The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1860-01-19


gates. Al the same time, we do not profess to
understand the precise manner In which the
functions Of tho General Government would
Be-. exercised, its laws be recognized, and It's
ofhce-hoiders respected whilst the North was
fighting the South and the South the North
Which. where, and what, ia that event, would
be the Union, are questions which we leave to
the great philosopher II. ~ the same time,
they will inform u. what greater evils the
overthrow of this glorious Union can infiict
upon its people than a state of chronic and
incurable civil war, we shall be under ever
las ting obligations.
Maritime Rights Of N~utrals.
The maritime code Of Great Britain, which
she endeavored TO interpolate upon the law of
Nations, is founded upon the theory that the
sea is her pee uiiar domain, ~ much as Kent or
Sussex, and that she has the same right to es-
tablish police regulations over the one as over
the other. Every other Lation OF the earth
disscnied from this view of the case; but Great
Britain, as long as she had the power, never
resigned single item of her pretensions. AZ
ter the war with Russia, however, she very
magnanimously resigned privileges to which
she never had any claim but that of the strong
est, and consented to be just when she had no
longer the power to be otherwise. In the Ian
guaga Of Lord PALMERsTON's organ, those
privileges she assumed during the war, and for
mally abandoned at the end of it, "Those
privileges" were the right of searching every
ship any Of her cruisers met at sea, no matter
what flag she might sail under, and Of carrying
her into one of her ports to be condemned as
lawful prize by her admiralty courts, the cap
tains being, in all ms stances, judges of the pro-
priety Of OBTAINING and sending her in. This
pyirisgs she generously abandoned: but the
abandonment was coupled with condition.
Every nation that expected to receive the BEN
eft Of It, must, on its part, consent to abandon
the system of privateering 1t is horrible
thing, say British authorities, for private pro-
perty on the ocean to be captured by private
armed vessels, although those vessels bear the
commission of the Government whose flag
they sail under. and are to all intents and pur
poses as much public ships as though they be-
longed to the regular Navy. 1t is, however,
very proper for the same species of property
to be destroyed or captured by public armed
vessels. This truly British style of treating
the subject found no favor in this country. II
was perfectly well known here that the Eng
lish Navy abounded in small steamers, the
heetest vessels in the world, that would do
more damage to our commerce in year, than
all the privateers Great Britain could equipin
dozen. So far rs damage to private commerce
was concerned, then, she abandoned nothing,
for she still retained the power to injure it as
much as she ever had il. With regard to us,
however, had we been weak enough to give
into the scheme, the abandonment would have
been quite another matter. Our whole Navy
amounts To less than 100 vessels of every de
scription. Against commerce. it could do very
little. Our government had no musq uito fleet
to dispatch against the merchant fleets of Great
Bri ,ain, but it had a perfect swarm Of priva-
teers always at its command. 1t, therefore,
wisely enough, did not choose to deprive it,
self of the only means it had to retaliate for
blockaded sea- ports, ravaged cities, and ruined
commerce, which might be the results of an
other war. 1t preferred not to place the
whole game in the hands Of a government that
might one day become hostile, but it fully
tested the sincerity of the affected desire of
the British Cabinet to protect private proper
~ at sea. 1t offered to abandon the practice
OF capturing private property altogether at
sea, by public ships as we'll AS private, and to
place it on the same footing with private pro-
perty on shore, which is not subject to seizure
and contiscation during invasion. To this
however, the British Government Tor rather
the high contracting parties to the treaty of
Paris would not listen. The object of the
proposal thus became apparent. 1t was to
lay the commerce of this country (at which
the whole proceeding was levelled) at the
mercy Of the Great Naval Powers of Europe
whenever war should break out in which il
nigh. become involved. AS the United States
did not consent TO abandon its main weapon
OF retaliation, and as such abandonment was
made q condition of her enjoying the mag.
unanimous reliaq uishment by Great Britain Of
her privilege to harass the commerce Of neu-
trails at pleasure, of course the United States
take nothing las the lawyers have it) by the
arrangement, and with regard to her, Great
Britain retains all the privilege aforesaid, OF
harassing, impeding and destroying.
We bring this subject up now because we
see it is about to be brought up in the APP
preaching Congress of Paris. We trust that
the United States will never abandon one inch
of the ground that has been already assumed
If the proposal to abolish privateering be any,
thing more than stratagem, and a yer; clumsy
strafagem at that, to induce us to lay aside
the most formidable weapon in our whole ar
mory, while no compensation whatever is
made for the loss, why is the single PROPOSE
tion OF our government, which covers the
whole ground rejected almost without hay
ing been considered Why was the same pro-
position rejected the other day, with an en-
phasis bordering closely on contempt, when
made by the Hause Towns, to the government
of Lord PALMERsTON If there be really on
the part of that government, any desire to pro-
tect private property at sea in time Of war,
why is it not protected against capture by any
species of force, private armed or public2 If
a merchant embark his all on board a shin
and it be captured at sea, is he any the less
government ship and not a privateer In COM
menting upon the proposition Of the Hause
Dpwns, and Lord PALMERsToN's policy in re-
jecting it, the London Times asks why pro-
position is not made to declare the invasion of
an enemy's territory unlawful. and thereby to
save him from having troops quartcred on
him! The question is silly, and the answer
obvious. War is the only method Of deciding
quarrels between nations. Everything tend
ing TO hasten that decision is legitimate The
occupation Of the~enemy's territory is the
most efectual step that can be taken to bring
the decision of the question to q speedy issue
But the plundering of individuals does not
teuu u Vu"' eno. ~ ~ meIe ueeiess cTueIty,
that promotes no object for which war is de.
clared. 1t stands in the same category with
numbering wounded men and shooting pris-
oners.
We hope, if there should ever be another
general war in Europe, the United States will
not ask the protection of any Congress or any
treaty. Our government has its own theory
upon the subject Of neutral rights. 1t is ira
diional, and has cost us in its time, one bloody
war. We trust it will never be surrendered