Washington sentinel., 1854-05-03
OUR NEUTRALITY LAWS.

An important movement has been made IN
the Senate by Mr.. Slidell, Of Louisiana. The
Louisiana senator offered resolution, which
was adopted, requesting the Committee on
Foreign Relations to inquire into the expe
diency Of authorizing the President, during the
recess ofCongress to suspend fortwelve months,
either wholly or in part, the act of April 20,
1878, and the supplementary act of March 10,
1888, commonly known as our neutrality
laws" %
On introducing this resolution, Mr.. Slidell
delivered an able and interesting speech, which
we would be glad to lay before our readers
if circumstances permitted it, although we
feel some hesitation as to sanctioning its con.
clusions That hesitation is produced by the
doubt we entertain as to one point We ques-
tion much whether it would not be better to re-
peal " the neutrality laws as they are called,
rather than authorize their suspension for a
given time. We do not censure Mr.. Slidell for
going as far as he has gone; but we do not
feel sure that he has gone far enough.
A very mistaken notion has gone abroad on
this subject and we perceive from our ex-
changes that it has gained very general Gre
dence.
Perhaps, we would speak more correctly by
saying that two errors have been circulated
and believed with regard to the law of 1918
and its supplement Of 1888. It is extensively
believed that our neutrality laws belong to
the system Of international intercourse; some
persons even think that treaty stipulations re-
quired their enactment and require their en-
forcement Others think that they were
adopted in spirit of reciprocity to meet in a
proper spirit similar legislation by the other
Christian powers.
Both of these ideas are without foundation.
Our neutrality laws have nothing to do with
our system of international intercourse. They
have no reference to international law. We
were under no obligation to pass them. We
are under no obligation to enforce them on the
relation of foreign government, any more
than we are to punish illegal voting. No
treaty stipulation binds us to enact and main
tain such laws and there is no obligation de-
rived from reciprocity which requires us to
enact such laws, because the other nations OF
Christendom have never acknowledged and
given legal efficacy and vitality to principles
similar to those which lie at the foundation OF
our laws of neutrality.
The law Of 1918 and its supplement of 1888
are matters Of individual national concern. No
foreign power had the right to demand their
enactment. No foreign power has the right to
require their execution. No foreign power has
the right to complain of their suspension or
repeal, any more than it has the right to
complain of the suspension or repeal of an act
appropriating money to dig out and build up
harbor at Dubuque, in Iowa, or at Santa
Fe, in New Mexico. If our legislation had in
duced other Christian nations to enact similar
neutrality laws, then the propositiont to suspend
the act of 1918 and its supplement of 1898
might be regarded as breach of good faith.
But thus far they have not had that effect and
we can see no sufficient reason to induce us to
continue restraints for foreign benefit, whilst
foreipn governments turn their backs on reci-
procity.
No one connected with public affairs can
have forgotten the Canada troubles, and the
Mcleod case. No one who has read with de-
cent attention can have forgotten the letter
which Mr.. Webster, then Secretary of State,
addressed to Mr.. Fox, the British minister, in
which he repelled, with even more than his ha-
bitual power ofthought and force ofexpression,
the assertion that the men who went from Navy
island were pirates and outlaws. In that letter
Mr.. Webster laid down the law in most clear and
lucid language; explained the neutrality ideas
of Europe; and then, carrying the war into
Africa, he showed how English law had per
mitted the arming, and mastering, and discip
lining Of regiments whose destination and de
termination were to wage war against nation
with which England was at peace. Subsequent
TO that time, as Mr.. Webster says, I've repre-
cent him from memory,) an act Of Parliament