The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1858-04-13

/
Newton IN The port Of Antwerp when the American consul and The
by scancp belonging the crew another
IN The vessel boat The second was that another American
claimed both by The local tribunals
as to severe wonnneted by the mate on one Of tho seamen n
tho alleged exercise OF discipline the The Council
State pronounced against the jareion Of the local tribunals and
decisions ~ ~ .T' a ~.f, ~ :, tIg1,'..
Considering neutral vessel cannot be indefinitely ratded
neutral place and protection such vessels
the French ports the territorial jurisdiction
admitted into the ports or e state Is ghy subject to The
laws Of The police OF that place where she received that her officers
e and lorts committed by Them even on board the vessel against
contracts ae s with S,s ss S b ' r % e me q n I ,r,s
comEea on board The vcss BY Of the officers and against
euvely concerning discipline vessel which hs
s authorities les ought no, 70 unless d their + @ a
Council Of State Of opinion that ia distinction Indicated the
Is the only rule TO be adopted in 10 this matter and
THIS aoctrne te SPECIFIC cases IN which me esus hs
that OF assault eomptcd the boat the mer
tina, of severe wound inflicted by Ame
ship sally upon one Of the for having made use Of e
conu ought TO be allowed and the French tribunals
hbcd from taking cognizance OF these cascs'
But we have by own statutes an express ecogni-
ton of the principle for which / contend The African
slave trade never was considered and 1t Is not con-
sdered contrary to theaw Of nations 1t was not only
tolerated, but also encouraged, by the whole civilized
world, until expressly prohibited by several nations TO
! its citizens and when carried on under amy
flag, the ships ofwar of other nations only interfere
with it by authority of express treaty stpulatons, Our
first prohibory act passed 22d March, 1894, only APP
piled to the traffic to foreign countries The fourth
ton OF the amendatoy act of 4th january, 1904, de-
cares that it shall be lawful for any of the commissioned
vessels of the United States to seize and take
sells engaged in carrying business traffic contrary to
the true intent and meaning of the act and to appe-
hcnd and convey every person found board Of such
vessel being of the officers and thereof to the civil
authority In of the districts thereof 70 be pro-
yeeded against in due cohise OF law Here there is no
limitation of place of seizure The act Of Sd March,
1Sl9 authorizes the President whenever he shall
deem it oxpcdient to any of the armed vessels of
the United States to be employed to cruise any OF the
of the United States territories thereof of
the coast of Africa, or sehuc, when be Judge at
tehpts may be made to carry the slave trade by citl
zcns residents and to instruct and direct the COM
manders of all armed vessels of the United States to
sczc take and bring into any port of the United States
all ships vessels of the United States, mhesoer found,
engaged in the slave trade and to to be appe-
hended and taken into custody every person found
board being of the officers thereof, and convey
them to the civil authorities of the United States to be
proceeded against in due of law in of the
districts Thereof
Under this act our ships OF War have repeatedly seized
in the bays and rivers of Africa, American vessels enga
ged in the slave trade, and sent them to the United
States, where they have been condemned. No has
dreamed Of invoking the law of nations to protect
the vessels their 1t will be observed that,
der these laws the nationality of officer
will not protect him from punishment it is, for the
time, merged in that Of the flag under which he sails
lcgiance to the United States not whether he
not citiscn of Nicaragua, whether those who
eoinpanicd him were or were not American citizens,
whether they had had not technically organized
military before leaving the waters of the United
States, is entirely mmateral the offence of carrying
military expedition was continuous one from the
ment the Fashion received on board the for these
peaceful emigmnts in Mobile bay The facts have be-
fore stated afford sufficient evidence of the purpose for
which those embarked but have proof of the
military organization most positive and drect-in
the testimony of some of them, taken at Key West,
Captain Chatard, then failed in his duty in not pre-
venting the Fashion from landing Walker and his
catcs; and / should not have been much disposed TO
blame him. if in hot pursuit. as soon as he discovered
the character and objects of the who had discmlk
ed from her. he had arrested them; but the landing
effected the 25th November; whilst the arrest
not made until the Sth December Ample time had been
afforded to the Nicaraguan authorities to invoke the pro-
lection of squadron Had they done So Commodore
Puding would have been fully justified in arrcsting
Walker their silence would to authorize the infer
ence that they preferred to deal with him themselves AS
it is it would appear that Pauldngs action taken
rather under the irritation produced by Walkers
| pondence than from any mature and well considered
judgment of his rights and duties general principles
and the instructions of his government
But these questions all of very subordinate import
ancc when compared with the policy of neutrality
laws, which, with tie indulgence of the Senate will
proceed to examine with much brevity its great
importance will admit While think the policy of these
laws not only sound but Indispensable for the preserva
ton of peaceful relations with foreign powers, by
no recognise the position, generally assumed that
they do than vindicate wellesabshcd princi-
pies of international law They 60 much further they
deprive our of the faculty of doing that
which all writers admit to be strictly consistent with
tralitythe granting to belligerents equal facilities,
within territory for the enlistment of troops and fit
ting out of armed vessels within territorial limits.
There has been prevailing this subject in the
public mind from considering the statutory provisions of
Great Britain and of the United States the foreign enlist
ment bill and laws Of 1874 and 1918, merely pro-
vidng specific penalties for acts which before had been
admitted to be violations of the law of nations So far
from this being the case it has been considered
violation Of neutrality the part of any nation to per-
nit beliigerents enlist troops within its Jurisdiction,
unless the permission granted to of the beige-
rents exclusively Vatcl says book 3, chapter para
graph ITO:
The swzcrs grant troops whom they please
has hitherto thought 1T TO quarrel with them on that head
he owned that those evcs n1ciba and
constituted principal strength enemy whc without any
being alleged absolutely refused all cvies
conicr that nation esgucd
with enemy N
tlorzc mot n suchp az
the troops furnished my onemy by
state herself expense would longer
doubtful question whether such assistance incompatible with
neutrality"
Paragraph 49,
neutral nation prcserv begoren powers tho
relations which Nature has instituted between naion
"She ought, therefore, public welfare will
permit equally allow the subjects both parties visit her
and horc purchase provisns horses and
general everything they need o uulr she has treaty
neutrality promised refuse both parties such articles
Amidst all the which disturb Europe tho swzcrs
preserve their territories in Of neutrality Every naon in
country surplus, that Of horses ammunition and
arms
Paragraph I26
grants refuses passage par