How privateering, previously innocent, can have become piratical, _i.e._ an offence, everywhere justiciable, against the Law of Nations, if the Declaration of Paris was not in the nature of a piece of legislation, I confess myself unable to understand; but have no wish to repeat the remarks which you have already allowed me to make upon the subject.
I shall, however, be glad at once to remove the impression suggested by Sir George's letter of this morning, that Art.

7 of the Spanish Decree of April 24 has any bearing upon the legitimacy of privateering generally.

The article in question (following, by the by, the very questionable precedent of a notification issued by Admiral Baudin, during the war between France and Mexico in 1889) merely threatens with punishment neutrals who may accept letters of marque from a belligerent Government.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant, T.E.HOLLAND.
Oxford, April 27 (1898).
THE DECLARATION OF PARIS Sir,--There is really no question at issue between your two correspondents Mr.Gibson Bowles and "Anglo-Saxon" as to the attitude of the United States towards the Declaration of Paris.
Mr.Bowles rightly maintains that the United States has not acceded to the Declaration as a whole, or to its second article, which exempts from capture enemy property in neutral ships.

He means, of course, that neither the whole nor any part of that Declaration has been ratified by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

The whole contains, indeed, an article on privateering, to which, as it stands, the United States have always objected, and no part of the Declaration can be accepted separately.
"Anglo-Saxon," on the other hand, is equally justified in asserting that the "officially-recorded policy" of the States, _i.e._ of the Executive, is in accordance with Art.