New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1850-12-31


many useless conventions, have taken itnto their
heads to make general one in favor OF mercy
and pity"
The Mexican Board of Commissioners, Again.
To the Editor Of The Tribune
In the case adverted to in Fridays Tribune,
the Commissioners decided that the property Of
an American merchant resident in a foreign
country for the purpose of trade was in case of
war subject to be treated as enemy's property.
A doctrine like this if it is to be considered as
exposition Of the policy of our Government in
respect to it's citizens residing abroad cannot fail
to strike every one with surprise and alarm. But
as has been already suggested, the Commissioners
have fallen into an error by confounding the rule
in relation to neutral property taken at sea or
upon lond. In the former case there is practice
prevailing, even among civilized nations, author.
zing the capture of neutral property coming
from q beligerent port, upon the nterneclne
principle that it is lawful utterly to destroy the
commerce of the enemy Yet this rule is not
without limitation, even in respect to property
taken at sea.
In the greatcase of the Danish merchants whose
property was taken on voyage from Batavia to
Copenhagen, England being at that time at war
with Holland, the prize court III England held
+ that the property subject to condemnation on
the ground that an agreement had been entered
into by the Danish merchants with the Dutch
East India Company whereby the exclusive
privileges of the latter had been transferred to
the former. The object OF the agreement was
quite apparent viz to carry trade through
third party which could not be carried on by the
Dutch themselves. But the opinion OF Sir Will
liam Scott is very clearly indicated that the
property would not have been condemned had it
! been the ordinary case OF trading by neutral,
without special circumstances showing con-
nivance with the enemy.
But whatever may be the rule in respect TO
property captured at sea, nothing ID better settled
than that neutral property on laRd IS to be dstln-
guished from the property OF the enemy. IN
! dertake to say that respectable authority can
/ be found which conflicts with this propositions
/ And the principle involved is ore OF sufficient I'M
! portance to us as a commercial nation TO justify
! it's assertion by our Government, even II resort
to arms should become necessary to enforce the
! observance of it BY other uations with whom we
/ have commercial intercourse.
The Commissioners appear to suppose that
4 having determined that neutral property IS 70 be
4 put upon the same footing with the properly OF
/ the enemy it follows thrt there can be no claim
/ to be UNIDENTIFIED for its destruction-in other
words that by the laws Of war private property
is subject 10 plumber and conscaton at the arb-
/ trary will OF the belligerents. The case decided
/ by them is as strong as any that could well occur
to test the question Ii was the OF foreign res
/ identp eaceably attending to bis private business
and taking no part whatever in the hostile proceed
! ingg. If an exemption could not be claimed in
I such case, then there can be n0Re and 1t would
| be more proper to say that there are no laws OF
war except the fierce and sanguinary passions Of
] men.
should like to know what code of laws, or
authority from the usages of nations, or opinions
of writers on international laws the Commis
sioners have met with to justify principle SO
abhoreIt to humanity and the natural sense Of
civilized men. The history Of Modern Europe
furnishes no precedent. We must go back to the
ruthless warfare of the Huns and andals. Il III
this enlightened country such opinions can be
i grayely maintained, even by tribunal vested
with high judicial authority, need not be sur
pnsed if in future conflicts OF nations the humane
! principles which have been gradually introduced
among Christian nations should be trampled upon
and wars be conducted after the example OF At
tile and Genserc.
/ But let us see what is said by enlightened
/ Jurists of the present day. The general usage
now IS says Kent not to touch private property
/ upon lGnd without making compensation unless In
special cases dictated By the necessary operations
t OF waro when captured inpaces carried by storm
and which repealed all oyertures for captulatlon
--Kent'S Com. 90.
Wheaton states the practice thus Private
property land is exempt from cOnfscatlon with
the exception OF such as may become 60OtY in
special cases when taken from enemies in the field
or in besieged towns and of military contributions
levied upon the inhabitants of hostile country
This exemption extends even to the case OF an
absolute and unqualified conquest of the enemy
country. = IVheatOu'S Inter. Lam, 1875.
II not subject to conhscaton neither can it be
to destruction by military power 1t has been
settled III our Courts that the existence OF war is
not ground Of proceeding iudicialy for the con-
domination OF private property belonging to the
enemy, Brownies The I. States.-S. CrGncd, no.
pom the same principle neither can it be sub
ject to lawless plumber by military force.
1t will be in the recollection Of every one ac-
qualAted with the history OF our last war with
Great Britain, what indignant remonstrances
were made by our Government agaist the devasta-
ton committed by the British troops in the vicin-
lty OF the Chesapeake bay. Admiral Cochrane
justified his acts on the ground Of retaliation for
the destruction OF private property IN Upper Ca
naoa By The American army. Mr.. Monroe sad
Ia reply that tue acts complained OF as having
occurred in Canada were entirely unauthorized by
tins Government and that che officers in command
rad been III every instance called to a rigid &C.
count ara one nI them sunlmarlly dismissed from
the service lie ADDS that whatever unauthoriz
eG irregularities had been committed by any Of
Its troops. the government OF the nited States
would have been ready on the principles of sacred
obligation 10 dlsavow, and far as might be
PracucaU!e TO repair. lettering then to the pro-
Ceedires OF the British army, he SAYS: 4" In the
wars OF modern Europe, no example Of the kind
even among nations the most hostile TO each other
can DC traced In the course of ten years past
the capitals Of the principal powers in Europe
have been conquered and occupied by the victor
ious armies Of each other and no instance of such
wanton aud uniUstfable destruction has been
seen.
I X 1t is qnite unnecessary to pursue the dscus-
sion OF this point further That the wantou des-
truction o. private property, even belonging to
| the enemy, IS not justitabie by the laws Of war,
| is clear. The question then Is have citizens OF
the United States, residing abroad for purposes of
/ trade, the right &c call upon their g3vornmaat to
! Potec, them from IN infringement of their rights
anf 70 in!eTce operation for ln.1r.es tiley ~ ~
Eaye stau.ed.