The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1856-08-12
Reply Of the American Government 70 tn,
Protocol Of tAe Peace Congress on Pri.
.apD

| Reply Of the American Government TO the
Protocol OF the Peace Congress Pri-
watering.
Yesterday we published, exclusively, the reply
of Secretary Marcy to the proposals Of the Paris
Congress on the subject Of prWateering, accom-
panied by some remarks of our own. The i'm
| portance Of this document renders it necessary
that we should again refer to it, as the subject is
one that too vitality affects our interests to be
thus summarily disposed Of
1t is not exaggerating the character of this re-
! ply when we say that it is the most important
! State paper that has ever been addressed to the
| European governments by the United States since
] their organization. One of its most singular
features is that whilst it differs from the views
taken by the representatives Of two of the lead
ing maritime Powers which composed the Congress,
it concurs in some respects with those of the rep
resentatiye Of Russia. 1t will be recollected
| that contemporaneously with the meeting of chat
| Congress which resulted in the conclusion of
| peace very acrimonious dispute on several
topics sprung up between the United States and
England Both governments were at the time
in active correspondence on two ques-
tons, one of which was settled by the
action Of the American government in regard to
Mr.. Champion and the other, involving certain
issues in Central America, is, thanks to The
force of enlightened public>opinion in both coun
tries, in fair train of compromise. AT that
time the English press, or rather that portion Of
il which is under the influence of Lord Palmer
ston, assumed quite a ferocious and hectorng
tone towards this country denouncing both its
principles and practices, and calling on the Paris
Congress to take into their consideration the
conduct and policy Of the United States in
reference to various public questions which had
agitated the world.
We have the best reasons for believing that the
representatives Of France and England were
particularly anxious that some action should be
taken by the Congress involving censure on
certain features Of the foreign policy of this
country, with view to bring species of moral
coercion on the part Of the European Powers to
bear against what they considered the ten
denotes disclosed by that policy. 1t was
a matter, however, Of serious considera-
ton whether this effort should he openly
made before the world in the shape Of a proto
col, or under some more indirect and equivocal
FORM A solemn attempt on the part Of the
Congress TO array the governments of Europe
against the institutions and the political and
moral influence OF the United States as repre-
sented by their foreign policy, was thought to
be impoltic, and likely to create reaction in
favor Of, instead Of diminishing and contracting,
that influence. Hence the necessity of observing
in the discussions and in the protocols of the
Congress in regard to the United States, greater
crcumspection and caution than were exhibited
towards Belgium and certain minor sovereignties
in the Italian peninsula.
The French representative in the Congress
did not hesitate for moment TO denounce the
conduct OF the Belgian government in connec-
ton with the freedom of the press in that king
dom, ard to embody the sentiments of his
government in the shape of specific protocol
But to treat in the same fashion great mari
time and political Power as the United States is
growing TO be- would only make the american
government and people the grand centres Of
sympathy for the popular masses in Europe, and
instead OF injuring their character and diminish
ing their influence. would only give them a
wider and firmer hold over those with whom
they desired to weaken such ties
These we know were some OF the influences
which operated on the representatives Of the
Western Powers in the Paris Congress, and which
prevented them from openly expressing and for
mally maniiesting, through the medium Of q
protocol, their hostility to the American govern
nent They could not, however, bear the idea
Of separating without doing something to crafty
the aversion which they feel to the free institu-
lions and liberal policy Of this country. as exem-
pllGed in the whole of its history To this feeling
we owe the famous protocol on pryatecring. 10
which our government has just sent the reply to
which we refer.
The protocol, as We stated yesterday. embraces
two principles for which this country has
long con,ended-that free ships make free
goods and tina, neutral goods should lie safe
even under an enemys flag. These are.
In fact, conditions which an enlightened
public opinion insists upon a. necessary 10 draw
q line of demarkation between the crueltics Of
ancient and the necessities Of modern warfare
II is very different however. with one of the re-
naming propositions which are coupled with
thcm--namely, shat relating TO the abolition Of
privatccring. Whilst IFS object is ostcnsibly TO
diminish the seventies and suderngs Of war to
non-combaiants. IL would in reality multiply and
agpravate them. II would place the properties |
and lives of the subjects Of weak States entirely
a, the disposal Of two or three Of the stronger
ones. who would be left free to impose their
will and wreak their vengeance on those
governments whose policy and institutions
nigh, be considered an'agonistic to theirs. II |
would no doubt be to the interest Of England |
and france, who have large fleets, to procure the
abolition Of privateering, but II would be the |
most suicidal act that this country could commit |
TO assent to il. We have no feet to protect our /
commerce or our coasts. and in the event Of |