Kanawha Valley star. [volume] (Charleston, Va. [W. Va.]) 1856-1861, 1856-12-23
VOL: Il: KANAWHA e. Ill., YIRGINEA, D
DECEMBER 1885,

war: and the other, that neutral prop
erfy Oil Board merchant vessels olbcl
Iligefents should be exempt from con
derluation, with the exception oFcon
.traband articles. These we're not pre-
tseMtel as new rules Of international
!a@; having been generally claimed
b. ncutra!s, though not always aa
United ky belligcients. = " ....' +.
One ofthc parties to.thc war-Rns
sia-a5 well asscveral neutral powers
promptly acceded TO these PROPOSE
ti0ns; and the two other principal bel
ligercnts, Great Britain ana France
having consented TO observe them fol
the: present OCCASION afayorable OPP
.portnnity seemed to be presented fol
obtaining a general recognition Q.
them both in Europe and America. !.
But Great Britain and France. ii
common with most Of the states O.
Europe, while iorbearing to reject, die
not affirmatively act upon the over
lures of tile United States. a.'szzs% III
While the questions was in This 20
sition, The representatives of Russia
France, Grcat Britain, Austria, Prus
STA, Sardinia aud Turkey assembled
al Paris took INFO consideration tn,
subject of uiaratime rights and pu
Il declaration containing the two prin
ciPles which this government had sub
mated, nearly Two years before, to III,
copsideration'of maratime powers ant
al aing thereto The following pro
POSITIONS; ''Privateering is and re
mains a5olishcd,n and "Blockades
in order to be binding must be cffec
live; that is to say. manned by
force, sufficient really, to prev ent nc
cess to the COAST of the enemy, and tt
The declaration thus composed of foul
pointS, two of which had already beer
proposed by the United States, thi'
government has been invited to ac
ecede by lallthe prwets represented a
Paris, except Great Britain and Tur
KEY. + 49,. S.
To the last Of the two additiona
propositions-that in relation O'CLOCK
ades--there can certainly be no oh
iections. 1t is merely the definition
of what shall constitute the efiectua
of a blockaded place,
definition for which this government
has always. contended, claiming IN
demnity for losses where a. practica
violation otthe rnle thus defined ha.
been injurious to ourcommerce. Al
to thc remaining article of the deelar
ationoof the conference at Paris. tina
I,rivatecring i S and remains abol
i5hed.' | certainly cannot ascribe t,
the powers represented i'll the confer
ellcc of Paris anybut liberal and phil
anthropic views in the attempt tt
change the unquestionable rule o
maratinc law in regard to priyateer
ing. g.. y
Their proposition was doubtless in
tended to imply approval Of the prin
cipEe that private property upon tl'
ocean. although IL lniSht belong Il
the citizens Of a beltigcrent State
SHOULD be exempted from: capture
and had that proposition been St
framed rs to give full effect to tht
principle, it would have received my
ready assent on behalf of:thc CniteC
States. But the measure proposed ii
inadequate TO that purpose. 1t i:
true that if adopted private propert.
upon the. ocean would be withdraw
from one mode Of plumber but left eN
posed, meanwhile, to another mode
which could be used with increased
effectiveness. The aggressive capa
cityo great naval powers would b;
thereby augmented, while the 'defen
sive ability Of others would be redu
ced. .'.t =
Though the surrender of the mean:
of prosecuting hostilities BY employ
ing priratccr5, as proposed by thu
conference of Paris, is mutual il
terms, yet, ill practical effect, it woulc
be the REIMBURSEMENT of Alright oflit
tie value to one class Of States, but o
essential importance to another ant
a far larger class. 1t ought not t.
have been anticipated that a meas
urc, SO inadequate to the accomplish
ment of the proposed object, and Sc
unequal in its operation, would re
ccive the assent of all maratine pow:
ers. Private property would be still
left to the dcpredations of the public
armed cruisers.
| have .exprcsseda redincss on thu
part of this government to accede tt
all the principles contained in the de
claration OF the conference Of Paris
provided that relating to the abandon
ment fprivatcering can be so amend
ed It's to effect the object for which
as is presumed, it was inten led, thu
immunity ofprivate property on th'
ocean from hostile capture: tt effec
this object, it is proposed to ada t,
the. declaration, that "priEateering il
and remains abolished the follow
ing amendment: And that The pr
yate property Of subjects and citizens
Of a belligcrent orthe high seas, shall
be exempt from seizure by the public