The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1857-04-18


knows that these claims not passed upon by Mr. Clay
ton in his present position.
In all these charges and insinuations there is exhibit
ed such reckless disregard OF truth Justice and decency
that it is difficult TO assign motive for conduct SO mean
and dastardly."
wv
~ w" "''oh'ioh !" 'i'o i'ho"inS "pip any i' ''ei
esting letter OF VIM, Carey Jones, esq, on the sub
icct of obolisbino the helocrant ,obt az nrvatoor
I. n-.,
me- "lthout entering mo inc queshoh as 70 Wheth
or its adjustment would be advantageous to us or
,ot ,,,o ,ra ra.l,, ~ 90, ~, - - ;to ,;l,;
- - 49, 's
10 40 so simply because Two or three foreign govern
mcnts without consulting us say .priyateering is
,;lI,
The fHoioSED CHANGE IN THE LAWS OF WAR.
A Letter 10 Gen Le"7s cdss Secretary Of State
SIN The question before the biah Office which the
country has had the satisfaction of seeing Won called to
of the nroposed abolshmen of beoernt rights ON the
seas is the most mportant that since the foundnp of
our government has referred itself 10 the Department of
State Questions that involve the Grand s,e Of peace or
war momeno,is AS they may be- do not approach il in
Importance for they are temporary Ii ended by negoti-
alton tbcv have only nnrtrbef, for n time the nnl;c
mind If hostes he their sequence and these he even
disastrous vet war has s end and the State recoyers
But this question is of peruetuty. 10 affect the nature
quality amount and etciency of the beperent resour.
ccs of our country and consequently its relative position
among nations and It's character pcac and dignity for
all time r. therefore the proposition ought, not TO be
summarly dismissed and repdiatt it ought at least to
have free fair public and full discussion before it shall
be adopted In this belief avail mysef Of YOUR courtc-
GUS perission TO address to You directly some views ON
the subject and the various aspects that the proposition
assumes
Ought the United States to accede TO The sseclara
ton of the Paris Conference that ..Priyateerinr is and
remains abolished n,
The manner of that declaration and circumstances at
tending IL marked with character that It Inns seemed
4. I
consideration Nv this government
The despatch Of Mr. Marcy Of the 2sth Of July 1856 to
the Count de Sartpes and the message of the President of
the 4th of December 1854 show TINT two years nror 10
the Diplomatic Congress at Paris the executive epart-
mcnt of this government had declared to each of the diff
crct powers that were represented at that meeting and
to other maritime States that this country could not and
would not concur in proposal to abolish priyateerng as
beIliperent right miles, the pan sbould also include
the exemption Of private propcry from spoliaton ly
public vessels 1t Is also shown by Mr. Marcy's DIES,
match that this suggestion OF ono Of the Departments of
or government and also those lust propositions in ia,
yor of neutral commerce which his country Ind always
insisted on had been favorably received in several for
eirn States by four of them accented and with nil of
them of importance negotiations in progress
In The face nj these facts n face ~ TIA assurance
conveyed directly to each of the rowers concerned that
the United States would not accent of such nroposition
nor entertain II and If The fact that they had neotia
tons ON the same pont pending with other states the
Assem- blopc Mt Paris without ony notification 10 This
country without admitting to its councils or debates any
representative Of This country and yithrt infrn,nt, ts
country of any Of the reasons that mpecd IL made their
sdcclaraton and had the assurance 10 send Il to tbis
government Not only that The naked declaration
that priyateering is and remains abolished thus made
in face of the assurance that such proposition was mad
inisSpie ~ tliS rouh..y, anu YET mus onefen 70
US Mi'hou' any eApi'ia'ii mouiu seem 10 nave peeh
sueich' put y was i,ot ue extent. Aitei hat Gee
be its position the Paris Conference 90 on to inform us
that unless we agree to what we have SO often declared
we will not agree to- certain other things that We
want and which are right in themselves and to the adj
vantage of mankind we shall not have l. a. if We will
not abandon in the icatoral form in which they present
tbc project our rights as possible belIicerent No shall
not have our rights as a neutral Nor was this all The
proceedings at Paris cut off peremptorly negotiations in
which the United States were already engaged and bound
over several powers from concluding what they had UNI
dertakcn in this country except on new terms terms
well known that we would not consent to- and not s,g-
pestcd in the course of negotiation but dictated from
without Still more In declaring the s.indyisiby''
of the 'four principles and that no nation shall have
the benefit of Of them without consenting to
the whole the Paris manifesto over and beyond keeping
in force the unjust rules, only eyer partially consented
concerning neutrals, undertakes to establish law
what has been regarded but abuse and out
ragc''rapcr bloekadss That Is, those nations that
shall not consent the entire dc of the eonclaye
whose councils they not admitted, and whose
sons motives not communicated shall not only not
have their rights neutras, but shall have, to them,
an abuse nterpolatod law into the existing code.
These facts and circumstances seemed, from the begin
ming, to characterize the ''dcclarnon more ms men
ace than invitation. and the same view has not
caped intelligent observation IN Great Britain appears