The daily union., 1856-12-27
From the London Star NJ nsc !

From the London Star OF Dec II,
SECOND LETTER FROM MR.. COBDEg ON MARI.
TIME LAW.
letter published some time ago from Mr. J. E. Jep
knson of the Bradford Committee of Investigating State
Affairs" to Mr. Golden, NJ P the changes in maritime
law agreed to at the Congress of Paris
Mr.. Golden has replied to this letter as follows
The whole of the argument in your letter is founded
upon the assumption that surrendered our begerent
rights in the late from feelings of forbearance TO Rus
sia should have thought our maritime operation in
the Sea of Azo and the Gulf of Bothna would have pre
vented any one from falling into such error 1t was the
attitude assumed by the United States which led the
change. Those who in position to observe the
manifestations of public opinion in the press of Il coup
try and through the speeches at Washington on the eve
OF the Russian war; and still more they who knew what
passing between the United States minister In London
and the Foreign Office need be told that any serious al
tempt on our part TO uphold the right Of search which
you truly say, essential to the maintenance Of our BEL
geent rights would not have been tolerated BY that
country. 1t may be all very true that our common law
opposed to the pretensons Of the Americans and
that you state their most eminent Judges had con-
hrmed the decisions OF our admiralty But this did
touch the facts OF the they were presented
our government in 1854 when il was unmistakaby evi
dent that the American people determined that their
merchant ships should not be ved and searched by
cruisers and that any aemp. revive the proceedings
which led 70 the rupture of 1912 would be resisted would
lead 70 ooodshed, and would in all probability, end il a
war between the Tvs countries. Our government there
fore, very wisely yielded the point and In doing met
the wishes not merely Of America but Of every Of
Europe,
You seem TO attach some importance TO the mode Of
efectng this change in policy and to be Of opinion
that before any alteration be made in the law Of
nations corresponding change must be effected In
municipal law am afraid the law Of nations has been
hitherto little than the will Of the strongest uodi-
fed, and slightly controlled by the progress Of cyiA-
ton can see no objection however to act OF Par
Lament being passed confirming the decision Of the Con
gress Of Paris But after this explanation Of the
ing Of my words "imperious necessity" need no, add
that should look upon such act mere matter Of
form.
But the question which Parliament viii still have %
decide judging from the sentiment put forward by those
organs Of the press supposed be connected with the
government whether, having OF necessity gone so far
II not for interest beyond that Of any other nation
to embrace the offer made to by Mr. Marcy TO exempt
private property aaost from capture during the war
have not the least doubt when this proposal h discussed
in the House Of Commonstaking for the starting point
Of the argument the status quo settled In the ConRss
Of Paris, which no sane man will dream Of disturbing
that there will be all but unanimous decision In iis favor
think can foresee great benefits the cause OF
and humanity, in variety Of ways from this change but
to be offensive in quarters 70 give utter
TO the opinion that tn, intercourse OF nations
well as individuals may some day be brought into bar
mony with the preceps Of the New Testament will for
bear saying more upon the subject