The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1856-09-24

The French View OF Mr.. MaEcy's DespatelA-
Franklin VS.. Maxcy-Threats 70 Cocxce tine
United States.

United States.
From La Presse, (ot Paris) August 2eJ
The answer addressed in the name OF the Cabi-
net of Washington, by the Secretary Of State
OF the United States, IN reply 70 the declare,
zion of the Congress OF Paris, on The subject OF
maratime law, has excited throughout Eu
rope a surprise which was not shared on our
part, for we anticipated such an answer. It has
Also created a sensation which will be much more
augmented when the whole hearing Of the act OF
The Paris Congress shall be fully understood. Oi
this the reader will be convinced, IL he VIII lake
the trouble to read the following observations,
The answer in question contains at one, aud the
same time, an obstacle pointed OUT opposed
70 one Of the most e essen prsp sss o.
proposition put forward calculated to introduce a
new progress in the general law OF marti ne warfare.
The obstacle stated in this answer 49, the refusal 70
adhere to the abolition OF privaseers The progress
prOposed is. the offer to make henceforth private
property as well az on shore secure from the
chances of war.
The United States deserves thanks for making
this proposition diplomatic question, but all the
honor of doing does not, as the Times supposes,
belong to her. This doctrine of establishing an
equality and uniformity in the practices and Gus
toms used in war, both by sea and by land, in re-
spect of private property and persons has been for
fifty years past the State doctrine of France.
AS to the abolition OF privateering, the English
papers have followed our lead in remarklng upon
Jhe skill with which refusal is made to adhere to
the declaration of the Congress OF Paris OF the 10th
Of April by the American government. the skill,
however is not great enough to disguise other than
In the most imperfect manner the weakness Of the
arguments on which the refusal is based. The
United Stetes accept the second and third princi-
Piles of the declaration, which proclaim the rights
and guarantee the privileges of neutral flags and
property.
AS to the last OF the four principles, viz: the
future regulations to be observed in regard TO
bl0ckades quite q secondary importance il at
tached TO it by the United States government,
who can see no Inconvenience in the sys
he Hate al ko<Ac
however accepts the regulations, but it depores the
fact that they have been joined with the article
which aboishes the custom OF privateering. Also,
the United States government deplOres that the
four principles have been made indivisibly-a cir
cunstance which will not (as Is said in the answer)
be accepted by the United States nor by any second
airy maritime power, and will prevent general ad-
hesion TO the declaration as general law Of nation
al maritime right.
In spite, however, of these opposing views OF the
United States, the declaration OF the Congress OF
Paris Of the 10th of April, 1885, will be admitted as
the general law of Europe. The six Powers who
already, by their number and the importance of
their maritime position, pretty large majority in
its favor, and the adhesions which yet will be made
win complete the work of making this act law of
the civilized world.
The United States viii be left alone, to protest
against the new maritime law, law for which the
interests of civilization loudly called. Now it would
be easy to demonstrate, as we have already done
never be able tosprevent this declaration Of the
Congress Of Paris from becoming q general mari
time law TO the whole civilized wOrld-a law stand
ing upon the foundation OF the. practical concur
renee and union Of many States, as well as also
upon the dictates OF reason and public interest.
A glance at the reasons given by the Washington
Secretary of State in favor of keeping the system
of privateering, Tor lilustering-T will show at
once the weakness Of those reasons, which depend
exclusively upon the selfish interests Of the United
States government. Hitherto the custom of equip
ping priyeteers has been an established custom, re-
cognized in the action OF maritime nations. But
discs that give il the support Of the law Of nations,
IL has been progressively developed ever since the
progress ofmodem civilization! Does that render the
CASTOR compatible with the essential principles
which, among modern nations, establish the sove-
reign rights OF States in those matters which relate
10 war.
Can II be true as Mr.. Marcy asserts that the right
OF employing privateers in maritime warfare is as
iDcontestible the right OF employing the regular
navy of the State?
Is not the right Of making war an attribute to so
vereignty incapable OF delegation and transfer? IL
il not privilege which State cannot transfer from
We have already demonstrated these axioms fully.
The practice of privateering existed among US until
the present dsy-it was part OF our customs-but
we got It as the last remnant OF the private wars OF
the middle ages. 1t is contrary TO the fundamental
principles of the rights OF war, and in the midst Of our
modern civilization it Is nothing better than legal
lied fibuaterism brgandage. This being the case,
1t IL Opposed 10 natural Justice ana law. custom
permitted it, but reason and the interest of nations.
properly understood, rejected 1t. Both philosophy
and religion necessarily cry out against 1t.
The assent to the custom OF sending forth pri-
vateers in the wars between maritime nations has
not been unanimous as the Secretary OF the
United States pretends. 1t is strange, indeed, that
he should be the man to forget this fact. He may
forget that Russia first set the example Of abstaining
from the practice in her against Turkey in l767
up to liza. He may forget that the Constitutional
Assembly of France proclaimed at a later period
the principle Of its abolition. But does he forget
that the United States boast of having condemn
ed the custom, in celebrated treaty, concluded by
one of her greatest statesmen!
While we are on this subject we may he permitted
to point out another instance OF a similar character
in which Mr.. Marcy has made another sacrifice of
truth in favor of his special argument. He says:
The policy Of the law authorising this practice has
mt different times been called in question, but never
by any competent authority"
How IL this2 Does he mean TO say that Franklin,
the author OF the treaty 0f 1888 IL not competent
authority for the present Secretary of State Of the
United States Mr.. Marcy quotes, in the contrary
view of the case, OF our comm snat0rs upon The
French Marine Ordinance OF 1854: he even quotes
the authors of modern French treatise upon prizes;
but it seems to MS that none of these opposing
authorities ought TO have much weight with him
am the single authority u Franklin.
Franklin not only negotiated the treaty Of 1883,
which condemned letters OF marque but he defended
the policy of his course in this matter in his notes
and correspondence, an account Of which will be
found in Wheatons History efthe Progress Of Inter.
national Law, p. 233
But, leaving all these considerations, which Mr..
Marcy presents with rather too much self satsfac-
ton let MS come to the reasons, true for once, but
specially referable TO the United States which he
urges In support of the policy Of keeping up the
system Of priyateerng. The chief of these reasons
n the interest which the United States have tn
tinue institution by which they able to cover
in certain OF weakness the inieriorty OF their
own maritime forces Here it mus, be confessed
Mr.. Marcys argument is not destitute OF logic nor
of force but at the time ID is detective in SIN
certy and frankness. The great extent of the mari.
tine frontier Of the United States which has to lie
defended in the Of a war with England, and bor
inferiority in naval power compared with that Of
England demonstrates 20 this extent the need which
tnc United States have OF privateeriRg; q need
which Is met in q wonderful manner by the adven-
furious disposition and habits Of her population.
The need is the greater, inasmuch as the United
States can only oppose seventytwo men Of war and
212O cannons TO naval force 6f sol men Of war
and 1921 cannons. Now, IL would DOUBTLESS be a
hard case for the United States TO have to give up
an institution which saves them the trouble OF in.
creasnC their naval forces 10 such q vast extent