The Sun.
London, England, 1863-09-02 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS,

the law and the facts touching
the alleged building of men-of-war in this country
for the Confederate States are equally plain, we
confess that we have little hope of either fact or law
making any impression on the persons for whose
information our remarks are principally intended.
They are so much under the influence of passion
that they can hardly be expected to listen to
reason. Mr. Cobden himself has told us that when
people are at war they are as little amenable to
reason and facts as " mad dogs." We have just
been assured by an authority well informed on the
subject, that Americans in the Northern States are
" mad for war" with this country. At all events,
they cannot be considered quite sane and sober, ac•
cording to Me. Cobden's dictum, touching their own
internecine struggle for empire, or anything relat-
ing to it which may tend to help the weaker party.
Let us, then, see what the law of nations upon this
subject is, and let us take our precedents from the
history of the United States. In 1822 a case came
before the American courts where a man-of.war
had sailed from the United States, armed and
equipped for service, to the Government of Buenos
Ayres, when at war with Spain. This man-of-war
had originally been built and equipped as a war
vessel for service against England in the war be-
tween this country and the United States; and she
had been actively engaged in that war. Ia 1816
she was loaded by her American owners with arms
and ammunition, she carried 12 guns belonging to
her original equipment when fighting against Eng-
land, and, under the command of a captain named
Chayter, who was a native born citizen of the United
States, she sailed out from the port of Baltimore, and
proceeded to Buenos Ayres for the use of that Power.
The Government of Buenos Ayres, directly they
came into possession of her, hoisted their flag at the
masthead, and Chayter, the American citizen, pro-
' duced to his crew his commission from the Buenos
Ayres Government to act as captain of the ship and
make war upon Spain. This American vessel of war,
therefore, was sold and transferred, already armed
and equipped, commanded and manned by citizens
of the United States, and, under the name of the
Indepeudencia, began at once to serve as a public
man-of-war of the Government of Buenos Ayres
against Spain, a friendly Power, with whom the
United States were at amity and peace. When
this case came before the Supreme Court of the
United States, the highest tribunal in that country,
the presiding judge, Justice Story, an authority of
the highest eminence, after the ma forest delibera-
tion, pronounced the decision of the Court, that
" there was nothing in the law of the United States,
or in the law of nations, which prohibited American
citizens from sending armed vessels, as well as
munitions of war, to foreign ports for sale." The
judgment pronounced by Justice Story is so com-
plete and exhaustive that we deem it right to ex-
tract from it a passage of some length. "The ques-
tion," said this celebrated judge, "as to the original
illegal armament and outfit of the Indepeentethncaita
may be dismissed in a few words. It is asppearndwas
sent
though equipped as a vessel of war, h
to Buenos Ayres as a commercial adventure,
contraband, indeed, but in no shape.
saptured by a violating our
laws or our national neutrality. It
Spanish ship of war during the voyage she would
have been justly condemned as a good prize, and
for being engaged in a traffic prohibited by the
law of nations. But there is nothing in our laws
or in the law of nations that forbids our citizens to
send armed vessels, as well as munitions of war, to
foreign ports for sale. It is a commercial adven-
ture which no nation is bound to prohibit, and
which only exposes the persons engaged in it to
the penalty of confiscation." Story
." Justice also
,
stated expressly that there was no pretence to
say the original outfit for the voyage was illegal, or
that a capture made after
sale was, for that cause
alone, invalid." And this decision was in strict
conformity, with what had been always held by
American jurists and statesmen to be the principle
and practice of the law of nations, and of municipal
law so far as might be applicable to the point. For
instance, so long ago as 1793, the American
.Go-
vernment held " that the purchasing and exporting
from the United States, by way of merchandise,
articles commonly called contraband, being gene-
rally warlike instruments and stores, is free to all
parties at war, and is not to be interfered with. If
our own citizens undertake to carry them to any of
these parties they will be abandoned to the penal-
ties which the laws of war authorise." In 1812 the
same Government solemnly declared that " it is not
the practice of nations to undertake to prohibit their
own subjects from trafficking in articles contraband
of war. Such trade is carried on at the risk of
those engaged in it, under the liabilities and penal-
ties prescribed by the law of nations and particular
treaties. This was illustrated by reference to the
case of Texas—" If American merchants in the way
of commerce had sold munitions of war to Texas,
the Government of the United States nevertheless
were not bound to prevent it, and could not have
prevented it without a manifest departure from the
principles of neutrality." Again, we are, authori-
tatively informed by the American Government
that " the laws of the United States do not forbid
their citizens to sell to either of the belligerent
Powers articles contraband of war, or to take muni-
tions of war or soldiery on board their private ships
for transportation ; and although in so doing the
individual exposes his property or person to some
of the nazerds of war, his acts do not involve any
breach of national neutrality; nor do they of them-
selves implicate the Government." Such are the
principles and a few of the precedents furnished br
the American Government itself. Let us now look
into the acts and practice of America with particu-
lar reference to England. During the late war be-
tween Russia and this country a vessel of war called
the Ankriea was built, equipped, manned, and sen
out from the United States, for the service of
Russia, under the command of a lieutenant of
the American navy, named Hudson. When the
America arrived at Rio de Janeiro on her way from
New York to Petropaulowski, the English men-of-
war wanted to stop and examine her, one of her
crew baying given information to the British Con-
sul, but the Brazilian Government would not allow
this to ba doae in their waters. The English cap
twins, therefore, determined to watch for her and
atop her after she had left. But here the kind offices
of an American man of war came into play. Copt.

Salter, who commanded the United States squadron
at Rio, ordered his own ship, the Savannah frigate,
to be taken in tow by the America, and thus secured
her impunity. These facts are vouched by an officer
on board the Savannah, When Lieut. Hudson
arrived at Petropaulowski he heard, to his great
disappointment, that peace had come, "as the
America was only one of a whole fleet that were
preparing and equipping in the United States for
the service of Russia, and in the event of another
year's war they would have swept the Pacific of
English merchant vessels." A British naval officer
saw the America lying in the Peiho for weeks in
the spring of 1858. At the signing of the Treaty
of Tien-tsin she had the Russian flag flying from
her masthead, and an American eagle on her stern.
The Foreign Enlistment Act was based upon an
ancient common-law principle whereby the Sove-
reign is entitled to the services of a subject. Accord-
ing to this principle the subject has uo right to give
his services to any foreign Power. The ancient
common law, and the Enlistment Act that grew out
of it, had reference to and created relations exclu-
sively between the subject and the Sovereign of
this country ; they have nothing to do with the
relations between the Sovereign and foreign
Powers. This latter class of relations is governed
by the law of nations and by treaties, not by muni-
cipal enactments. No foreign State has any right
to interfere in the relations between the subject and
the Sovereign of another country. It is interna-
tional law and treaties which can alone afford to
foreign States ground for interference. While we
observe these they have no pretence for remon-
strance or complaint, And that we do observe them
is proved by our readiness to stop the Alexandra, in
a case so doubtful that the Court of Exchequer pro-
nounced against the Government.
TIMES.—If we may trust an announcement which
appeared yesterday in two French papers generally
well informed, the Polish question is about to take
a very different turn from what hae lately been
feared. It is said that the Emperor contemplates
measures which would go far beyond all that the
three Powers have asked from him, and, indeed, be-
yond any hopes that they could have entertained.
According to these reports, the Emperor had con-
ceived the project of a new and liberal Constitution
for the whole empire, and was about to lay it before
an Extraordinary Council. His proposal amounted
to the grant of a regular Constitutional Government.
There would be two Chambers—one, the Senate,
consisting of 300 members appointed for life, and
the other a representative assembly of 450 members
elected under specified conditions. These two would
constitute a central representation for the whole
empire; but, besides these, separate and indepen-
dent Constitutions would be granted to the pro-
vinces. Thus the Kingdom of Poland, while send-
ing representatives to the central Government,
would have an independent internal organisation,
and would have its own Diet sitting at Warsaw for
the regulation of its own affairs. The same plan
would be adopted with regard to Finland and the
other great provinces of the Empire. The plan
would therefore be a distinct abandonment of the
system of forced military centralisation which was
the lifelong idea of the late Emperor, and would be
an attempt to give independence and life to the dif-
ferent national elements of which the empire is com-
posed, and to trust to their possession of a common
Sovereign and a common representation for their
natural growth into one great whole. It is said that
intimations of this intention have been already com-

municated to France, and that they have influenced
the recent French Note an the quiet course of the
present negotiations. If such a project be really con-
templated by the Russian Emperor, it is not difficult
to understand its significance. The course of events
in Poland during the last few months must havebeen
placing the Emperor in a position of extreme diffi-
culty. The course marked out for him by the
traditional policy of his family and by the imme-
diate example of his father was to crush out the
insurrection by the sternest and most unrelenting
violence, to stamp out every trace of opposition, and
to grasp the whole of his empire with the iron force
of a military despotism. But he must soon have
seen that the different circumstances of the times
would make it impossible to repeat in 1863 his
father's course in 1831. The changes in the material
conditions of public life since that time have brought
very different feelings and interests to bear upon
such questions as the Polish Insurrection. By the
increase in the means of communication and the
universal diffusion of intelligence all such questions
are brought to the ordeal of a public opinion more
or less free in every country, and Governments are
therefore influenced, if not decided, by general
popular considerations of honour and public in-
terest. Any such course, therefore, as the Emperor
Nicholas pursued towards Poland in 1831 would at
once be brought face to face with the national con-
science of England and France, and would be sure
to rouse a tremendous storm of indignation, which
might force at least the more excitable of the two
countries into a war in defence of liberty and mercy.
The press brings all the acts of cruelty and injustice
which such a policy must involve into the light of
day, and the Emperor must feel that if he continued
in the course be has commenced in Poland he would
soon be isolated from the pale of European civiliza-
tion, or compelled by a coalition of the great Powers
to adopt a more humane and just policy. On the
other hand, ho must, of course, have felt that if he
abandoned this policy he would have no alternative
but to change the whole traditionary character of
his Empire, and to enter upon a totally different
method of government. It would be obviously im-
possible for him to grant a Constitutional Govern-
ment to Poland while the countries around it were
still governed on the principles of the most arbi-
trary military despotism. It would be impossible
to sew that piece of new cloth on the old mantle of
Nicholas. A Polish Constitutional Kingdom esta-
blished in the heart of the Russian Empire would
be an anomaly, a sort of foreign body, per-
petually convulsing the whole constitution of the
Empire. It would be necessary for the Emperor,
it he abandoned his old line of policy, to change
the whole character of his Government. He must
be prepared to give up the old principle entirely,
and to introduce Constitutional farms into every im-
portant province of his Empire. In short, he was
on the horns of a terrible dilemma. The extremity
of the case left only two courses open to him—either
to maintain the hard despotism of his father at any
cost of blood, cruelty, and dishonour, and to brave
the public opinion of Europe ; or to grant the Poles
a really liberal and Constitutional form of Govern-
ment, and to give it a fair chance of existence by
assimilating the government of his other dominions
to the same system. The question, in short, per-
haps amounted to this--whether Russia should
spread her barbarous institutions over Poland, or
Poland should spread its comparative civilisation
over Russia. We do not wonder that the answer to
somomentous a question should have long hung in
the balance, and even if the news we refer to should
be well-founded, and the Emperor should himself
have made up his mind, he will, no doubt, have to
face a determined and violent opposition before he
will be able to carry out his plans. Such a resolu-
tion would be in harmony with the high reputation
with which the Emperor ascended the throne, and
which he seemed to deserve by his great measure
for the liberation of the serfs; but it could not fail
to be extremely distasteful to a large and powerful
party in his kingdom. When Constitutionalism
makes such slow strides even in such an enlightened
country as Prussia, it will require a bold and firm
hand for the Emperor Alexander 2o introduce it in
so comparatively ignorant and superstitious an em-
pire as his own. Every good wish, however, ought
to go with him in so wise and courageous a resolu-
tion, and even if he were only partially successful
he would do more than can be done by any other
means to advance the cause of Constitutional Go-
vernment in Europe. Russia hitherto has been the
great feeder of despotic ideas. She has been a sort
of support on which every arbitrary monarch of
Germany felt himself sure of being able to depend ;
she hag formed a basis for the reactionary party in
every German State. The present arbitrary Ministry
in Prussia was thought to pursue a natural instinct
when it allied itself with the great Northern des-
potism. But if Russia adopts Constitutional
Government, while Austria is endeavouring to in-
troduce the same principle, there will be no foot-
hold for despotism left on the Continent, and the
great Powers of Germany, free from the attraction
of so vast an Empire, will fall inevitably into their
true and natural liberty of government. If this
concession is really to be made, we trust it will not
come too late for the Poles to accept it. Long op'
pression and cruelty have roused so bitter a feeling
among theta that, to judge by our present informa-
tion, it is not likely they will ever be content with
less than absolute independence. But such a step
on the part of the Emperor would cut away every
possible ground for foreign interference in their
behalf. Indeed, if the Poles were to continue their
insurrection after the promulgation of such a gene-
ral reform, we are confident they would lose all
public sympathy in this country. We should feel
that they had got all that under the circumstances
they could possibly expect to get, and sufficient to
give them the opportunity for ft prosperous national
existence. So long as the Emperor proposed to
grant Constitutional Government to Poland alone,
there was some reason in the objection that a Con-
stitution surrounded by a military despotism could
never be anything more than a pretence. and at
least would be always insecure. But if the Emperor
Alexander offers to change the whole system of his
Government in deference to the necessities which
the Poles have raised, they will no longer have any
ground in reason for refusing to accept his terms.
It is idle attempting to resuscitate a state of things
which has, by whatever means, been destroyed for
so many years. Nations are not like counters which
can be broken up and pieced together nein at will.

They are living organisms, the growth of which
never pauses, and no treaties or armies can bring
back a condition in their existence which has once
passed away. For right or wrong, for good or ill,
Poland has now been partitioned too long for it to
be possible to undo the work. It is of no avail for
the Poles to rush upon baycnets because they can-
not get all they want. They must be content with
anything in reason, and such a proposition by the
Emperor of Russia as we have been discussing
would be more than reasonable. If they can secure
a liberal representation, a tolerably free press, fair
administration of the laws, and security for lire and
property, they have no right to convulse Europe
for the shadowy advantage of a distinct Sovereign.
We earnestly hope that it will not be their obsti-
nacy which will prevent the Polish question from
receiving so sltisfactory a solution.