Speaking of the regulation respecting private property, which ought to exist on the ocean in time of war, he said: ‘although, in the arrangement of things, security against oppression should be the greatest where it is most likely to be often practiced, it is nevertheless remarkable, that the progress of enlightened civilization has been much more advanced on the land than on the ocean. And, accordingly, personal rights, and especially those of property, have both a safety and protection on the former, which they do not enjoy on the latter element. Scarcely any circumstance would now tend more to exalt the character of America, than that of uniting its endeavors to bring up the arrears of civilization as applied to the ocean, to the same forward point which it has attained on the land, and, thus rendering men and their property secure against all human injustice and violence, leave them exposed only to the action of those storms and disasters, sufficiently perilous, which are comprehended in the dispensations of providence. It is under the influence of these and similar considerations, that you will bring forward, at the contemplated congress, the proposition to abolish war against private property and non-combatants on the ocean. Private property of an enemy is protected, when on land, from seizure and confiscation. Those who do not bear arms there, are not disturbed in their vocations. Why should not the same humane exemption be extended to the sea?’ Respecting religious toleration, he remarks, ‘you will avail yourselves of all suitable occasions to press upon the minister of the other American states, the propriety of a free toleration of religion, within their respective limits. In the United States, we experience no inconvenience from the absence of any religious establishment, and the universal toleration which happily prevails. We believe that none would be felt by other nations who should allow equal religious freedom. It would be deemed rash to assert, that civil liberty and an established church cannot exist together in the same state; but it may be safely affirmed, that history affords no example of their union, where the religion of the state has not only been established, but exclusive. If any of the American powers think proper to introduce into their systems an established religion, although we should regret such a determination, we would have no right to make a formal complaint, unless it should be _exclusive_. As the citizens of any of the American nations have a right, when here, without hindrance, to worship the Deity according to the dictates of their own consciences, our citizens ought to be allowed the same privilege, when, prompted by business or inclination, they visit any of the American states. You are accordingly authorized to propose a joint declaration, to be subscribed by the ministers of all or any of the powers represented, that, within their limits, there shall be free toleration of religious worship.