The Sun.
London, England, 1866-02-24 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TIMES.—As long as maritime nations make war
there will be questions concerning neutrality at sea.
The sea can be traversed for such various purposes,
warlike and peaceful—there is such small original
difference between the swifter class of merchant
vessels and vessels of war—it is so hard to draw the
line between weapons and munitions of war, the ex-
portation of which, according to our present code
of practice, no State is bound to prevent, and ves-
sels which may afterwards be armed with those very
weapons and stores,—that we may fairly expect
neutrals to be always overstepping the bounds which
belligerents are disposed to allow them. Last night
the House of Commons was led by Mr. Labouchere
into a discussion of this important question. Every
one can feel that there is something wrong, and can
in a rough way point out the distinction between a
ship and a case of rifles or a barrel of powder—
that the one gives standing room to the combatant,
and may therefore be considered as an ad
addition to
the territory of the belligerent to whom it is fur-
nished, while the arms and ammunition must be
delivered at the ports or to the cruisers of the
belligerent before they can be used for any hostile
purpose. But for the amendment of the law recourse
must be had to lawyers, who are likely to consider
more fully than laymen the distinctions which
can be made and the regulations which can be
enforced. Hr. Labouchere was therefore perfectly
right in confining his speech to the easy task of
pointing out the deficiencies for the existing law,
without venturing to bring forward a more per-
fect measure. He declares with truth that the
statute is so framed as to invite evasion, and that
it involves such questions as " What is fitting out?"
and " What are vessels of war ?" Those diffi-
culties which divided the Court of Exchequer will,
we may presume, remain until they are removed
by some astute and subtle provisions in a new
Act
of Parliament. To frame such an Act is beyond
the power of all but the most practised minds.
We, however, agree with Mr. Labouchere that the
time has come when the Act of George 111. and
the statutes. or decisions which guide the Govern-
ment its conduct towards belligerents ought to be
examined and revised. We are now in a time of
comparative quiet. True, Peru has joined Chili in
a war against Spain, and the two republics being,
like the Confederate States, deficient in naval force,
are likely to have recourse to foreign building yards.
The Queen has issued her proclamation as at the
beginning of the American Civil War, and it may
be that the Government will have to look closely
after a steamer or two if the war lasts. But no one
can suppose that the anger or remonstrances of
Spain are likely to make England swerve from the
path which she may consider just. We may, then,
without the slightest fear of misrepresentation, re-
view the law which at present governs neutral
duties. That law is at present so doubtful that
the judges of the court before which the case of the
Alexandra was brought differed in opinion, and the
ultimate decision, attained only by the withdrawal
of the judgment of the junior Baron, was opposed
to the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown.
Of course the judgments did not denote any great
divergence in principle among the judges, but arose
from differences of opinion as to the construction of
an ill-conceived and ill-worded act of Parliament.
The opinion of the judges, like those of men of
sense throughout the country, would no doubt be
that though it is difficult to draw the line between
ships and other implements of war, it is necessary to
draw it, and that the distinction must be expressed
in plain and intelligible language before the country
can be said to have a safe neutrality law. Probably
a very few sections added to the present act would
accomplish all that is required, but they must be well
adapted to the purpose, and must probably confer on
the Government greater powers of eliciting informa-
tion beforehand and of punishing manifest fraud after-
wards. It must be made clear that the Government has
a right to inquire into the destination of suspicious
craft, and to detain them if they seem likely to be
used against a friendly Power. The sale of ready-
built ships to persons who, within the knowledge of
the seller, are about to use them as vessels of war
against a friendly Power might be made punishable,
and, a fortiori, the building and sending forth of
vessels to receive their armaments at sea or in a
foreign port. When that is done, all will, we think,
have been done which a free country can accom-
plish or demand. We cannot believe that the de-
struction of merchant vessels by cruisers which have
escaped from neutral ports, or have been fitted up
in them, can ever be wholly prevented. Not only
the United States and Spain, but England and
France, if ever they go to war, must to a certain
extent suffer from such evasions of the law. The

only complete remedy would be to make the property
of merchants at sea inviolable, a measure which is
little likely to be assented to either by the nations
which possess large navies or those which can equip
swift privateers. While it must be admitted that
our own law leaves room for improvement, we have
no desire to join Mr. Labouchere and one or two
enthusiasts in their opinions of the superiority of
the American Act. Nothing could be better timed
than the speech of the Attorney-General on this
subject. He informed the House that at the be-
ginning of the American Civil War the British Go-
vernment made a proposal to that of Washington
for a common revision of their Foreign Enlistment
Acts. This was declined by the American Govern-
ment, which held that its own act was sufficient for
all purposes whatever. In the opinion of the At-
torney-General the American act is no more perfect
than our own, and whatever difficulties have beset
the British Government would equally affect the
American authorities if they wished to enforce their
neutrality. Every one will join in the desire expressed
by the Attorney-General that the American Govern-
ment may be disposed to unite with this country in
establishing a stricter and more efficient system. It
may be that, as Americans feel the same difficulties
as ourselves in dealing with those who sympa-
thise with Peru and Chili in their resistance to
Spain, they will now be less unwilling to agree upon
some code of neutrality which may become a stan-
dard and example to other nations. The British
Government has the better right to entertain this
expectation since the American Government must
by this time be convinced that the accusations so
freely brought against this country with respect to
the Confederate cruisers during the war are without
foundation. The last despatch of Lord Clarendon,
dated the 2d of December last, sums up the discus-
sion between the two nations in terms which admit
of no reply. He states with perfect accuracy that
" no armed vessel departed during the war from a
British port to cruise against the commerce of the
United States," and that all through the late civil
war " the British Government have steadily and
honestly discharged all the duties incumbent on
them as a neutral Power." This declaration was
substantially repeated by the Attorney-General last
night. In truth, the only vessel for the escape of
which the Government is in the smallest degree re-
sponsible is 'the Alabama, and, as is well known,
that vessel got out unarmed, without the knowledge
and against the will of the Government. The
Alexandra and the two rams were seized, the Shen-
andoah was bought from under our flag and equipped
beyond our jurisdiction. Yet, if th events of the
war have shown the weakness of the present neu-
trality laws, there will be no objection on either
side of the house to amend them. We cannot, how-
ever, suppose that in a free country the machina-
tions of partisans can ever be entirely provided
against. The liberty which Fenianism enjoys in
the States shows how little American institutions
are able to protect the interests of foreign nations.
We care little because we are able to take care of
ourselves ; but, if we were not, Ireland and Canada
might be revolutionised by armies raised, armed,
and officered in the United States in spite of United
States' laws. What damage done by the escape of
a single steamer can be compared with the miseries
which might be inflicted on the United Kingdom by
a treasonable conspiracy openly carried on in every
chief town of the Union ? The law of the United
States is, we believe, powerless to prevent such
measures, and we approve the discretion of our
Government in refraining from protests against
them ; but it is too much to claim for American law
a superiority to our own, when it is unable to pre-
vent proceedings so manifestly contrary to the
comity of friendly nations.

" THE ANGLO-AMERICAN TIMES" ON THE SOUTH-
ERN STATES.—The new Governor of the State of
Alabama uses the following language in his Mes-
sage :—" Very gratifying information has reached
this department from different parts of the State in
relation to the disposition of the freedmen. Every-
where they seem to be entering into contracts for
the present year, and cheerfully and faithfully en-
tering upon the discharge of the obligations con-
tracted. This strengthens the opinion which I
have heretofore entertained that the common
law rule in reference to contracts is amply suffi-
cient for the mutual rights and obligations of
whites and freedmen. The evidence, I think, is
already sufficient to prove that we have more to
hope for from that simple common law rule than
is likely to be accomplished by special or class
legislation. Surely no good law-abiding citizen
will desire laws for the government of the intelli-
gent negro which he himself is not willing to abide
by. No good to the country can result from
having one code of laws for the whites and
another for the blacks in their new relation, so
far as concerns the rights of persons and property."
That is excellent testimony in favour of the
coloured men. It is also very wise in the Governor
to discourage class legislation. We know that it
must be very difficult for the Southerners to rise
at once above all their old customs, laws, and pre-
judices, so as to appreciate the full result of the
emancipation of the slave. It is hard for them
to feel that he is now in truth a free man, entitled
to all the immunities, privileges, and rights of a
citizen of the Republic. It is impossible for some
of them to comprehend that he does not require
special supervision and special punishments—a
whole code, in fact, specially for him. Such a code
was necessary, when slavery existed. But it was
needed, not because the slave was a black man, but
just because he was a slave. The moment he
ceased to be a slave, the demand for that special
legislation ended, except in so far as it was neces-
sary to guard him against the oppression of the
whites. The Southern legislators have been puz-
zling their brains to know what laws they ought
to pass to subserve the best interests of the two
races. They framed codes with the greatest labour
and ingenuity, overlooking the fact that the simplest
solution of the problem consisted in having little or
no special legislation. Governor Patton, of Ala-
bama, sees that this is true with respect to persons
and property, and thus shows that he takes a states-
manlike view of the real wants of his State and of
the South. We believe that the other Southern States
will also come to take this view. They certainly have
been far enough from it. South Carolina has a
code which is highly objectionable. Virginia has
on her statute-book a vagrant law which may be
made a slave law, and which General Terry has
been constrained to override with military power.
It defines as a vagrant a man out of employment,
and remands such an one to virtual slavery. We
are glad to see, as we have before announced, that
a repeal of the black codes is proposed and warmly
advocated in the Virginia Legislature. Slowly, but
surely, we believe, the legislation of the South will
be modified until it shall be in substantial harmony
with the ideas which Governor Patton has enunciated
in his Message. Semmes, the pirate captain of the
Alabama, informs the President of the United
States, in a letter, that since he has given up sea
robbery and arsoh, and also the anomalous horse
marine position which he held toward the end of
the war, in the land service of the rebels, he had
become " an officer of the law," having established
himself "as an attorney." For want of other
clients he has undertaken his own cause, and be
favours President Johnson with a legal argument
to prove that he has been unjustly arrested, and
ought to be set free at once, to go back again to
North Carolina and practise law once more.
The strong point of the argument of Semmes
in his own behalf is, that he was an officer of
General Johnston's army at the time of the sur-
render; that he gave his parole " not to take up
arms against the Government of the United
States until properly released from the obliga-
tion." Having done so, he insists that he was per-
mitted to return to his home, " not to be disturbed
by the United States as long as he observed :his
obligation and the laws in force where he resided."
Now as Semmes was not arrested for anything done
in a military capacity, but for a violation of his
formal surrender as a naval officer, the weak point
of his case is that there is no intention to break
the agreement entered into between Sherman :and
Johnston. The United States, in the case of Wirz,
assumed the position that the parole would release
all soldiers who had acted during the Rebellion in
a military capacity, according to the laws of war, but
not for acts which were contrary to those laws, as
they are observed among civilised nations. Wirz
having starved and murdered Union prisoners of
war was convicted of that offence, notwithstanding
his parole, and he was very justly executed.°
General Mercer, who was recently arrested at Sa-
vannah, and tried upon an allegation that
he had hung Union prisoners, was acquitted,
because there was no evidence against him.
He claimed the benefit of the parole also, but
the latter was adjudged not to be a shield.
Semmes is charged with a breach of the laws of
war long before he became in any way connected
with the rebel army. It is declared by the United
States that he could not legally become an officer of
that army, and was bound all the time after his
surrender near Cherbourg to render himself up as a
prisoner. In other words, he had no right to go
into the rebel army, and the parole only applies to
military officers and soldiers commissioned and
enlisted for the land service and under no previous
disability. He has forfeited his honour, and if he
can take advantage of the accident of his afterwards
getting into the land service, then the parole is an
extinguisher of all crime for which the parties who
nianaged to participate in the parole ought to be
answerable. The argument of lawyer pirate Semmes,
therefore, amounts to nothing, and the President
will not regard it. Many of the acts of Semmes on
shipboard were against the laws of nations, even
allowing that he can plead successfully that his
vessel was a regular cruiser.