Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1853-10-01

I q port, tHtVtS u :,
averted by the prudence and moderation oi our oohs
General at Smyrna-constitutes an outrage upon the
principles of the law Of nations; and the Imperial GOV
ernmeut has doubt but tnat ln,s n.y. n.r. sto
light win have been condemned py the government OF
the limited States said Government being tseH interest
ed in preventing the repetition OF similar occurrences
The events Of the I'd Of July :. Siaynna presen. ~
1 twofoid point OF view seIlouo eS'' 4V o $500
of international law. :, /.
49, 81 Jouis" threatened the brig of his Imperial
and Royal Apostolic Majesty, the Huszar, with hos
to attack by bringing his guns TO bear upon the latter
and by announcing in writing, that II certain indndu
nj detained board whose nationality was being discuss
ed between the agents OF the two Governments was not
delivered over to him stated hour, he would go and
take him by main force
There can be no doubt but that the threat of attack
ing by main force, vessel ofwar belonging TO the mill
ary marine of sovereign State whose flag she carries
is nothing else than threat of an act OF war Now,
the right of making is necessarily and from the very
of that right inherent IN the sovereign power
"a right Of nature, says Nael claw OF
Nations vol 2 book 5, chap j. ~ "the right OF Judg
ing whether the nation has real grounds Of complaint wpe
her she is authorized e employ Jors' G@ ".,n I'm !"
ana whether welfare OF the State requires itthat right
say Jeloag only tohe body 81 the nation o. p The erer
cy her Representatives 1t is doubdes one OF those rights
1hont ioLieh there be saiuy gote'aen and when
are therefore called rights Of Majesty"
The founders Of the Republic of the United States full
y recognised from the beginning of the Union erighs
reserved the sovereign power. The articles OF per-
peual conederacy and union between the States OF New
Hampshire Massachusetts, &C. of 177s, contain already
the Ss s sn 20 nEs M sa ptSE y and
exclusively the Congress OF the United States TINS
basis of the public law of the United States was preserv
ed and sanctioned by the Constitution Of the United States
Of 1857 which the power Of declaring war ex-
pcitly to Congress, (sec. WILD Upon this point the
Constitution of the United States harmonizes perfectly
\ with the public law of Europe.
But this right reserved to the supreme power OF each
country would become illusory and null if commanders
of naval forces others were to be explicitly OF acty
authorized undertake, either of their own accord or
upon the order with the consent OF diplomatic OF
consular agent commit acts of aggression and of
against tho vessels the troops of another nation with
special instructions from the supreme authority Of
their own country, notified in the forms prescribed by
| the law of nations.
1t is impossible that the regular Governments Of the
civilized world wish expose their authority as
well general peace, to the hazards of hostities
meneed without their knowledge and without special
authority from the sovereign power by such such
functionary, in a foreign land.
IDLY. This act of hostility has been committed in O
neutral port OF a Power friendly to both nations.
Certainly, if there be point in maritime and inter-
national law which is clearly and positively Defined and
which has been adopted by all the Powers of the world
il is the ayolabiity neutral ports the absolute proh
bton from committing in such ports acts of and
violence against the enemy with whom we are at
open war; Modern history furnishes but few examples
OF of this kind One of these instances is the
attack upon the Dutch East Indian feet which had taken
shelter in the port of Bergne in Norway by the admiral
commanding the forces OF the enemy and although that
trail port, Vdtean authority universally recognised in
matters relating to the law of naionsdoes nevertheless
the neutral Power Denmar) of having complain
ed in faint voice of undertaking so Injurious to
her dignity and TO her rights.
In order the better to establish the concurrence Of all
nations and the unaniCty of al expounders of civil law
this question, quote the authority of an Anne
rican statesman The following is the opinion of Mr.
| Henry Wheaton,
The rights Of war;, says he elements Of International
Law part " chap ILL., ~ be exercised only within
Il aka - {, i,alI;.
in territory belongingto Hence follows that hos
tes cannot lawfully be exercised within the u
dieon OF the neutral State which is the friend
of both parties"
Then, 20: "No only all captures made by the bel
geren cruisers within the limits this jurisdiction abo
utey Illegal aud void but captures made by armed vessels
stationed in bay river, in the mouth river
the harbor Of neutral State for the purpose exercising
rights of this station are also nyad Tins where
British pyaeer stationed itself within the river Missssp
p in the neutral territory Of the United States for the pur
pose Of exercising right of war from the river by stand
ing OF and on, obtaining information the Belize and
hauling vessels in their down the river and made the
capture in question within three English miles of the auva
islands formed its mouth restitution Of the captured vessel
was deceed hy Sir w. Scott SO, ALSO where belgerent
ship, lying within neutral territory made capture with
boats out u the neutral territory the capture held to be
invalid for though the hostile employed applied
TO the captured vessel lying Of the territory, yet such
permitted"
If al hostility against enemy declared to be within
the territorial jurisdiction of a neutral State which has
friendly relations with both parties is severely condemn
I
by belgerent cruisers in the bays of neutral State
by the boats Of the vessels stationed there ont
that territory null and illegal according to the law of
the United States and the DEGREES Of the maritime courts
Of Great Britain attack upon vessel belonging to
friendly Power in neutral port would deserve to be cen
sured in still more terms.
The history Of maritime wars at the period Of the
French revolution furnishes abundant proof Of the very
particular Jealousy with which the Government Of the
United States maintained the rights of neutras and the
undersigned would cite celebrated cases in which
the hrt statesmen OF the Union, the distinguished
predecessors Of Mr. Marcy in the high position which he
nils, have defended the absolute invioaby of neutral
ports by means Of most elaborate arguments But the
undersigned IS fully persuaded that the doctrines
will serve as guides to the Government of the United
States on the present OCCASION he confines himself to
this slight ausion to those principles which were for
merly maintained, and very recently supported by the
Of the United States in relation to the rights
Of neuras and more especially regard to the inyola
| bility Of neutral ports
The Imperial Government enterains too high nm opin-
ion OF the Of justice and Of integrity Of the Gov
eminent Of the United States doubt for single instant
its anxiety TO dsavow the conduct Of its agents under
the circumstances above mentioned and that will has
ten to call them to account and tender to Aus
tria satisfaction proporonate to the magnitude of the
outrage
to the Secretary Of State the renewed assurances of his
high consideration. HULsENIANN
The Hon. WIN. l.. MARCY,
Secretary Of State Of the United States
Mr. Marcy 10 Mr. Hulsemann
DEPARTMENT or STATE,