Fayetteville observer. [volume] (Fayetteville, Tenn.) 1850-1966, 1854-12-21


; other, every maritime power has, b
some solemn treaty stipulation, ret
ognised that principle; and it migt
have been hoped that it would com
to be universally received and re:
pected as rule of international law
| But the refusal of one power prever
ted this, and in the next great wa
which ensued, that of the Frenc
revolution, it failed to be respecte
among the belligerent states of Eu
rope. Notwithstanding this, the prin
eiple is generally admitted to be
sound and salutary one, SO much SO
that, at the commencement of tht
existing war in Europe, Great Brit
| ain and France announced their pur
pose to observe it for the present; not
however,, as a recognised interna!ion.
al right, but as mere concession for
the time being The cooperation,
however, of these two powerful mar
itime nations in the interest of neu-
trail rights, appeared to me~to afford
an occasion, inviting and justifying,
on the part of the United States, a
renewed effort to make the doctrine
in question principle Of information
al law, by means of special conyen-
tion between the several powers of
Europe and America. Accordingly,
a proposition, embracing not only the
rule, that free ships make free goods,
except con.raband articles, but also
the less contested one, that neutral
property, other than contraband,
though on board enemy's ships, shall
be exempt from confscation, has
been submitted by this government
to those Of Europe and America.
Russia acted promptly in this mat
ter, and a convention was concluded,
between that country and the United
States, providing for the observance
Of the principles announced, not only
as between themselves, but also as be-
tween them and all other nations,
which shall enter into like stipula-
lions. None of the other powers
nave as yet taken final action on the
subject. | am not aware, however,
hat any objection to the proposed
has been made; but, on
he contrary, they are acknowledged
o be essential to the security Of aeu-
ra! commerce; and the only apparent
obstacle to their general adoption is
n the possibility that it may be en-
numbered by inadmissable condi-
ions.
The King of the Two Sicilies has
to our minister at Naples
lis readiness to concur in our prop |
si.ion relative to neutral rights, and
o enter into a convention on that |,
ubject.
The King Of Prussia entirely ap-
royes of the project of treaty to
he same effect submitted to him, but
an additional article proyi-
ing for the remuneration Of priva-
eering. Such an article, for most
bvious reasons, is much desired by |
ations having naval establishments,
arge in proportion to their foreign |
If it we're adopted as an
rule, the commerce of
nation having comparatively small
aval force, would be very much at
he mercy Of its enemy, in case of
1ar with power of decided naval su-
'eriority. The bare statement of the
ondition in which the United States
7ould be placed, after having surren-
cred the right to resort to prlvateers
h the event of a war with bellig
rem! Of naval supremacy, will show
hat this government could never lis
en- to such a proposition. The navy
T the first maritime power in Eu-
npe is at least ten times as large as
hat of the United States. The for
ign commerce Of the two countries
Eearly equal, and about equally
xposed to hostile depredations. In
ar between that power and the Uni
ed States, without resort on our part
D our mercantile marine, the means
f our enemy to inflict injury upon
ur commerce would be tenfold great
T than ours to retaliate. We could
OF extricate our country from this
nequal condition, with such an ene-
ny, unless we at once departed from
ur present peaceful policy, and be-
ame great naval power. Nor would
bis country be better situated, IN