New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-12-27
THE RIGHTS OF NEU1RALs.

--~---.----.a------->-.4.
THE RIGHTS OF NEUGRALs.
1t is notorious that far the rights of neutral
powers In time Of war Are concerned, what Is
called international Law, instea1 Of defining aud
protecting these rights only gives occasion to SO
rious abuses and grievances, This arises from tue
fact tpef this preH'"~od law, instead Of being the
lcgcal embodiment Of certain well established,
equitable principles, ia mainly mass Of arbitrary
provisions enacted ad hoe, to meet particular
emergency, by bellgerert power, strong enough at
the time to dictate to their neigh5Ors. striking
illustration of this process is seen in the recent
proclamation of the French Government, declaring
illegal the sale to neutral Of any Russian ship
In this the French Government revives and a.
tempts anew to give the force of international law
to proposition not only never recognized by En-
gland any other great power, but absolutely des-
titute of all ground in reason and justice. This
instance shows the necessity for discussing the
whole matter, and doing something to settle it in
accordance with logic, equity and common sense.
war between two or more States breaks
out The beligerents come to blows before
the neutral powers are aware Of the collision
relative position and their interestsi in the premises
TIE belligerent considers merely his present pur-
pose, whstever that may be- and to reach it has re-
course 20 force and not justice. In this process
be desires and seeks, by violence as we'll as per
suasiOn, to engsge others In his cause and is prone
to regard as secret enemies those who will not
join him. The bellgeIent cannot concede or even
that nautrala and friands NAV traffic
with his enemy without becoming his enemies
themselves. To damage his foe, the belligerent
makes prize of his property wherever he can
discover and reach it, and thus orig mated the
abuse called fright of search" But the war does
not at all concern the neutral. He should not SUI.
fer by it in the least particular. 1t should not
interrupt for an hour his friendly relations with
the cOntendiDg parties Neither OF them is his
enemy, and there is no 1easOn why he should not
continue to have commercial intercourse wish
both and exchange with them as usual his raw
products or manufactures In rigid justice,
merchandise, whencesover derived when under
neutral flag, or any property OF neutral,
even in the bottoms of an enemy, ought
to be sacred and safe from confscaton.
We do not here propose to enter into tho
history of the two opposing axioms the one, that
condemned rsssei condemns the goods, the other
that free bottoms make free eargsss. The first orgi
mated in the arbitrary application of force, the
other was procured as a concession. Both have
passed through various phases and have been vari-
ously reconstructed since the 18th and 18th cen
turies, when the Mediterranean powers were the
frst to regulate in part their commercial relations.
Then came the maritime ordinances of the Spanish
rulers and of Francis l. of France, and the vari-
GUS experiments of the northern powers, namely,
Sweden, Denmark and the HaDse to wns, down to the
maritime greatness Of Holland and the domination
of England over the seas. Bellgerents a. every
epoch have regarded the principle |" free ships free
goods" as an exception. The Dutch were the
first among neutIas and among the smaller mari
time powers, who in the course of the 18th CEN
fury secured by treaty this sacred right-merely,
however, az a concession from Spain. But the
Dutch and all the second rate powers-iDcluding
Portugal and the Hanse tosns-haying obtained
these concessions from Spain, France and England,
recognized in their turn the right Of confscating
neutral goods in belligerent vessels, which those
great powers claimed for themselves.
The next point at issue is Of what class and
kind are the goods which neutral vessel, can
freely carry, and what articles are contrabsnd
of war None of the interests of neutral are
involved in war Ia strict justice he has the
right to carry from the shores of one belligerent
to those of another all raw or manufactured pro
ducts, whether his own or theirs, whether bread.
stuss or munitions of war He he's the right TO
buy them when and where be can, and to sell to
whoever will purchase. For him in his free COM
mercial relations and intercourse, there cannot
Justly exist any contrabsnd whatever. For him
there can exist no obligation in honor and justice
not to furnish both the belligerents with whatever
they may require, 60 he is benefited By il.
What objects then. properly, are contraband
Thus far the term has bad no precise definition,
its IsgDifcstion and value depending upon the ma
ture and conduct of a war. Thus, the limit of
contraband nsrrows or expands with the power
and the pleasure or the interest of either of the
belligeIerts. In the present war, powder and its
components lead, iron, arms and the materials for
constructing. equippins and armins vessels. are
contrsband. while, according to the declaration
of Sir James Graham In Parliament, then
member of tho British Cabinet, fuel for steam
ers in considered doubtful Everything that con-
ributes TO the strength Of the enemy may be-