The Sun.
London, England, 1870-10-11 00:00:00

AMERICAN VIEWS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.

The New York Times says that Earl Russell takes
the same position on international law which was
originally taken by Washington, expounded in
the Neutrality Act of 1794, and amplified in the
Amended Act of 1818. The legislation of Washing-
ton and Hamilton, adopted
.by Congress, was copied
in most of its features by the British Administration,
in the famous Foreign Enlistment Act of 1819, of
which, says the New York Tinzes, America had such un-
fortunate experience during the rebellion. "The very
articles in our own Acts, which were omitted in
the British, would have saved all the trouble
which we had from British interference in our civil
war." Had the legislation of Washington, which
Earl Russell now praises so highly, been followed
exactly in the British Acts or by Earl Russell him-
self, no Alabama would have escaped from British
ports. After saying thus much, however, the New
York Times goes on to express its opinion that the
Prussian claims would not be supported by any
portion of the American legislation. It might be a
desirable change in international law if neutrals were
forbidden to sell any material of war to either belli-
gerent. Common sense teaches that war
ought not to be supported by the' aid
of neutrals. Were it the custom of nations
to forbid the export of arms as private merchanclize
•from a neutral port to a belligerent, and were this
international law, Great Britain would be obliged to
execute it towards Prussia, But it is not law, and
never has been, whatever it ought to be. The
purely mercantile, or private sale of arms or material
of war, by the traders of a neutral to the individual
subjects of a belligerent, has never been forbidden.
" According to international usage, any English mer-
chant might now build and arm a vessel and oiler
her tor sale in Liverpool to the French. He might
send her out as a commercial venture with regular
papers to Havre filled with rifles and cannon, and
sell her there w,thouL violating any neutrality legis-
lation or any previ(ms custom existing between
nations." This is at least a concession on the part of
a New York journal.
THE ARREST OF DR. JAcony.

The Daily News, usually so favourable to Prussia,
pronounces the arrest of Dr. Jacoby to be a blue
and can scarcely believe that a statesman so observant
and sensitive to public opinion as Bismarck is, could
have authorised such a very arbitrary and unwise
proceeding. Whatever line neutrals may draw be,
.tween the right of Prussia to annex Alsace and
Lorraine, and the expediency of doing so, there can
be no doubt, says the .Daily News, that the German
feeling on the point is singularly unanimous,
and this unanimity would be all the more clearly
shown by allowing free expression to dissent. It is
a bad argument in favour of freedom of discussion
to say it will be useless; but it might appeal to
King William's prudence. General von Falkenstein
is a capital officer for keeping a newly-acquired
province in military subjection, but no worse political
agent could be found. Prussia has given the world
full proof of her military power, and should be care-

ful to avoid the appearance of political absolutism at
home. Count 13ismarck has been landed in a diffi-
culty by an officious old martinet, who probably
regards democracy, freedom of speech, and anarchy,
as convertible terms. The General has re-
scinded his prohibition against democratic meetings,
though he relies on the police to inform him of any
proposals which "may embolden France to oppose
accepting conditions of peace." As France is not
likely to be much encouraged by the German
Democrats, General von Falkenstein may set his
mind at rest; but the Daily News confidently ex-
pects that Bismarck, who is fully aware that the
future of Alsace and Lorraine will not be much
affected by the utterances of Dr. Jacoby, will see the
policy of replying to the imprisoned deputy's appeal
by an order for his release.

CARDINAL CULLEN ON THR OCCUPATION OF ROME.

Cardinal Cullen has addressed a long pastoral to
his clergy, the subject matter being the recent
events which have transpired in Italy. He is mourn-
fully eloquent on the annexation of Rome,
which he denounces in unmeasured terms
as an act of impious audacity, prompted
by infidelity. In the whole history of the
Church there can scarcely be found any other out-
rage upon sanctity and religion so audacious, so
opposed to humane and divine right, or so sacreli-
gious as the mystery of iniquity, which has just been
accomplished in Rome. The Cardinal thus sums up
the situation : "In fine, a just Prince, loved and
respected by his subjects, a Prince who had never
been led astray by ambition or a desire of despoiling
others, but vr ho had constantly protested against every
injustice and violence, has been publicly robbed of
all his possessions, under the hypocritical pretext of
promoting liberal views and the interests of
nationality—a pretext which will merely serve as a
cloak for the robbery of a city in which treasures of
antiquity, of art, of religion, have been accumulated
by the wisdom of the Holy See, and for the oppres-
sion of a people who enjoyed great liberty under the
Pope, and were more lightly taxed than the subjects
of any other Power in Europe."

611- Ta-
-11 °t tin t

HER MAJESTY.

BALMORAL, OCT. 8.
The Queen drove out in the morning, attended by the
Marchioness of Ely.

In the afternoon her Majesty walked and drove out
with Princess Louise and Princess Beatrice.
The Lord Chancelsor had the honour of dining with
the Queen and the Royal Family.