Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1854-04-05
Neutral Rights.

H. Latham.
Neutral Rights.
The departure from the English ports OF the
Baltic feet is an event fall of. sgpheancy and
interest to us of the United States, not merely as
spectators but a. a party VII" must be deeply
affected in some of our most vital aud cherished
interests by the maritime wnr Of which this is the
intiatory step. When we remember the hitherto
irreconcilable variance which has subsisted be-
tween the construction put by American and
English statesmen and jursts. upon the rights OF
neutrals and bellgerents on the high seas aud
on the other hand tn inter national spirit
which hns increasingly characterized our treat
ment of other nations with whom casual differ
ences have arisen, coniess ia serious ap-
prehensions. lest we may not only lose the bche
fits of the carry ing trade but be ourselves IN
volved as bclliperent in the Impending metre
of nations. spirit of obstinate adherence to
the old dogmas asserted by Grent Britain IN the
earlier part of this century, such rs the right oi
searching for dcserters upon neutral vessels or
the rule of the war of 1855, Will undoubtedly
make Us the ally of Russia; while the sane de
plorahe result might easily be brought ahout 10y
All exhibition of the arrogance winch but too
frequently discredits the position we are entitled
to.
Great Britain Inns maintained down 10 the
present time, whenever circumstances required
official expire sicn of her principles, The right 10
look for her subjects on the high seas, into what
ever service they might have wandered. She
has never taken the ground that this Of itself
constituted ground for entering u neutral YES
sel-but that having once cot on bonrd, IN the
exercise of the undisputcd rights. al sea7ch for
articles contrabnnd OF war, cnomy's goods or
enemy's men, she had right, growing out f
the doctrines of allegiance, 10 take of any ri
her subjects who night be found there, The oP-
Grafton of this alleged right, coupled with the
monstrous and since abandoned idea oi conluen
tai blockades, aud exercised with IA Wan.ouuess
Of insult led to the war Of lsl2. We have no
reason to fear repetition Of hr famous order
in council Of the triple hniroetion of the
law of nations committed by the Leopard, which
boarded a government ship, within The .iuisdio
ton of Virginia, to search, not for goods, hut
for men.
The right of search is strictly war right
II rests upon the principle of sef-pres ryauon-
for an enemy could never he exhausted if she
was free to obtain supplies for the maintenance
of the contest under the cover of u neutful flag.
To cut up her commerce by the prohibition OF
her trade, either in her own bottoms or those
of neutrals. is equally essential to reach the ends
of war, and the carrying of enemy's dispatches
has ever been Justly deemed high offence in u
neutral. Except in time OF war the reason fRs-
and the right goes witt it, Hence the United
States properly refused 10 allow it upon the coast
of Afr a, for the suppression # the slave trade
The principle as maintained by us, and as JUS
tilted by the reason of the right, and by authori-
ity, is thus announced with precision: "Tne
rig hit of visitation and search, by bfiiigerent
government vessels, may he exercised upon phi
rate merchant vessels, for enemys property,
things contraband of war, mcu in the land or
naval service of the counry.n
Now earnestly hope, for the interest of our
own commerce at the present jmcture. and for
the sake of the general moderation of the rig
ors of war-to prevent the texatous delays the
exercise of the right inhicts, and the danger al
collisions growing out of lis exercise, that the
recent movement in the British parliament which
will be seen in another column, may'result in the
recognition by England Of the principle that
''free ships make free goods We confess, we
do not expect it to be made. England has sever,
to serve present and temporary purpose, con
ceded any great principle Of International law,
and has shown her policy 10 be in respect to
maritime law, not only peculiarly tenacious OF
belligerent rghts-but aggressive upon those of
neutras. Though the present juncture may not
be sufficient 10 bring her to make general lie
caration of the principle itis one eminenty ia
vorabe for obtaining its recognition 10y treaty.
This has long been the policy of the United
States, at least it was their policy as long as they
were weak.
We have, or at least, we had, snch provision
in our treaties with France, PRUSSIA, Neither
lands the Baltic Powers and some OF the South
American States, and it has been frequent slip
uaton in the treaties between the continental
powers. The fact of its recognition by treaty
in such freque At instances proves its exception
al nature. 1t is the obvious duty Ca our govern
ment to spare no effort in the endeayor to obtain
from the western powers the explicit recognition
of the broadcast freedom of neutral commerce.
Russia has made the very principle in quos.
ton a fayorite policy when herself neutral 50
that a more suspicious opportunity for its uni
versal adoption, and incorporation into the code
of public law could not possibly occur. Success
in such an attempt would signalize the admins.
tration by at least one great work,--the failure