The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1855-04-12


the age in that oppressed and beeaguered and excited
island il is than probable that The reign Of ter
would soon be over and that Spain aud the United
States would forever be friends.
FEW QUESTIONS.
The article in the Ktegeacer of yesterday morning, TO
which aude elsewhere furnishes another striking
pi6caon Of the persistent obsnacy with which that jour
nal adhercs the cause what it may be- Of every
foreign power whose action this government takes
cepton Our statement may sweeping in its
sertions but unless memory deceves will be diff
cult find instance early late when the National
IeHigsncu has heartily defended and vindcaed it's
government at the commencement Of difficulties with for
sgn powers. The of Dillon in California, may
seem to be an exception; but, if So we leave it to
ueghbor to explain how This could haze happened After
controverting the iniima,on of ALBANY paper that
the Ell Dorado fired into the teAigeneg this
language:
Had the to- however, the Spanish
cruiser would have been justified by naval laws and usage
in firing into her."
We suppose that contemporary does not intend for
the purposes Of this case to draw any nice verbal dsnc
tons between naval laws and usages7 and International
laws and usages We understand his proposition to be
that the Spanish shpof-war Ferolana would have been
justified by international law, in firing gun, whole
broadside, into the Fl Dorado, while upon the high
seas, she had to- when the first shot from the
Spanish cruiser thrown across her path.
II we correct in statement Of the proposition
will the Ieiigence by way Of running its doctrine lit
tie into its practical application, as few ques-
tons? Writers upon the law of nations lay down the
rule to be- that in all where the beigerent right of
visit exists resistance the exercise of that right is Just
cause OF condemnation, both of vessel and cargo IT,
them the FL Dorado--being in truth American YES
sci, engaged in lawful coninerce-had repealed force
by forehead been able to return gun for gun-but
had been captured last by the Spanish cruiser would
the penalty of forfeiture and condemnation have attached
under the law of nations to her and her cargo II Capt
Grey of the Ell Dorado of his seamen or passen
gers had been killed By the balls from the Feroana which
the tegenc says would have been justified in firing
will our neighbors tell what offence would have been
committed? What would have been the penalty, if any?
Would the assumption that mistake had been committed
DC defence for the officer of the Feroan govern
ment Of Spain under the law nations? Would II neu
aze the great principle Of natural law that the privilege
Of elfdeence exists against assaant who mistakes the
object his attack for whom he thought he had right
assal If the right of the Feroana to fire into the FL
Dorado in the case stated is justfabe upon principles
OF law and reason is easy to sec how the of
the 81 Dorado or the captain the passengers could
cover repaaon for the consequences Of the act Of
firing even though the American ship was rghuly upon
the high and legally pursuing way to her destined
port The act certainly, cannot be both ustifahea and
wrongful at the time No one can be held answera
bic for injuries inflicted in the usable exercise Of his
rights Neither will it do to say that the net il
qualified right because such position would make every
n of oh
ity and individuals claim to property would be hardly
more than we-ounded claim for compensation If de-
prived Of it.
In another portion Of the article upon which we are
commenting, contemporary holds this language:
1--WE endeavored by few plain arguments to show that
the Spanish ship, acting in the character of sentinel to
city and Island In momentary expectation Of hostile
was ustfable xpeaking erey ship approaching
the island. We said there under the SUM- DOS
sessing navy that had not from time time done the
same thing without regard to the league shore
10 fact the right to hail sea- without regard to maritime
Jurisdiction II not universally at least uni
versaly practised by the shipsof-war of all
We take exception to the language of these sentences
far ii goes but unfortunately it does not aell the
whole truth" The Itliigencer uses not only the right
40 hail at sea- but "brng TO- 10 dsfaiu sisa, and
search And here is touched distinction which, de-
mined not to comprehend or admit The right alluded
to in the extracts last quoted is the right of an
proach; that claimed in the extract at the Begin
ming of our article is the right search The one all
vessels SAILING under the authority Of their government
in time of peace have right exercise the purpose
Of ascertanng the real character of ships they may escry
This right the United States comedies freely as il exer
ses The other is the right detain the vessel stop
the progress Of the voyage examine her papers decide on
their regularity and authenticity and make inquisitou Of
the whole ship and the business she engaged in Such
right this government dsclams and will allow no power
to exercise and is the assumed right put in practical en-
orccment the FL Dorado
We amazed that any Auaerican Journal can be
found willing TO justify, upon any ground monsrous
pretension ms this right Of visit upon the high seas
put forth by the Cuban authorities. The allegation
of the batetigsnoey, that the expectation Of invasion
from the United States has warranted these extreme
and unlawful proceedings the part of Spain is as dis
ingenious as IL is insufficient We do not deny tina,
every nation has right provide for its own safety and
70 take due precanon against impending danger pro
yided those precautionary do not inure or mo-
lest the rights OF others But the danger must be great
distinct, and imminent and not rest on vague and
uncertain suspicion Now, although all that may be
prcdicated Of the internal dangers Of the island of Cuba
TO the Spanish Grown may he borne out by facts the
Tnf,v,grucrr can he aware thai M .,,oL