The Washington union., 1857-05-12
Communicated.
10 Gen Lers Caa,, Sscraary cf S,ate.
LATTER III.

that the adoption of the declaration of the Paris Con-
ference would operate only to change the manner in which
the United States could avail themselves of their mer
chant marine for purposes of war whilst detennnaton
ON the basis of Mr. Marcy proposal would deprive them
entirely Of that branch of their begerent resources and
so compel them 10 maintain regular navy equal to the
ornaments Of their chief maritime competitors or in case
of war, yield ga monopoly of and navigation"
and the dominion of the seas to their enemy The ne
cessary conclusion from this reasoning s that the adOp
ton of the ''declaraon alone would be far less inu
Gus to the interests of the United States than its adoption
with Mr.. Marcys proposed addition and that as the
declaration itself is acknowledged not to be recommend
Bile desirable TO this country neither the one nor te
other plan ought TO be adopted by it,
Mr. Marcy assumes in his despatch to the Count le
Sartiges and emphatcally in late correspondents
with some merchants of Baltimore, that the "exemn.
ton OF private property the OCEAN land anda
consequent mitigation of the rigor of war was the
nducement to the Paris declaration and that his propo
addition to the declaration would complete and establish
the "beneiccnt principle
1t is also asserted by the only writer who ma sr .sr
have heard has undertaken to vndcae argunenatyelv
Mr. Marcys proposition, q allude to Mr. w B. Lawrence
the learned editor of the late edition of Wheatons Ee
mens of International law that the principle which
ought to govern the proposed change is that of ianu
niy 10 he subject D,aer, a. private property on the
ocean, and not the regulation OF " hs species Of forces that
may be used against it, | have heretofore shown in
a number of pieces the subject, that whatever may
have been the purpose with which the declaration
adopted by the diplomatic representation at Paris or
whatever end MIR. Marcy may have supposed that his
proposition would attain neither the nor the other
could have the effect which assumed to be their pur
pose That fact has been proved beyond dispuaon But
it further appears that the immunity of the subject
matter of the ntenf--,lid enfer ;ntn A.
contemplation the councils which led to the dcclan
ton of Paris This is shown in speech in the House OF
Commons 18th March last) of of the eminent and
sagacous statesman Of Great Britain Lord John Russell
not only does not entertain the opinion that the exem
ton of commercial enterprises from the risks of war was
purpose of the declaration but he distinctly announces
the fact that such exemption would increase the prob
abilities OF nations entering into war, s'y taking array one
great reason for their remaining at pence
That fact early perceived this side of the water
and to my mind at least furnished an insuperabe obec
ton to the proposed change in whatever form could
be presented. IT, however, any change is to be made
undoubtedly the principle that ought to govern il
should be immunity of the species of property that Ia
proposed be exempted and the regulation Of tho
character of the forces by which, if it not exempted
it might be attacked To effect thistha s to effect
the exemption of private property at landhe
Paris declaration and Mr. Marcys modification of it must
be amended to abrogae the right of blockade and
abolish the distinction between what is called conts,.
band of war and cargoes that held to be lawful
With regard to the latter point precise designation
of the articles that shall be counted contraband is ded
eratum without reference to the proposed change in bel
hgerent rights. But such designation would not reach
the object that is under consideration for long the
distinction exists between conraband and lawful goods
private property on the sea, whether enemy
trial. must be exposed to annoyance, search, delay in
short to the will of the attacking party. The absolute
adjustment therefore, of that dstnction--which after
ALL is absurd for the supply of whatever want to bel
ligerent is aid to him. and the difference in degree not
in principle together with unrcserved abrogaon Of
commercial blockades necessary to effect that exemp
ton of private property the which the late Sece
tay of State to have fattered himself he had pro-
vded for In fact with all that added to the PROPOSE
tion of Mr. Marcy, it will not be difficult to show that
American commerce and the intercourse social and
mercal of the American States and people, would still
not have that complete exemption" enjoy their
share Of any benefits that it might confer Suppong
however that it otherwise and that the rule could
be made to operate equally, then the question arises
III Is it expedient that there shall be complete abolish
of the belligerent right to make captures Of private
property at seal
As the only idea that has been advanced in favor of Mr.
Marcys plan beyond the suggestion that unless this
country should yield to the concerted action at Paris it
would be outlawed that his own dispatches sug
gest is that Of immunity to private property t is obvious
that the inquiry here presented is the proper one and that
the plan of Mr.. Marcy presents false issue
In this inquiry the question properly arises whether
the reasoning that commends the professed but by
true in fact modern usage sparng oper
alton of the seizure of private property on land
applies to, and should lead to- like exemption the
ocean? have assumed that the reasoning is not
applicable admitting (Which is not however in its
full extent yet settled question: that the reasoning
good as regards operations land. There various
advantages in it to make it effective without the seizure
of private property, the molestaton of ncombat
ants beyond what the existence Of public hostltes
cessariy them Public docks, arsenals fotfca.
TONS navy yards custom houses and their revenue the
national domain, and whatever pertains to the sovereign
ty the public falls to the hands and enes to the i'm
mediate pecuniary benefit of successful invader and
above ALL he acquires what the desire for has been and
will probably always be, the moving cause of most
dominion That dominion moreover il by the usages Of
the day it does not operate to private property
actually to the possession OF the conqueror carries with
1t the right to lay taxes upon It, and to exact from It's
owners submission, service and tribute War may, there
FORE be carried upon land effectively and conquerngy
and in way to induce return to peace without the
necessity Of the direct seizure of private property An
other consideration that goes to the prevention Of
attacks non-combatants and their goods upon the
land is that they would expose to the extreme rsoT o