Why should this limitation exist? I shall allude to my views by presenting a supposed case, for I have not time to do more. Suppose Great Britain, which does not recognize the principle that “free ships make free goods,” and Russia to be engaged in war after the treaty, the United States being neutral. 1. Would it not be greatly for our interest (more particularly as from our character we shall generally be a neutral nation) if our ships could carry the goods of Englishmen to Russia and all over the world, without these goods being subjected to capture by the armed vessels of Russia? 2. Would not great embarrassments arise if Russian vessels of war, after ascertaining that a vessel belonged to a citizen of the United States, which is all they could do under the general principle, should then under the proviso be permitted to inquire into the ownership of the cargo, and if they suspected it belonged in whole or in part to English subjects, to seize and take it before a prize court? 3. This proviso could only have been introduced to force England into the adoption of the rule that “the flag covers the cargo;” but how can it produce that effect? It will render the property of an Englishman as insecure on board an American as a British vessel; it being equally liable to seizure in either. But let the rule be general, let our flag protect the cargo, no matter who may be the owner, and then English merchants will have the strongest inducements to employ our navigation. 4. Would not the promise make the treaty itself a felo de se, whenever Russia shall be at war with a nation which does not recognize the general rule? 5. If England should at any time be neutral and we at war, the general rule adopted between us and Russia will not prevent us from capturing our enemies’ goods on board British vessels. 6. These suggestions become of much more importance when we consider that we may have similar treaties with many nations. These crude remarks are merely intended to direct your attention to the subject. I consider it very important and should like to hear from the department in relation to it as soon as possible. We shall first take up the treaty of commerce, I presume; indeed Count Nesselrode has asked for my views in writing on that subject. It might be of consequence to me to have a copy of our treaty with Turkey.] In haste, I am, with the greatest respect, Your friend, JAMES BUCHANAN. P. S. Please remember me to the members of your cabinet and also your family. 2d P. S. Captain Ramsay, for whom I had obtained a courier’s passport, will not go to-day; but I have fortunately just heard of a vessel about sailing for Boston, by which I send this.