The Ashland union. [volume] (Ashland, Ashland County, Ohio) 1854-1868, 1854-12-13

L
in regard to this interest embraces i
e future as well as its present securit
Long experience has shown that in gel
eral when the principal powers of EuroI
4 are engaged in War, the rights of net
E trai nations are endangered, this consit
e GRAFTON led in the progress of the War {
. our Independence to the formation of I'll
celebrated confederation of armed net
, trality. A primary object of which wa
to assert the doctrine that free ship
make free goods, except in the case {
articles contraband of war a doctrin
which from the very commencement c
our national beginning has been cher
, ished idea of the statesman of this cour
, try. AT one period or another ever
maratine power has by some salemn trea
tystipulatiOI recognized that principle
{ and it might have been hoped that i
would come to be universally receive,
and respected as rule of interna;iona
law. But the refusal of one power pre-
vented this, and in the next great wa
which ensued that of the French revolu
ton it failed to be respected among thr
beIligerent States of Europe. Notwith
standing this the principle is conceded
to be sound and salutary one, SO mucl
SO that at the commencement of the ex
listing war In Europe, Great Britain and
France, announced their purpose to OBJ
serve 1t for the present, not, however as
a recognized international right, but as
mere conclusion for the time being.
The cooperation, however, of these
two powerful nations in the interest oi
neutral rights, appeared to me to afford
an occasion inviting and justifying, Oh
the part of the U. S. renewed effort
to make the doctrine in question prin-
ciple of international law by means Of
special conventions between the several
powers of Europe and America Ac-
sordiDgly portion embracing not only
the rule that free ships make free goods,
except contraband articles, not also the
less contested on 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 aud
America. Russia acted promptly in
this matter and convention was con-
cluded between that country and the
United States, providing for the obser-
vance of the principles announced, not
only as between themselves, but also as
between them and all other nations
which shall enter into like speculations
None of the other powers have as yet
taken fnal action on the subject. I am
not aware, however, that any objection
to the proposed stipulations has been
made, but on the contrary, they have
Acknowledged them toebe essential to the
security of neutral commerce, and,the
only apparent obstacle to their general
adoption is the possibility that it may
be incumbered by inadmissable condi-
tions. The King Of thefwo Siclies has
expressed to our Minister at Naples his
readiness to concur<in our proposition
relative to neutral rights, and to enter
into conveption on that subject. The
King of Prussia entirely approves of the
proiectof treaty to the same effect,
subpdtted to him, but proposes an ad-
difional article, providing for the renun-
yciation of privatcering. Such an article,
for the most obvious reasons, is much
desired by nations having naval estab-
lishments large in proportion to their
foreign commerce If it were adopted
as an international rule, the commerce
of nation having comparatively a small
naval force, would be very much at the
mercy Of Its enemy in case of a war
with power of decided naval superiority.
The bare statement of the condition
in which the United States would be
placed after having surrendered the
right to resort to priVateers in the event
of WARMTH belligerent of naval supre-
macy will show that this government
could never listen to such proposition.
The navy of the first maratime power
in Europe is at least ten times as large
as that of the United States. The for
eign commerce of the two countries is
nearly equal and about equally exposed
to hostile depredations In war be-
tween that power and the United States,
without resort on our part to orr mer-
camille marine, the means of our enemy
to infict injury upon our commerce
would be tenfold greater than ours, to re-
taliate. We could not extricate our coun-
try from this unequal condition with such |
an enemy unless we at one departed from
our present peaceful policy and became
great naval power. Nor would this
country be better situated in war with
one of the secondary naval powers
Though the naval disparity would be
less the greater extent, and more exposed
condition of cur wide spread commerce,
would give any of them like advan-
tage over US. The proposition to enter
into engagementsI to forego resort to
privateers, in case this country should
be forced into war with a great naval
power, is not entitled to more favorable !
consideration than would be PROPOSE |
tion to agree not to accept the services
of volunteers for operations on land
w hen the honor or the rights of our
country require it to assume a hostile |
attitude, it confidently relies on the pa
triotism ofits citizens not ordinarily de-
voted to the military profession to aug
ment the army and navy, SO as to make
them fully adequate to the circum-
stances which calls them into action.
The proposal to surrender the right
to employ privateers is professedly foun-
ded upon the principal that private
property of unoffending noncombatents
though enemies should be exempt from
the ravages of war, but the proposed
surrender goes but little way in carry
ing out that principal which equally re-
quires that such private property should
not be seized or molested by national
ships of war. Should the leading pow
ers of Europe concur in proposing as a
rule or international law to exempt pri-
vate property in the ocean from seizure,
by public armed cruisers as well as by
priVateer, the United States will readily
meet them on that broad ground, since