New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-11-12
THE RIGHTS OF NEUTRALs.


fsgration. international laws-and those especially
which regulate and fix the position OF neutrals
will receive a new basis and and sounder
definitions.
These laws have been for the most part enacted
during the raging of wars, and by the most pow
erful belligerent States. By these States certain
babits and customs were established, out of
which spraDg the theories afterward embodied
in codes of international law. Then the more
powerful fought among themselves; the smaller
ard weaker States, even il they did not take
.ides, were obliged to yield and submit to
such definitions concerning their relations with
tie belligeIents as pleased the stronger parties
In this manner mach of the international code
originated in the abuse of power by the stronger
over the weaker. The restrictions on neutrals,
imposed by this code, were never fairly adopted
By truly Independent States after both sides OF the
question had been duly considered What the wolf
desired, the sheep was oblise to submit to- Such,
among Others was the right of search, in
posed by England and prscticed freely on
the ocean, when there was no neutral strong
enough to oppose her, until it was gloriously re-
sisted and destroyed by our country. France OPP
posed the right Of search-perhsps on the ground
of equity, but certainly because in the past she
was always the enemy of England. In general.
the rights of neutrals are based on no fixed prin
ciples. as regulation Issued by one was of course
opposed BY the other of the bellgerents, aud such
code must be full of contradictions, aiming-as it
does simply to harass the enemy as much as pos
sibe, without regard to neutrals. Nearly every
power of Western Europe bordering on the seas
has had, at some time or other, maritime pre-
ponderance, and at such moments accepted all
rules previously established, that were advsn-
tapeous for the stronger party. Thus arose GER
tain semblance of assent to the various regula-
tons and ther Transformation into principles and
obligatory laws.
When however, as is now the case, these first
class powers become allies, the discOrdsncs exist
ing in the definition of the rights of neutrals become
more poignant, for the Allies disagree on certain
principles which they originally brought forward
mutually against each other. As mentioned above
France does not recognize the right of search
which is of EpglaBds invention, while England
protests against another rule Of purely French
origin relating to the right of neutras to buy yes
sells from the enemy during war. The theory
On which France insists is even more oppressive
than apy regulation of British origin. 1t dates
from the epoch of Louis XIV, when that monarch
bauehtily sought to sway the sea as well as the
land. This French theory forbids neutrals TO buy
vessels from the enemy, or to nationalize such
according 10 their domestic laws. 1t is embodied
in the maritime regulations of l775, whose seventh
paragraph says: Vessels built By enemies can
"only be considered as property of an ally or neu-
:" trial when it can be proved by official documents
Z" that they were bought previously to the COM
mencement of hostilities'
This arbitrary, one-sided regulation the French
government has lately repsbshed as obligatory
ON all the world and tries to enforceitas if there
were lying at the bottom OF the assumption any
thing bey end most brutal abuss, violently limiting
the freedom of neutrals and ipjuring their com:
merce. English writers on the law of n,tions, as
well as numerous judicial decisions on the matter
of captured vessels, lorg ago established that
vessel bought from one of the beligerents can be.
come lawful property, provided it is sufficiently
proved that the purchase was made bona fde.
This principle has been over and over again laid
down, and during the present war, in speech OF
DR.. Washington, on January y, 1884, it is stated
that no belligerent can override this right Of
neutral"
The French government however still sticks to
ito notion, and Louis Bonaparte tries to enforce
upon the world as an obligatory international law,
private internal maritime regulations, and to rule
free and independent neutral nations from the office
of his minister of Marine. The French government
cannot understand that an unarmed vessel is mer
chsndise, as much as any other object whatever.
Such a regulation concerning ships can be e1
tended logically to every other object OF foreign
manufacture or to products OF the soil. Thus,
wooleps. co,tons, silks, breadstufs, could De pro-
hbited by one belgerent as ships are BY another,
and peutrals in this way would be governed, not
according to their own laws, but BY the DEGREES
issued by French, Russian, English, Spanish or
Turkish minister. Of State Such al etfluence of
barbarism must be forced to follow the fate of
many Others consigned to nothngness during this
century.
The European States of 8 secondary order,
hitherto yet treated arrOgantly by the maritime
powers, are in need of bold stsndard-bearer
against this pretension. Since the commencement
Of the war the, have been more or less compelled
to yield unwillin.ly TO French exactiORs, thus ful
filing the words of Lord Mansfield that if " other
States are not really bound BY regulations Of bel
"igerents when contrary to the laws Of nations,
for the sake Of security they must notice them
Accordingly, the Senate Of Bremen las given an
Official publicity to this ukase In Holland II nas
caused much bad blood. So far back ~ July. 1854,