The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1858-08-11

of the question not disposed to see ourselves
disarmed Of the chief weapons that have secured to
us an exemption from war.
We desire that the Paris Conference shall consider
the question whether the ends of Justice do not de-
mand the adoption of a substitute for the ~ article.
exempting the high seas altogether from the opera
tons OF war, excepting national vessels and vessels
carrying contraband goods. This would reduce hos
Utilities upon the ocean to yachtraciDg and occasion
al gadiatoriai displays confined exclusively TO pro-
fessonal gentlemen, and relieve the property of indi
viduals from the hazard Of sacrifice which seems to
be the object of the Paris representatives 1t would
do much to equalize States, give full effect and in
creased value to coast defences and promote the
chances of universal peace If the great purpose of
the Conference u.s. in the event of hosttes to cast
the chief burdens upon the public, and to relieve in
dividuals, as far as possible, from sacrifices, we see
no reason why the modification we have suggested
should not be accepted We presume it will be
conceded that the great primary object of maintain
ing war vessels is to protect the peaceful employ
ment of merchant ships and the individuals of the
nations residing abroad for the purposes Of trade
travel and observation. These ends could all be
attained in much higher degree by exempting the
ocean altogether from the operations of war; Nearly
all tho property that floats upon the public waters
belongs to individuals precisely that class of per-
sons who exercise the least influence in precipita-
ting hostilities, and less still in determining their
duration. If the Conference arc then exercised in
sincere purpose to distinguish the true RESPONSE
bties Of war, and to confne its evils as far as pos
sble to national interests see no reason why the
ocean should not be made exempt from its operations
But if this proposition is inadmissible, because it
would be equivalent to the condemnation Of tho vast
squadrons of England and France, and in point of
fact of the whole naval policy of tho world we sug
gest that at least tho fourth proposition should be so
modified as to abolish blockades entirely. The de-
termination Of the Conference, as it now stands in
this respect, is nothing more than declaration of
the States "adhering" to it, that hereafter they will
conform to the requirements Of the laws of nations
on the subject. There never was time that block
AIDES, to be- legal, Obligatory, and effective" must
not be maintained by sufficient force to shut out
the access of the enemies ships and other vessels
in reality"
The whole design Of blockades is to worry, harass
and nure individuals, anddamage their effects, with
view of making them dissatisfied with their govern
ions, and all history shows that they have exerted
upon the persons most injured thereby, apowerful in
fuence. We may refer in proof Of this to the con-
duct Of large class of New England merchants
and manufacturers during the last war with Eng
land.
Towns on land are invested with view of en-
forcing their surrender. That species of warfare
place; whereas upon the ocean no such change is
possible. If England should conquer the world her
jurisdiction upon the high would not be extend
ed The discontinuance of the present law of block
ade could not fail to exert powerful influence upon
the peace of the world. 1t would not accomplish
the great objects Of the Conference, nor would it
take away the mischievous power of the squadrons
ercise less evil influence upon the councils of those
nations in their incpent controversies with others,
but it would be step forward in the work of peace
of great practical Importance. The reader will not
confound a blockade with the formidable investment
of city, with view of effecting its capture This
last is becoming less and less frequent every
year in consequence Of the improved and compre-
hensiye system Of Coast Defenccs which now prevail
in connection with the facilities existing in all the
great States, including own, of concentrating
large bodies Of men at given point.
The suggestion contained in the memorandum
that "thc United States would also be ready to grant
their adhesion if it added to the enunciaion of
the abolition Of privatcerDg that the private prop
ery of citizens, subject to the belligerent Powers
would be free from seizure at sea from the war
navies respectively" we regard equivalent to the
total exception of the field of hostilites
The object is to protect individuals in the event Of
war, and to concentrate burdens upon the public;
hence we see no reason why a rule should not at
once be adopted sufficiently comprehensive to meet
that end. Meanwhile, it would be great folly in the
pursuit Of such an object for us to assent to the
proposition it stands which could not fail in the
end to put our entire commercial and shipping in
terests at the mercy Of the powerful navics of Eng
land and France.
SENATOR DOUGLAS
" will deal with this allied army just the Russians
dealt with tho allies at Sebastopol is the Russians
did not stop to inquire when they fired broadsidc
whether it hit an Epgshman Frenchman or n Turk -