The Sun.
London, England, 1865-01-14 00:00:00

wished their country to be reannexed to theMonarehy.
There are many reasons why this belief should,have
prevailed at Madrid. The troubles throligli -Which the
SpanishAmeriean nopilblles have passed, sometimes
eudifig, diA inMexico, in downright anarchy, naturally

led the Spanish Government of the day to trust the as-
surances of those who asserted that the Dominicans

all but a feeble section of Radicals, desired nothing
so much as the protection of the prosperous and
advancing Monarchy from which they had bcCii
happily severed. Though ths thilitary instincts of
Spain may lime been roused by the enterprise, we
can readily agree that the expedition was not exactly
"an ambitious war of conquest." The result, how-
ever, shows how dangerous Is the belief that popula-
tions which have once tasted the sweets of independ-
ence will Willingly return to colonial subjection. The
Mexicans themselves would probably have fought the
French for years, had it been proposed to make their
country a French or Spanish province, The Dominic
cans soon gave the Queen's Governnimit reason to
know that the assurances it had received were quite
delusive. They rose against the Spanish troops, and
the war has been going on ever since. Battle and a pes-
tiferous climate, as the Bill truly declares, are making
terrible ravages in the ranks of the invaders
The sanguinary struggle uselessly expends the public
treasures and consumes the products of the colonies.
This is the Ministerial description of the state of
affairs, and it will be, no doubt, duly confirmed by
the votes of the Cortes. It is acknowledged that
" the annexation had not that spontaneous and
unanimous support upon which it was based" ntit
when the war had once begun it was too late to recede.
It was thought the duty of the Government to ascer-
tain whether the opposition did not proceed merely
from a discontented few. This information has been

sought during the last three years by a war which
has exhausted the Treasury of Spain and filled emery
Spanish community of AmeriOa With fresh dislike and
distrust of the old country. At last a Government,
presided over by a man who would be the last to yield
hastily to popular clamour, solemnly declartit, " That
it was a delusion to believe that the Dominican

people as a whole, or in a great majority, de=
sired and, above all, demanded. their annexation to
Spain ;" and for this, and the reasons consequent
on it, the Ministers solemnly advise the Cortes to
" repeal the Royal decree which made the Domini=
can Republic part of the Spanish Monarchy," It is
a disagreeable lesson ; but the nation bears it
calmly, and in a manner indicative of good sense
and good feeling, To bring back these revolted
colonies to their former political condition is im-

possible. To unite then; to Spain by the ties ox
friendship and mutual advantage is open to any
statesman who guides his course by wisdom. The
failure in Mexico and San Domingo may teach the
true policy to be pursued in Peru and elsewhere ;
and. if the Spaniards act with prudence, Mexico,
San Domingo, Peru, and every other land where
their language is spoken, may one day be united to
them by an affiance even more fruitful of advan-
tages than a common sovereignty.
POST.—A document has been published by the
Government of the Confederate States of America
well worthy of the attention of the public, and espe-
cially of commercial men in this country. It is a
despatch from Mr. Benjamin, the Secretary of State
of that Government, to the Secretary of the Navy,
laying down the principles which are to guide the
commanders of cruisers in their dealings with the
vessels and property of neutrals. It furnishes in-
structions for the three cases—First, of a vessel
under enemy's flag, with cargo wholly . or in part
belonging to neutrals ; secondly, of a vessel really
neutral, with cargo wholly or in part belonging to
the enemy ; and third, of a vessel ostensibly neutral,
but really hostile, fraudulently placed under a
neutral flag and furnished with fraudulent papers.
In dealing with these three cases, Mr. Benjamin
points to the difficulty in which the Confederates
are placed in consequence of having all their ports
blockaded or watched by the enemy's steam vessels
of war, which, as the prizes made are mostly sailing
vessels, precludes the possibility of bringing them
into a Confederate port for adjudication by a Court
of Admiralty, as he admits would be the duty,
under ordinary circumstances, of all commanders
making prizes of the enemy, or detaining neutral
vessels for violation of the neutrality. In this diffi-
enity, Mr. nenjamin points to the alternative of ob-
taining adjudication in the ports and by the Admi-
ralty Courts of the neutral Powers concerned ; but
states that this course is precluded by the resolution
adopted generally by the neutral Powers of Europe
not to admit into their ports any prize captures
made by either belligerent. Against this resolution
Mr. Benjamin says his Government is about to make
further strong representations; but in the meantime,
and until some means are provided of obtaining ad-
judication, commanders of cruisers are instructed in
the first ease—viz., that of enemy's vessels having
neutral goods on board—to tender ransom upon
bond to the master of the vessel captured if an
enemy's, and if the ransom bond is refused, to de-
stroy the vessel and its cargo " wherever the prize
cannot be brought into a port of our own, or of a
neutral country,' A writer in the Times, under the
signature of " Historicus," who is extremely well
read in international law, and who has heretofore
contributed much to the proper understanding of
questions of this description that have arisen since
hostilities commenced between the two sections of
the United States of America, treats this instruction
as an outrageous violation of the rights of neutrals.
He declares that neutral property, not contraband,
is hOt liable to belligerent capture, even on board
an enemy's vessel ; that a belligerent has no right
to meddle with, or dispose of it, and that the pre-
text of inability to bring prizes into any port of
their own, or of a neutral Power, gives no right to
a belligerent to " seize, burn, and destroy British
property, over which they have no more right than
they have over the coffers of the Bank of England."
We cannot admit this reasoning. A belligerent
has the right to capture and destroy the persons
and property of his enemy on the high seas, as well
as in the enemy's country. He captures and burns
a ship as he would capture and bombard a town.
He is not to be restrained in the exercise of this
right of capturing and burning, by the fact that in
the town or in the ship there is neutral property
which he has no right and no desire to meddle with.
If neutrals freight goods in belligerent vessels they
expose them to all the chances of war, and pay of
course war-risk insurance for their protection. If
the vessel is captured, burnt, and destroyed in the
course of war, the neutral shipper has his remedy
against the underwriters. The belligerent cannot
be expected to forego his right of capture because
of the presence of such goods on board. In the
same manner, if he has no expedient to prevent re-
capture by the enemy but to burn or sink the vessel
captured, respect for the neutral property on board
does not require him to refrain from adopting this
expedient. He may very fairly say to the neutral
shipper, " You must look to your underwriters, as I
have no alternative but to destroy. If, however,
your Government will provide such an alternative
by opening its ports for the receipt of prizes con-
taining neutral property, I am quite ready to adopt
it." And this is the line of argument taken by.
Mr. Benjamin, which we think not unfair nor un-
reasonable. Our Government may still refuse to
open its ports to prizes, for that is a poi se
its option ; but if it does so, we have no right to
complain that prizes are burnt with British pro-
perty on board, when it is made clear that there
was no other resource open to prevent their falling
into the hands of the enemy. Mr. Benjamin,
however, is more considerate towards neutrals than
in strict right he is compelled to be, for he limits
the permission to destroy the vessel to cases in
which the proportion of neutral property on
board is small compared with the value of the
vessel and hostile cargo ; whereas, consider-
ing that the whole will be, or at least ought to be,
insured against war-risk, because freighted on board
the vessel of a belligerent nation, its liability to such
a contingency of destruction was absolute, without
reference to the proportion its value might bear to
that of the ship and the rest of the cargo. The
second point treated of in these instructions is that
of a vessel really neutral, with cargo wholly or in
part belonging to the enemy. The Confederate
cruisers are directed to allow vessels of neutrals to
pass free, unless laden with goods contraband of
war destined for the enemy's ports. If such contra-
band goods are found on board a neutral vessel,
they are to be taken out, if practicable, and tran-
shipped or destroyed ; but the vessel is to be allowed
to continue her voyage. " Historicus" points out
that this instruction makes the commander of the
cruiser the judge of what is and what is not contra-
band. He likens the taking out of property to the
case of Captain Wilkes who took Confederate pas-
sengers out of the Trent, and asserts that any for-
cible destruction of neutral property without adjudi-
cation in an Admiralty Court is a " national insult"
which must lead to war. But here also we think
that this writer overstates the case, and makes no
allowance for the circumstances which have given
occasion to these instructions. Suppose the captain
of a Confederate cruiser found a neutral vessel at
sea laden with shot, shell, and gunpowder, which it
was conveying to replenish the stores of the block-
ading squadron off Charleston. He finds the vessel
in such a position, and steering such a course, as to
leave no doubt where these warlike stores are going.
Is he to allow the hostile squadron to be so equipped
because of the impossibility of taking the vessel
anywhere for adjudication? Of course not. He will
take possession of the warlike stores, relying upon
his ability to satisfy the Government of the neutral.
nation of the flagrancy of the violation of neutrality
in the case, and of the war exigency under which he
acted. Every case of this kind will have to be decided
according to its circumstances. In attaching such
extreme importance to the necessity of adjudica-
tion before action " Historicus" takes a technical,