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

MAZZINf.

The Swiss .Government has prohibited Mazzini front
residing in any of the cantons—right in Lumber—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.

1111?. SUMNER AND 771 P, PROCLAMA7ION

OF NEUTRALITY.

(From the New Pork Nation.)

There is little doubt that Mr. Sumner's exposi-
tion before the Senate of the so-called " Alabama
claims" re..eives 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 farce,
happily superior to many of his recent speeches!.
The character of the au' ject appears to have re-
vived in the Senator's mind the effect of that juris-
tical training to whi3ll 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 him as to the extent of the
claims of tl:e United States may agree as to the
objPctionable form or character of the convention,
and its failure to correspond to the circumstances
on which those claims must be founded,
fdeudr„tehve vessels
and them limited to compensation
and cargoes actually destroyed by ships of the Ala-
, barna class. The English journals, in charging the
Americans with unreasonable dissatisfaction with
the proposals on the English sile, 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 bare 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 t
believe that this consent, with at least an implied
acknowledgment of 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
such and such a ship or ships dui 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 I with. The difference
between the recognition of the Confederates as
belligerents according to their actual military and
naval force, and the concession of bellig.Tency to
the Soutqtern States in their confederacy, so as to
give nationality to armed ships issuing out of a
neutral port, has not hitherto been made sitli-
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, 18611
as Mr. Sumner says :—" Close upon the outbreak
of our troubles, just one month after the bombard-
'tient of Fort Sumter, when the rebellion was still
undeveloped, when the national Government was
beginning those gigantic efforts which ended so
triumphantly, 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 j
and yet the concession was general,
being applic-
able to the ocean and the land, so that by British
fiat they became ocean belligerents as wellassla:d
belligerents. In - the swiftness of this bebestowal
y
power ; nor does it appear that the
there was very little considerationrefor wasa farnieyn d
in-
quiry
on
awhich it
fact,'
must
uat depend.-.into ths; s eo -conditionsan b u
and not a principle,' can recognized only on
begepLezydebnuti
the rule first:stated by Mr. Canning an
11 But no such evidence
evidence showing its actual existence, adcacoftredri%nvgantios
recognized by Earl gesso
.
fact,' and not a prin-
ciple.' was adduced ; for it did notnexutustt,beaniudidnuevpeurn hastite
existed. Too much stress ca
rule that belligerency is a
tion to this discussion ; and its „
It is perhaps the most
uruimportantiivairictaotnetmriehu:
ut
t,laeG
genius ever directed to this subjsct. According to
on enour to" itse author, t ;fo unquestionablyreek revolution, does ho-
the brightest
this rule belligerency must be proved to exist, itmas tbe 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 en the land. Unfriendly in the precipi-
tancywith which it was launched, this concession
was more unfriendly in substance. It was the first
stage in the depredations on our commerce. Had
it not been made no rebel ship Could have been built
in England. Every step in her building would have
been piracy. Nor could any munitions of war have
been furnished. The direct consequence of this
concession was to place the rebels on an equality
with ourselves in all British markets, whether of
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 'Concession 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 England, who, as_
ucourtdiitntghetoliatttlitulegenuttilc re,
ipainunEotaidu.dthtaotunr.liitil-
sie
against the United States would have been an act of
piracy. This eoneu-ion was clearly stated by Lord
Chelmsford, ex-Chancellor, speaking for himself and
others, when he said If the Southern Confede-
racy bad not been recognized as a belligerent power,
he agreed with his noble and learned friend (Lord
Brougham) chat, tinder these circumstances, if any
Englishmen were to fit out a privateer for the pur-
pose of assisting the Southern States against the
Northern States, he would be guilty of piracy.' This
conclusion is only according to analogies of law."
Exception may well be taken to many of then as-

sertions. Up to the time of the proclamatien any
American might have been a customer for ships or
Munitions of war in British ports. The Southerners
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 was possible, any per-
son, British or American, Northerner or Southerner,
might have gone on exporting ships and muni-
tions to Southern or Nerthern 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 perams eng aged
in piratical enterprises, or as subjects of Gm eat Bri-
tain engaged iu unlawful designs against our peace
and s ,fety, and, as such, coming wimhin the provi-
sions of the Foreign, Enli,tment Act. Mr. Sumner
insieunes, rat! Cr than affirms, that it was the duty_
of England to have taken this course throeghout
the rebellion. net this would not have ben to
ignore the rebellion. That was impos3ible. Unless
we assert that by the rules of international law eve, y
Government, in case of a rebellioe, is enti led to
r.csivc the commercial assistance of every friendly
power, without reference to the actual strength of
the rebellion, it must be admitted that the British
Government would have been justified at some time
or other in taking the position of neutrality. Mr.
Sunmer's argument is, that if this position of neu-
trality had not first been taken there woul I 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-
cumstance a 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. Summer'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 Al :barna,
could not of itself be a ground of international com-
plaint. Mr. Sumner says, " That England became
an ' arsenal' for the rebels we know, but this could
not have been unless the proclamation had ptepered
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 belligereney,•
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 claiai further that as this law now
exists, priv.mteers, 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 hrward becomes
applicable. The proclamation must be, bee muse 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 it cou'd make a privateer of a ship equipped iu
a neutral port. The American Government did not
accord this status to the Confederacy by proc'aim-
ing a blocked.: of Southern ports, because that was
a r.. cegui ion of belligerency only according to the
" fact." 2he 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
recogoiz al nation must hive, 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 erre I,
we suggest, in making the recognition of the Ala-
bama, as a lawful cruiser, the legal consequence of
th it recognition of a civil war which was in by
the British proclamation. According to th's rea-
soning, France is equally responsible with England
for time issuing of the Alabama. With the view we
here take, we can admit the cruisers sailing from a
Southern port and putting into English "mart:ours
were properly treated as belligerent ships, and not
piretes. '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 consideration. 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. 15 is from
insuAieiency of legal terms that we connect " belli-
gerency" with the Alabama. The ship, on the facts,
was in the femme category as if the English procla.
Illation bad never been 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-
aee, with England as naval base, from which she
drew munitions of war and men„ made her departure
as much a hostile expedition as if she hal 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 commer-
cial transaction, but au act of war." Mr. Sumner's
speech has the old ear-mark of the emancipationist.
Ho seems to think that England was bound, by
ancient anti-slavery tics, to render assistance against
the Confederacy. Southern secession was in the
interest of slavery, therefore, &c., says Mr. Sumner.
But if he really means to maintain that nations are
bound by time 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. We
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. 1% e would con-
fine our claims to the limits of fact and international
law ; the existence of a certain national feeling or
sympathy may have been an ulterior cause of greater
losses, but it cannot be made a basis of demands and
reparations.

• .
ATCHISON, Kansas, April 21.—One hundred and
fifty New Yorkers arrived at Waterloo on Sunday. They
design taking land in that vicinity, and are the advance
guard of 2,000 families wit, are making arrangements to
join them. A Danish coloay have purchased a large track
of Kickapeolawls' costing. $7•.000. They will be here this
week. Agents of other large colo!des are now out lac:at-
' ins lands. it is reported that an incorporated company of
Louis wen have purchased a site in this city, and wil
soon build a large hotel.--T, ibune.
The Atherican Soziety closed its financial
i year with The end of March. Its receipts from all sources
have been upwards of $731,000, biing the largest, with the
exception of one year, ever recorded.
LADvstrusEmsxr.l—llolloway's Ointment and Pills.—
Hopes and Fears.— What-ver he the ailment, let no one
de,p sir of meeting wait a cure till these searching and
purifying remedies have been fairly tried. A vast variety
of chronic complaints, which had baffled the most learn d
prescriptions, have readily been relieved by the co':joint
action of Holloway's curative agents. They act primarily
in discharging all deleterious dregs from the blood, and,
secondarily, in rectifying disordered conditions of the
secretions, caused by unknown or unavoidable impurities
existing in the air or iu the food, or resulting from late
hours or dissipated habits. Cutaue:ms diseases, so fre-
quently affiicting the scrofulous, consumptive and feeble,
yieldlwith surprising rapidity to tjAe 6teady use of mu°.
way'e unclicalucutr.