The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1856-05-24
THE TREATY OF PARIS.

the penpotentiaries Of Great Britain Austria France
Prussia Russia Sardinia and Turkey assembled in Con-
gress at Paris, April l6 1855" They are as follows;
l. Priyateering is and remains abolished
The neutral flag enemys goods, with the ex-
ception of contraband Of war.
g. Neutral goods with the exception of contraband of
war, not liable to capture under an enemy's flag
Blockades in order to be binding must be effective
that is to say, maintained by force sufficient really to
prevent access to the coast Of the enemy.
With the exception of the first article which has no con-
nexion in principle with the Others these the doctrines
which the United States have been contendng since
they became members of the great family of nations and
their recognition by the representatives Of the leading
powers of Europe cannot but be considered estimo
NAL that they based on the great principles of the law
of nature and nations They establish the rights of
trails on solid basis and thus far highly satisfactory
the United States whose policy it has always been to
avoid all participation in the wars Of Europe and who
therefore, deeply interested in maintaining neutral
rights than any other nation.
But this recognition of neutral rights accompanied by
condition that all nations TO whom 1t Is conceded shall
only be entitled to these rights by accedng to this deca-
ration that privateering is and remains abolished Now,
privaeering has always been considered right of war;
and rights of important rights of peace The
United States, Notwithstanding their pacific policy have
been and may be again. forced into war in defence OF
their rights and honor and in contest of force 1t is uni
vesay conceded that every nation has right to employ
its of offence defence TO the best advantage sub
only to the restraints of international law and those
rules which considered in accordance with the rights OF
and the principles OF humanity if the latter be
said to have any connexon with state of war; nation
may be weak in respects and strong in others and
would be unreasonable to require that 1t should rely
its weakness rather than its strength as to expect that
should his left hand instead OF his right in de-
Tending himself annoying his adversary.
For example the naval power of Great Britain is at
present greatly superior to that of the United States and
there is nothing in the preceding articles to prevent her
vesselsoEwar from preying their commerce whenever
hostities exist between them Thus the property of c-
of the United States in their own vessels would be
exposed the depredaons of the entire British navy and
the United States by abandoning the system of prvateer
ing be deprived Of the of realiang by making
prsals If Great Britain would consent to waive this
perory by covenanng that her shipsowar should not
commit what Lord Clarendon pleased to call illegal p
racy" by punderng the property of peaceabe citizens on
the high SEAS no doubt the United States would not only
willingly but gladly, accede to the abolition of privateer-
ing
At present. however, the United States in great
ure depend their prvaeers not only for protecting
their commerce. but cutting up that Of Great Britain
in time of war They have hundreds Of the finest fastest
merchantmen in the world which, in contest with any
commercial power being converted into prvaeers would
prove more than counterpose to the naval supremacy
of Great Britain. This amply demonstrated in the
late war; and since then and not till then she has be-
come so deeply sensible that illegal piracy" which
perence has taught her may be turned against herself
She has at once become exceedingly anxious to mitigate
the evils of war;" by attempting to wheede the United
States into an abandonment Of that species of warfare in
which their of protecting their rights and avengng
their wrongs are superior to all Others under pretence that
robbery on the high by national yessels-ofwar Is
perfectly justable by privateers little better than legal
piracy.
Now we apprehend II makes very little difference to the
merchant whether he is robbed by of her Britannia
Majestys shps-ofwar by republican privateer COM
missoned by the proper authority. In either he
loses his property and the of recovery equally
hopeless IT, then her Majesys screwpropeers seventy
TOURS frigates and soopsowar amounting it boosted
to upwards Of seven hundre continue in the exercise Of
right recognised by the law of nations to seize and
6scate the property of enemy the ocean, no
reason why that right may not be exercised by priva-
teer or leter-omarque which as ntrnscaly nation
al vessel as the other being commissioned BY the
thory Both equally prey the property Of peaceable
citizens-that to say, those who though they don't
fight themselves willing like the Quakers to pay others
for fighting.
1t Is doubtless at first view great hardship that nom
combatans should be exposed TO the evils Of war but
nothing is more clear than that nations in the aggregate
as well as individual citizens subjects must necessarily
be held more less responsible for the acts of their gov
ernmen If that government represents the sovereignty
of the people and directed controlled in its action by
their WILL they then become responsible for its acts or If
on the other hand is merely the result OF the unbr
died passions of despot his subjects justly considered
as parties the contest long they submit TO his WILL
and devote their lives least the fruits Of their abor
to its accomplishment
Though they may not WELD the sword they pay Others
for welding 1t Though they may not shed the blood Of
their fellow-creatures with their hands they stand
sponsors for the crimeor crime assuredy Is except
cause sanctioned by the highest obligations Of patriotism
This responsibility Of nations is Of the surest guaran
tees Of peace and the euson Of of blood
Were their property subjected to the vcissitudes Of
war IL would become exclusively massacre Of human
beings and there would be other mode Of settling the
question but that of killing OF adversares II L.
therefore, simply question as to the relative value Of life
and property whether robbing cutting Of throas Is