The Sun.
London, England, 1870-08-20 00:00:00

THE BROOKLYN NAVAL Y iRD.

It seems evident that another and more powerful effort
will be made at the next session of Congress to remove
the Brooklyn Navy Yard to some more eligible site. It
seems probable, moreover, that New London, with all its
liberal offers to the Government, will not be selected as
the site for the new yard. It seems that a close survey
of the place shows that the channelway is very narrow at
New London and along the greater part of the waterfront
further from the shore line than was supposed. Captain
Ammen, in his report to Secretary Robson in October,
1868, called attention to this fact, and pointed out the
necessity of having a survey, extending from just above
the town to at least one mile above the present proposed
site for the yard, so as to be able to select the point na-
turally the most advantageous and looking to the con-
struction of an extensive fresh water basin for iron dads.
But Ammen himself does not approve of New London as
a fit site, and in this view most of the naval authorities
concur. Some point on the Hudson, about sixteen or
twenty miles from the Battery, is regarded as more suit-
able in every way, and particularly with a view to defen-
sive purposes. The protection of the great city of New
York, it is argued, should be a main feature in consider-
ing the question of a site. Captain Ammen says on this
point in his report :—" The protection of the city of New
York is of paramount importance, and to that end in the
future the Navy Yard, as loeated, seems inadequate of suffi-
cient extension. In the present relation of vessels in de-
fence as against vessels attacking the city a material ad-
vantage would be obtained
by locating the navy yard so
that its defence would not be involved in that of the city,
but consist of inferior lines. The vessels employed to aid
in the actual defence of the city and within the harbour
would then be able to proceed to their work without em-
barrassment or delay, and would operate with entire as-
surance." Against the Brooklyn navy yard he urges the
following reasons :—" The location of the navy yard at
Brooklyn, New York, has long been considered unfortu-
nate. The water front available is quite limited, the
Wallabout Channel narrow and subject to extraordinary
deposits of dirt and washings in by sewers, so as to render
the continual use of dredging machines necessary at a
large annual cost, in order to maintain a required depth
of water. At this important station in the harbour of the
commercial metropolis of the nation there are always
numbers of vessels-of-war necessarily crowded together
and exposed to imminent danger from fire, the yard being
adjacent to buildings of various characters, among the
number a large gas house. The fact that a very large
tract of land has its natural drainage through the yard,
the rights of way for this drainage reserved for the city,
and the formation of the surrounding land such as to
render it impossible, except at an enormous expense to dis-
charge the contents of the public gewers outside the limits
of the yard, is now a grave injury. Vessels newly coppered
lying near the discharge of these sewers require almost
entire recoppering in a few months, caused by the action
of the acids from manufacturing establishments and other
chemical agents.—New York Herald.

THE NEW MEMBER FOR DUBLIN.—Sir Dominic
John Corrigan, of Cappagh and Inniscorrig, county of
Dublin, who was yesterday elected M.P. for the City of
Dublin in the Liberal interest, is a physician of great
eminence in Dublin. He was born on the Ist of December,
1802, graduated M.D. at the University of Edinburgh
in 1825, and at Dublin in 1849, and became a
member of the College of Surgeons (England), as far back
as 1843. He was appointed one of the members of the
Senate of the Queen's University in Ireland at its first
establishment in 1847, and was five times in succes-
sion elected President of the Royal College of Phy-
sicians in Ireland, an honour never before him
bestowed on any of its Fellows. He holds the
post of one of her Majesty's Physicians in Ordi-
nary in Ireland, and is the author of numerous contribu-
tions to leading medical journals. He was created a
baronet in February, 1866, in recognition not only of his
very high and distinguished professional position, but
also of his great and gratuitous services through many
years to the cause of health and education in his native
country. Sir Dominic's election is a gain for the Liberal
party.

'FREE S [IIPS, FREE GOODS."
It is generally supposed that the past history of
European countries shews distinct and consistent princi-
ples with reference to the treatment of neutral property by
belligerents, but the truth is that the exigencies of a great
war will overthrow almost any provisions in international
law : and whatever France or Prussia may have declared
in the past, their treatment of neutrals, within
certain fixed limits, will vary much, according to
their interests. The United States have always
been desirous of incorporatinc, into international
law the principle, " Free ships, free goods ; but her
Jdourts and her publicists have invariably decided that
it is not yet a rule of war. In the middle ages it was not
unfrequently the custom to comdemn neutral ships for
carrying an enemy's goods, on the broad ground that
all neutral trade could be declared unlawful by the
belligerents. As commerce increased, however, it
began to be considered lawful to carry an
enemy's goods, and place neutral goods in an
enemy's vessel, subject to a right of search,
and to the adjudication by the Courts of such as were
proved enemy's property. Still later, in the eighteenth
century, free ships often made free goods, and with this
principle followed the by no means necessary converse of
"hostile ships, hostile goods." After our revolution,
this country, with other smaller States, -strove
to make the rule recognized of " free ships "
free goods," but Great Brtain always thrust
every obstacle in the way. Since 1815, the in-
creasing influence of the commercial interest is
leading to the general adoption of this humane provision.
Our treaties, moreover, with France, the NetherlandS,
and Sweden make goods free in neutral ships, but leave
neutral goods in enemy's vessels subject to capture. On
the other hand, with Prussia, Spain, Russia, Mexico,
Brazil, and many other countries, we not only have
stipulated for free ships, free goods, have not declared
the right to take neutral goods from enemy's vessels.
The relation of this country to the Treaty of Paris is well
known. Though not a party to it, we made an effort to
become so in the beginning of our civil war, and thus to
make universal the principle that free ships shall make
goods free when not contraband of war. But this attempt
failed through Great Britain and France insisting on
grafting on the treaty an explanatory clause,
which our Government thought would be prejudi-
cial to their interests as against the rebels.
The French declaration of 1851 was an agreement
between France and England which became necessary in
the opening of the Crimean war, inasmuch as England
claimed the right to capture enemy's goods in neutral
vessels, and, France to capture neutral goods in enemy's
vessels. This treaty declared enemy's goods free us
neutral vessels, and• neutral goods in enemy's vessels ;
though Great Britain appended a proviso, that her pro-
per belligerent rights were waived temporarily in this
agreement. The principle here declared was reaffirmed
in the Treaty of Paris, and has -been adopted by nearly
all nations except the United States. What is the dis-
tinction between France accepting the declaration
of 1856 or that of 1854 is not clear. Both
recognise distinctly the doctrine of " free ships,
free goods," unless the latter be contraband of
war. Whether the commerce of the United States
shall enjoy the benefits of this enlightened pro-
vision will depend entirely upon the belligerents,
as we • are not a party to the compact. In fact,
in a similar treaty with Spain, this Government distinctly
excepted such neutrals as do not acknowledge the prin-
ciple. If the new rule, however, be recognized by France
in regard to our shipping, we must remember that ships
will none the less be exposed to detention and annoying
search. The French cruisers, of course, must ascertain
whether the alleged neutral vessel is really one ; and
examine letters and papers with reference to this, and also
as to the destination of the cargo. Then the question
must also be determined how far the cargo is contraband,
and whether it may be bound for an enemy's port. All
this will often,be vexatious to our merchantmen, and may
cause damage to our commerce, but it cannot be avoided
until the law of contraband be changed, and neutrals be
exempted from annoying search and detention by belli-
gerents. We can only hope that moderation on the one
side, and a proper understanding of the law on the other,
will prevent all unpleasant collisions.