The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1859-05-21

lated-"That the right Of searching merchant ships
belonging TO the subjects of one of the CONTRACTING
Powers, and navigating under ship OF war OF the
same Power, shall only BIO exercised by ships of
war of the belligerent party, and shall never eX'
tend to the filters out Of prvateers other vessels
which do not belong to the imperial or royal fleets
of their Majesties, but which their subjects shall
have fitted ont for war; that the effects on board
neutral ships shall be free, with the exception OF
contraband Of war and of enemys property; and
it is agreed not TO comprise in the latter the mer.
hs Countries At war should haVs Seen
quired by the subjects Of the neutral Power, and
should be transported for their account. That m
order to determine what shall~be deemed block
one where there is, by the disposition of the
Power which attacks It with ships stationary or
sufficiently near anevident danger in entering"
Six years later, however, this treaty was an
nulled by Alexander, and the armed neutrality re-
vived Abiding to the treaty Of 1901 Allison says:
1.-THE Convention ofthe 18th of June fixed the mari
time question upon its true basis it arrogated no
peculiar privilege tp Great Britain subjected to no
prescribing one equal rule for all bellgerent
Powers, and imposing one equal obligation upon
all neutrals settled the right of search and block
AIDE upon that equitable footing which alike obliga-
remain the law of the seas, while ambition and re-
venge continue to desolate the world"
THE RIGHT OF SEARCH AND THE WAR OF 1872.
The war Of 1872, it is well known, originated in
the attempt Of Great Britain to exercise the right
of visitation and search with respect to our mer-
chant ships, in a mode which even her position as
belligerent did not justify. 1t las been remarked
that, as beigerent, the right OF England to visit
and search was never controverted by the United
States. This right of visitation and search is one
conceded by all the writers on the law of nations
to a belligerent.
90 .1n ,iyod
the belligerent right of visitation and search Of
merchant vessels upon the high seas, we insisted
that this being right originating in and deriving
its very existence from the law of nations
it was necessarily limited and restricted
to objects over which that law had cog
nizance That law, so far as relates to this
subject, had reference to the relative rights and
duties of bellgerents and neutrals 1t had nothing
to do with the merely municipal laws institutions
OF any particular nation. 1t authorized this vista
ton and search for the purpose of ascertaining
whether the vessel or her cargo was neutral
or hostile; whether there were on board
contraband goods or persons who were enc
mics. To this extent we always acknowledged
the right of beligerent to examine and the cor
responding obligation of the neutral to submit to
euch an examination.
These principles, not admitting of doubt or dis.
pute on either side, have never been the SUBJ
ject of controversy. Our difficulty with Eng
land, anterior TO the war of 1872, was
of different character. The British authorities
insisted that the right of visitation and search en-
titled their cruisers to board a merchant vessel;
ana being once rightfully on board, their officers
might continue the search, not only for the purpose
of ascertaining whether the vessel or her cargo
was neutral, and whether she had on board any.
thing or had done any act which injured the rights
of the belgeren but whether she had also on board
any persons who under the local or municipal law
H.
bound to military service under her. This claim
obviously involved some most serious questions.
The one was whether the belligerent right of
visitation and search, being deleod exclusively
from the law of nations Dbt limited to
subjects and objects over which that law could
operate. Second: Whether this right could le-
Ultimately be made the instrument or afford the ia
clities for the enforcement of any purely munich
pal laws of the country OF the bclligerent. Third
Whether, when the municipal laws of the belligc-
rent which claimed the right, and those of the neu
trail upon whom it was to be exercised, were in an
tagonsm, the former the latter should prevail on
board the neutral vessel. Upon these points the
two governments differed. independently of the
argument on the part of the United States the
abstract question of right the abuses and outrages,
the insults and manifold personal injuries resulting
| from the actual exercise of the right claimed by
| England, were insisted upon and strongly urged.
II was shown that, under color of this belligerent
right of visit and search, the most gross outrages
had been perpetrated, for which no very in
sufficient compensation had been made to the in
jured party. 1t was further insisted on that this
right, to whatever extent it might be justified or
allowed by the law of nations, conferred no
authority TO enforce the peculiar laws of the bel
lgerent power, and therefore none, under any cir
cumstances, to seize even an acknowledged subject
of the British crown. That no individual could be
arrested or taken on board an American vessel for
a violation of English law, or to compel obed
ence to English institutions; and still further that
as the United States, under her constitution and
laws, allowed the subjects or citizens of any and
IN cifi Of
this country and as such to be entitled to all the
rights, privileges and protection afforded to those
who were native born, the rights of such were as
perfect on board our own vessels as on our own
territories. Thus we denied IN toto the right of
impressment on board an American ship; and such
We're the matters in controversy between Great
Britain and the United States preceding the war Of
1872.
Immediate collision between the two nations was
brought about by the operation of the retaliatory
measures against England the Berlin and Milan
DEGREES Of Napoleon, and the British Orders in
Council which followed them. In 1906 the British
government, then at war with France, declared the
coasts ofFrance and Holland in blockade Napo-
leon retalated by issuing the famous Berlin and
Milan DEGREES, authorizing the seizure, wherever
found, Of all vessels carrying goods of British pro-
duce or manufacture. In the following year fur
Their retaatory measures were resorted to by Eng
land, and the "Orders in Council were issued, de-
claring all the ports of France and her colonies
in blockade, and all vessels carrying goods
the produce of France and her colonies
lawful prize. As the navy of England
covered the seas, and as the American marine was
then doing the principal carrying trade of the
world, these measures materially Affected our COM
merce. In this emergency it became necessary for
governmental take some steps for relief Jeffer-
son, who was then President, accordingly laid
general embargo upon all vessels in American har-
bors while this stringent measure was followed up
by the passage through Congress Of the Non-inter-
course act, prohibiting all commercial transactions
with either belligerent Power but at the same time
empowering the President to renew such inter-
course by proclamation as soon % these Powers
revoked the obnoxious decrees and orders.
The feeling in this country towards England
at this time was extremely hotile, and that
feeling was augmented by an unt,ward incident
which occurred between British and an American
frigate of the Virginia coast ON the 23d of June,
1907. The American frigate Chesapeake, which
CHANGED to have on board some English deserters,
was overhauled and fired into by the British frigate
Leopard and, being unprepard for action, she was
beaten, and surrendered. The deserters were Ia
ken of and carried to Halifax by the Leopard,