The Sun.
London, England, 1869-05-13 00:00:00

MAZZINI.

The Swiss Government has prohibited 3lazzini from
residing in any of the cantons—eight in number—which
border upon France or Italy. If he choose to continue
his residence in Switzerland he must remove from the
frontier provinces. The Government of Berne has
ordered all the Italian deserters, of whom a great
number have taken refuge in Switzerland, to remove
from the two cantons which adjoin Italy. The Indepen-
dance Beige says that no representations on this subject
have been made by the Italian Ministry. The Swiss
authorities have of their own accord taken the measures
which they deemed essential to the proper fulfilment of
international obligations. Of course the Milan conspiracy
is the cause of this interference.

MR. SUMNER AND THE PROCLA MA7I(O

OF NEUTRALITY.

(From the New York Nation.)

There is little doubt that Mr. Sumner's exposi-
tion before the Senate of the so-called " Alabama
claims" receives the approval of a great majority of
the people of the Northern States, including many
who have no sympathy with his favourite ideas,
and who generally skip his classical allusions with
some contempt and more impatience. His argu-
ment was, in closeness, directness, and legal force,
happily superior to many of his recent speeches.
The character of the su'.ject appears to have re-
vived in the Senator's mind the effect of that juris-
tical training to which it was subjected in earlier
days. In rejecting the Johnson and Clarendon
convention it is clear that the Senate has acted in
• accordance with the general sentiment of the coun-
try. It was very desirable to have some generally
received statement of the foundation of that senti-
ment, and it is likely that Mr. Sumner's argument
will stand as such, at least for the present. Even
those who differ from Lim as to the extent of the
claims of the United States may agree as to the
objectionable form or character of the convention,
and its failure to correspond to the circumstances
on which those claims must be foutyla, even sup-
posing them limited to compensation for the vessels
and cargoes actually destroyed by ships of the Ala..
bama class. The English journals, in charging the
Americans with unreasonable dissatisfaction with
the proposals on the English side, have often repre-
sented these proposals as including a positive con-
sent on the part of England to make such compen-
sation. From the confessions which have been
publicly made in England during the last four
years, and the compliments which Mr. Johnson's
appearance at British feasts as our representative
has elicited, the American public had been led to
believe tbat this consent, with at least an implied
acknowledgtnentof something very like wrong doing
on the part of the British Government, was virtu-
ally given. They do not look upon the offer of an
opportunity to refer the question of payment for i
such and such a ship or ships and cargo to some
accidental arbiter, on the same footing as any
private claims which may be brought forward
on the other side, as being a fulfilment of ex-
pectations hitherto entertained. There is a gene-
ral feeling that in this respect the national
sentiment has been trifle:l with. The difference
between the recognition of the Confederates as
belligerents according to their actual military and
naval force, and the concession of belligerency to
the Southern States in their confederacy, so as to I
give nationality to armed shits i-:suing out of
.a
neutral port, has not hitherto been made s.ifh-
ciently prominent in this discussion. Mr. Sumner's
argument is good for its statement at least, if not

for its application; of this distinction, which we are
inclined to regard as giving the key to the contro-
versy about the " Alabama claims," so far as it
involves a question of strict international law. But
we are by no means confident that in this contro-
versy our Government should insist that this dis-
tinction was overlooked by Great Britain in taking
international cognizance of the rebellion by the
Queen's proclamation of neutrality May 31, 1861 ;
as Mr. Sumner says :—" Close upon the outbreak
of our troubles, just one month after the bombard-
ment of Fort Sumter, when the rebellion was still
undeveloped, when the national Government was
beginning those gigantic efforts which ended so
tritrnphantly, the country was startled by the news
that the British Government had intervened by a
proclamation, which accorded belligerent rights to
the rebels. At the early date when this was done
the rebels were, as they remained to the close, with-
out ships on the ocean, without prize courts or other
tribunals for the administration of justice on the
ocean, without any of those conditions which are
the essential pre-requisites to such a concession ;
and yet the concession Was general, being af.plic-
able to the ocean and the land, so that by British
fiat they became ocean belligerents as well as _land
belligerents. In the swiftness of this bestowal
there was very little consideration for a friendly
power ; nor doeiit appear that there was any in-
quiry into those conditions precedent on which it
must depend. Ocean belligerency being a fact,'
and not a principle,' can be recognized only on
evidence sholving its actual existence, according to
the rule first stated by Mr. Canning and afterwards
w
recognized by Earl Ressell. But no such evidence
adduced ; for it did not exist, and never has
existed. Too much stress cannot be laid upon the
rule that belligerency is a fact,' and not a prin-
ciple.' It is perhaps the most important contribu-
tion to this discussion ; and its original statement,
on the occasion of the Greek revolutiog; does ho-
nour to its author, unquestionably the brightest
genius ever directed to this subject. According to
this rule belligerency must be proved to exist, it
must be shown. It cannot be imagined or divined, or
invented ; it must exist as a ' fact' within the know-
ledge of the world, or as a 'fact' susceptible of proof.
Nor can it be inferred on the ocean merely frOm its
existence on the land. Unfriendly in the precipi-
tancy with which it was launched, this concession
was more unfriendly in substance. It was the first
a
stage in the depredations on our commerce. Had
it not been made no rebel ship could have been built
ibneeEnnpgilraanedy.. ENvenrryesatuelpd in her
building would r
have have
munitions of w
been furnished. The direct consequence of this
ui or
snelwvaess
itno
aplace
itthi
seh rebels
eotsn,
an equal
whetherequality
wcointhcesos
ships or munitions of war. As these were open to
the National Government, so were they open to the
rebels. The asserted neutrality between the two
began by this tremendous conce • sston when rebels,
at one stroke, were transformed not only into belli-
gerents, but into customers. In
attributing
to that
bad proclamation this peculiar influence, I follow
the authority of the law lords of 11,' 1 ng and, who, ac-
cording to authentic report, announced that with-
out it the fitting out of a ship in England
to cruise
against the United States would have been an act of
piracy. This conclusion was clearly stated by Lord
Chelmsford, ex-Chancellor, speaking for himself and
others, when he 'said If the Southern Confede-
racy had not been recognized as a belligerent power,
he agreed with his noble and learned f • 'send (Lord
Brougham) chat, under these circumst • ances, if any
Englishmen were to tit out a privateer for the pur-
pose of assisting the Southern States against the
Northern States, he would be guilty ofpiracy.'
This
conclusion is only according to analogies of law."
raclt494 11A7 IA 1404 tO 81411: oftlm es- .

scrtions. Up to the time of the proclamation any
American might have been a customer for ships or
munitions of war in British ports. The S nailer ners
had been buying in preparation for the war, and if
no notice whatever had been taken by the British
Government of the existence of a rebellion, as Mr.
Sumner appears to intimate 'vas possible, any per-
son, British or American, Northerner or Southerner,
might have gone on exporting ships and muni-
tions to Southern or Northern States, provided
he took them as articles of commerce and not in
a ship under a new flag, not known in com-
merce or hostile to the United States. Of course
our consuls must soon have begun to refuse the
necessary papers, and our Minister would have
begun to call for the arrest of the parties engaged
in the commerce with the South, as persons engaged
in piratical enterprises, or as subjects of Great Bri-
tain engaged in unlawful designs against our peace
and safety, and, as such, coming within the provi-
sions of the Foreign Enlistment Act. Mr. Sumner
insinuates, ratter than affirms, that it was the duty
of England to have taken this course throughout
the rebel lion. But this woul 1 not b ave ben to
ignore the rebellion. That was impossible. Unless
we assert that by the rules of international law every
Government, in case of a rebellion, is entitled to
receive the commercial assistance of every friendly
pot; er, without reference to the actual strength of
the rebellion, it must be admitted that the British
Government would have been justified at some time
er other in taking the position of neutrality. Mr.
Sumner's argument is, that if this position of neu-
trality had not first been taken there would have
been no such belligerency in fact as could justify
this position on the part of any foreign power. On
this point, which we cannot now properly consider,
we may be obliged to differ from the prevailing opi-
nion. We have recently said that there were cir-
cumstances attending the proclamation of neutt ality
and the progress of the rebellion which have made
the question between the two countries one of feel-
ing, and we really concede the force of Mr. Sumner's
exposition of the reasons for the feeling on the Ame-
rican side. But it must, we think, be admitted on
the part of the United States, if we propose to ne-
gociate at all, that the proclamation of neutrality,
at some time before the issuing of the Alabama,
could not of itself be a ground of international com-
plaint. Mr. Sumner says, " That Engl tad became
an arsenal' for the rebels we know, but this could
not have been unless the proclamation had prepared
the way." But it was the violation of the procla-
mation and of English laws that made England an
arsenal for the rebels. The effect of the proclama-
tion was to close " the markets of ships and muni-
tions," not to " open" them, as Mr. Sumner states
it, to the two " contending parties," as the procla-
mation styles them. The concession of belligerency,
if it may be called by that name, which violated
the principle laid down by Mr. Sumner, was not
made by this proclamation. It is now urged by
the English jurists that a violation of the munici-
pal laws can be no grievance to another nation,
unless the act itself is also contrary to international
law. They claim further that as this law now
exists, privateers, or armed cruisers in the service of
a foreign state, may lawfully issue out from neutral
ports. Now it is here, we think, that the principle
which Mr. Sumner has brought fcrwatst becomes
applicable. The proclamation must be, because it
can be, interpreted as recognizing belligerency ac-
Cording to the fact. The point we would make,
and which Mr. Sumner states elsewhere in his
speech, is, that the Confederacy had no such status
that is cou'd make a privateer of a ship equipped in
a netitral port. The American Government did not
accord this status to the Confederacy by proclaim-
ing a blockade of Southern ports, because that was
a r: cognition of belligerency only according to the
" fact." Ihe United States had that status, and
might, as the law of privateers now is, have sent out
such a cruiser. This is a superiority which every
recognizsd nation must have, if there are to be such
things as recognized nations. Mr. Sumner argues
as if a proclamation of neutrality between the two
" contending parties' on the part of England could
give the Southern Confederacy this status. Of
course it may be that in the minds of Mr. Laird
and the British public, the proclamation was taken
to have this effect. But that is not our affair. Mr.
Sumner, and Mr. Seward before him, have erred,
we suggest, in making the recognition of the Ala-
bama, as a lawful cruiser, the legal consequence of
that recognition of a civil war which was. made by
the British proclamation. According to this rea-
soning, France is equally responsible with England
for the issuing of the Alabama. With the view we
here take, we can admit the cruisers sailing from a
Southern port and putting into English harbours
were properly treated as belligerent ships, and not
pirates. We can even admit that, had the Alabama
been run out to a Southern port as a mere article
of commerce, though in violation of English muni-
cipal laws, and had thence sailed as a cruiser, she
might have been entitled to like csnsideration. The
ship once identified, in fact, with the Confederate
force, would admit of belligerent recognition to the
extent of the fact. But, on the other hand, there
could be no recognition of the belligerency of the
Confederacy by land and sea as a " principle,"
which should apply to an armed ship issued out of a
neutral port, least of all by the neutral from whose
ports and against whose law shehad issued. Isis from
insufficiency of legal terms that we connect " belli-
gerency" with the Alabama. The ship, on the facts,
was in the same category as if the English procla-
mation had never teen issued, and no " contending,
parties" had been recognised by the English Govern-
ment. Mr. Sumner says, with justice, " The dedi-
cation of the ship to the rebel service, from the very
laying of the keel and the organisation of
her voy-
age, with England as naval base, froth which she
drew munitions of war and men, made her departure
as much a hostile expedition as if she had sailed forth
from her Majesty's dockyard. At a moment of
profound peace between the United States and
England there was a hostile expedition against the
United States. It was in no just sense a conamer-
cisl transaction, but an act of war." Mr. Sumner's
speech has the old ear-mark of the emancipationist.
lie seems to think that England was bound, by
ancient anti-slavery ties, to render assistance against
the Confederacy. Southern secession was is the

interest of slavery, therefore, &c., says Mr. Sumner.
But if he really means to maintain that nations are
bound by the professions of their public men, who
is to answer for Messrs. Banks and Chandler ?
'While._ generally agreeing with Mr. Sumner in
his argument for the rejection of the Johnson
and Clarendon Convention, we cannot wish that
it should be a foundation for future negotiation.
It was understood that Mr. Seward had abandoned
the position that the " Alabama claims" are founded
on the proclamation of neutrality, and we hope that
the present Administration will not return to it. 11'c
agree with Mr. Sumner, that we are entitled to a
convention, giving reparation on the ground that a
principle of international law has been violated on

• --- -- •------- the part of England; and if it is clear that that has

occurred, the acknowledgment is perfectly consistent
with national honour and dignity. A% e would con-
fine our claims to the limits of fact and international

; the existence of a certain national feeling or

sympathy may have been an ulterior cause of greater
!oases, but it cannot be made a basis of demant and

reparations.

ATCHISON, Kansas, April 21.—One hundred and
fiftrNew Yorkers arrived at Waterloo on Sunday. They
design taking laud in that vicinity, and are the advance
guard of 2,000 families who are making arrangements to
join them. A Danish colony have purchased a large track
of Kickapoolawls' costing s7;),Oaft. They will be here this
week. Agents of other large colonies are now out locat-
ing lands. it is reported that an incorporated company of
St. Louis men have purchased a site in this city, and wil
soon build a large hotel.—Tribuite.
The American Biole Society closed its financial
year with the end of March. Its receipts from all sources
have been upwards of $731,000, being the largest, with the
exception of ono year, ever recorded.
ADVERTISEMENT. I —ll,Aloway's Ointment and Pills.—
Hopes and Feare.—Wbatever be the ailment, let no one
despair of meeting with a cure till these searching and
purifying remedies have been fairly tried. A vast variety
of chronic complaints, which bad baffled the most learn. d
prescriptions, have readily been relieved by the conjoint
action of Holloway's curatife agents. They-act primarily
in discharging all deleterious dregs from the.blood, and,
secondarily, in rectifying disordered conditiona of the
secretions, caused by unknown nr unavoidable impurities
existing in the air or in the food, or resulting from late
bourn or dissipated habits. Cutaneous diseases, so fre-
quently afflicting the scrofulous, consumptive and feeble,
yieldiwith surprising rapidity to the steady uo.of Uollo-
wv'a