page, Capt. V. P., 98. Palmer, Admiral, 106. Palmerston, Lord, 74. Panama Canal, influence on the purchase of the Danish West Indies, 149. Parana, 89. Parke, Mathew, Captain of marines on the Alliance, 59. Parke, Wm. C., 59. Parton, James, 104 note. Patagons, Spanish dollars, 55. Patent, from King of Denmark to Jones, 26. Peary Relief Expedition, 139. Pederson, Peder, Danish minister to th United States, 37, 48, 63, 157. Pernambuco, 91. 170 IOWA STUDIES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES Perry, Commodore M. C., 85. Persigny, Count, 74. Peters, Judge, 34. Peter the Great, 76. Pickering, American war vessel, 80, 82. Petroleum Test, in Denmark. 126. Philadelphia, 37. Pickett, J. T., 90, 129. Picquet, Monsieur LaMotte, 59. Pierce, Edward L., 108. Plebiscite, demanded by Denmark, 106, 150. Plessen, Fru, 14. Politiken, 150. Polytechnic Institute, 126. Pomeroy, John P. See Benson, John A., 115, 116. Port-au-Prince, 36. Porter, James D., 112. Port Republic, 35. Preston, William B., 85. Prince Royal of Denmark, a friend of the American colonies, 17. Protection, of industrial designs, 140- by tariff. See Tariff. Providentia, 19. Prussia, attitude toward American Revolu- tion, 9; attitude toward Sound Dues, 74, 77; war with Denmark, 80, 85, 98, 104; rumor Prussia will trade Schleswig for St. Thomas, 144. Puggard, Danish merchant, 97. Pyramut, H. M. B., 44. Quiberon Bay, 69, 97. Raasloff, General W. R., 96, 102, 104, 167. Radical Students' Association, 150. Ranger, 59. Ravn, Danish Minister of Foreign Affairs, 148. Reedtz-Thott, Danish minister, 119. 125 146, 147. Reimer, Capt. T. W., 95, 96. Rendsborg, royal order of, 38. Representative, status of American, in Den- mark, 137 ff. Republican party, favorable to the pur- chase of the Danish West Indies, 147- 48. Reventlow, Count F. de, representative at Washington, 127, 139 note, 168. Reventlow, Ditlev, 10, 152. Reventlow-Criminil, Count, Danish Pre- mier, 62. Reviere, Amous de la, 97, 100. Rhea, Capt. of the Hope, 44. "Richardson Investigation," of the Walter Christmas episode, 149. Richardson, Justice, 121. Riemen Schneider, 118. Rigtdag, 105, 107, 126, 145, 150; parties and chambers in, 146. Rio de Janeiro, 95. Risley, John E., 124, 136, 147, 167. Roenne, Baron von, 85 ff. Rogers, Henry H., 148. Roosevelt, Pres. Theodore, 117, 149. Rosencrone, Baron, Danish Minister of Foreign Affairs, 21, 27. Rosenkrantz, Baron, Danish Premier, 41. Rosenb'hrn-Lehn, Baron O. D., 103, 120, 131. Ruhl, John E., 88. Russia, attitude toward American Revolu- tion, 9, 10; Commerce and Hector cases, 62. Ryder, Henry B., Ill, 157. Saaby, Hans Rudolph, 29, 89. St. Christopher, 30, 32. See St. Kitts. St. Croix, reciprocity with, 56-58; West India island, 90, 105, 121 ; revolution in 1878, 144. St. Domingo, 35. St. John, one of the Danish West Indies, 105, 148. St. Kitts, 30. See St. Christopher. St. Petersburg, 25, 29. St. Thomas, 33, 35, 36, 87, 95, 104, 130, 132, 134, 135, 143, 144, 149. Salomansen, 113. Samoan claims, 141-43. San Bias, 90, 91. Sanger, von, 74. Saphorin, M. de St., Danish envoy to The Hague, 27. Sayre, Stephen, attempting to negotiate a treaty of commerce with Denmark in 1777, 10, 11. Schafer, Dietrich, 67, 154. Scheelt, Capt. Peter, 30. Schimmelman, Count, Danish Premier, 52. Schleswig-Holstein question, 76; war, 85; second war, 94, 98; rumor that Prussia will trade Schleswig for St. Thomas, 144. Scholten, General P. von, 66. Schonheyder, Danish naval officer, 98. Seward, Wm. H., 93, 96, 102, 104, 129, 143. Shanghai, 125, 141. Shattuck, Jared, 33, 35, 47; vs. Maley, 35 ff. Sherman, Senator John, 138. Short, Wm., 26, 30. Snow and Sykes, Mormons in Denmark, 135. Soderstrom, Richard, 35. Sorenson, Richard, 35. Sorenson, Ole, a criminal, 110. Soro, 68. Soule, Pierre, 129. Sound Dues, 16, 17, 42; abolition of, 66- 85 ; opposed in Prussia, 74 ; recognized by treaty of Vienna, 73; favored in England, 74 ; favored by Russia, 75 Spain, attitude toward American Revolu- tion, 9. Sphinx, See Stonewall. Sponneck, Count, F. W., 79, 158. Strkodder. See Stonewall, 97, 100. Steman, Count de, Danish Minister of Justice, 53. Stonewall, case of the, 97 ff. Struensee, Johan Frederik, 14. Sumner, Charles, opposed to the purchase of Danish West Indies, 107; referred to, 148. Sutquehannah, 106. Sweden, attitude toward American Revolu- tion, 9, 16; at war with Denmark, 23, 25 note ; sending criminals to America, 114. Swenson, Laurits S., 137, 157. Swift, case, 43. Talbot, Silas, 36. Tariff, "of Abominations," 56; on sugar, 121, 124, 127; Wilson-Gormon, 124, 127. Taylor, Janette, niece of John Paul Jones, 69. INDEX 171 Taylor, Moses, 96. Texas fever, 124. Thingvalla, 113, 116; Steamship Line, 121, vs. United States, 121 note. Trade-Marks protected in China, 140 ff. Trade, problems of, 119 ff. 56-58. Treaty of Christianople, 68; of Tilsit, 38. Treaty, U. S. and Denmark, of 1783-84, 21, 22; of 1826, 47, 50, 71, 72, 120, 122; abrogated, 72; of 1830, 50-56; of extra- dition, 114-17; postal convention, 118; on weights and measures, 118; on trade- marks, 119; on copyrights, 119; on But- terfield claims, 133-35; on arbitration, 142; on general peace, 142-43; purchas- ing the Danish West Indies, 149-151 ; United States and Holland, 21; U. S. and Spain on extradition, 115, 117. Trent affair, 95. Trichinosis, from American pork, 122. Tripoli, 37. Turin, 87. Tyler, John, 60. Uhl, Edwin F., 128. Union, English merchantman, one of the Bergen prizes, 11, 58. United States, a warvessel, 85 ff. Upshur, Secretary of State, 78. Utah, 136, 137. Vedel, Danish Director-General, 124. Venezuela, rebellion in, 88, 90, 132; Den- mark's duty toward, 130. Venstre, Danish political party, 146 ff. Vera Cruz, 91. Vergennes, French minister, 19, 24. Virgin Islands, 103. See Danish West Indies, St. Thomas. Walewski, Count, 74. Walterstorff, Baron de, 21, 63. Warren, James, Lieutenant on the Alliance, 58. Washington, 111. Webster, Daniel, 70. Welles, Gideon, 96. West Indies, Danish, trade in, 56, 57 note ; rights of Americans in, 49-50. See also, Danish West Indies, St. Thomas. Wheaton, Henry, minister to Denmark, 50-56, 157; minister to Prussia, 60-62; on the treaty of 1830, 60-62; compared with Monson on statute of limitation, 134 note. White, Henry, 148. Whitney vs. Robertson, 121 note. Wickersham, James P., 157. Williams, S. Wells, 126. Wilkes, Capt. Charles, 95. Wilson-Gorman tariff, 124, 127. See Tariff. Wilson, Woodrow, 142. Windward Islands, 89. Winchester, George, 56. Wisconsin, Danish Baptists in, 101. World War, influence on the purchase of the Danish West Indies, 149. Wolodimer, 25. Wood, Bradford R., 93, 97, 98, 157. Woodside, Jonathan F., 157. Wraxall, Sir N. W., 15. Wright, Thomas, 33. X. Y. Z. affair, 30. Teaman, George H., 102, 108, 110, 129, 157. crx (4 3)3 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY THE LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Santa Barbara THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE STAMPED BELOW. Scries Obtainable from the University Librarian: Price $1.25