The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1861-12-13

n& peon stOppod on tho high sels aud over.
hauled. -Four :" the Passengers have beer
ing, and vsibly claiming, ~ they wore boin.
tnc,d away thu protection OF tho lag o.
| Gfoa' Britain. The-o arc Tho naked facts. w,
put out Of sight the accidsntA that ths gan To-
men thus kidnapped were accredited with q d.
ploma'ic mi~iod from the Confs orito States ol
| America 20 the Couris Of Europe, and al o tho
| poremptrry manncr in which ths PsierL fi-
gate sc'od 10 making hcr seizure. Tho inten-
| ton ~ the Federal Government WAS to act u Don
their strict right sud to do A. In IA little ,re-
| moniouaA III amer IA might bo. IL they ato
| justified by their rights ~ lrlisercntg Ia vi Il
they have done tho manner uf dong it IL a more
| question cf god or hal ta,to. ia ruds follow
claims his rish's Goa sely wcmlsl yct give him
| his rights; ani if We would not fad ourselves
| IN the wrong vc must Ut quarrel wi hn on
acc unit OF his III manner.
| it then, true that every onioor Of tho
| american Navy can stop and overhaul our -hi ~
| wherever they may hc found, and take out OF
| hem any prr- II, whom ho may l,m 10 be
| ciulens vi The U'itcd States or officer, ot the
,titcdcIatc GbNcrnmuut2 II are 10 admit
hr fcdctal view ui thci, own position O. wulli
"" lHin that no surh nigh, oNpte. 1h'y trl
'a that they are not - Wir, hut aro only put
ing down rebellion. They N,y, or sail
hat they aero blcckading thpir own ports,
NJ arc simply cuipUing Law winch
lpH closed tho sou'hoiu pore ~ port, uf cntfy
lhy iuSist ,pnn pl'tng their qnarrfl up,u
lo sanic gtoutd 49, n the y ieci OF ENGLAND
acic putting dosn rebellion IL tho l,la Of
Wght. Nov, II this were 70, IL Va ol.ar that
the Fclersl States ot America h,vc 10 st,pnns
cur mail atcamcr loen guilty Of an 80, of AZ
;rcrrion which coul only be properly punished
y laying an embargo on ovcry American ship
IN British pona AM sweeping their l.ttlo navy
rom tho Scas. They wOul according to their
piGt OF view, not bc al wsT, and wouli have
mono Of the rights oi rcllgorcnts over nsutrala
they would no moro bc bel gcrrnt, than Enl,-
land was after tho ctlcbrttol Smith O'Bri,n
battle in the cabbage garden, and thcy would
have no more right to stop our ships and carry
off our passengers than We should have had to
stop n French chip aud take MIR. y NTH O'Bh
out of her But this ss.umption Of the FeiorL
Government has been dlsailowed. TITO world
generally has teluscd to 500 in this disruption
aud rccun-titutiun ci The North American Rspul,-
lic meio rebellion. Wehayt recognized both re-
puol,saS bcllig' ren, staics We declare neutrali-
ybctwecn them aS between two warning plwers.
We have already recognized these Confederate
states as bclligerent Power, and W. shall,
when the time comes, recognize their Govern
mcnt. Therefore We have imposed npon our
selves all the duties aud incOnyenicnces of a
Power neutral between two bclliguronts.
Unwclcome as tho truth may bo It Is never
thelcss n truth, that we have ourselves eatAb-
lishcd ssystem OF International Law which now
tells against us. In high-handed and almost
dcspotic manner, We have in former days claim
ed privileges over neutrals which have at
different times banded all tho maritime
Powers against Us. We have insstod
oy'n upon stopping tho ships Of war
objects out Of them; and an instance 10
given by Jefferson In hrs Memoirs, in which two
nephews Of Washington were impressed by our
cruisers ~ they were returning from Europe,
and placed a. common scamen under tho disci.
nl nfx u. L.. Il a
tho strenuous asscrters Of tho rights of bellige-
rents oyer noutrals, and the decisions Of our
Courts OF Law, a. they must now be cited hy
our law officers, have been in confirmation II
these unreasonable claims. Owing TO thee
tacts the authorities which may bs cited on this
question are too numerous and too uniform az
to the right of search by belligerent ships Of
war over neutral merchant vessels TO be- disput-
cd. THE only security that nothing Ia 10 bo
found Inconsistent with amity and tho Law of
Lord Stowe, ia Tue t"iui;iS,vi & u ~, af ibe mi sa
ria, "is the right Of personal visitation ana
search TO be exercised by those who have AN in-
terest in making it.. Again, Lord Stowoll in
tho sane Judgment which Is the storehouso Of
all the English law on this subject, says. ''Bo |
tho ships, the cargocs, and the destination |
what they may, the right Of visit aud search |
are the incontestible right of the cruisers of |
belligerent nation. TIL they are visited |
and searched, IL does not appear what tho |
ships OF the destination are and IL Is for the |
purpose ofascertAining these points that the ne
cessity Of this right Of visitation AMI search ex-
lists. This right is so clear in principle that no
man can deny 1t who admits the right of mari
time capture because, If you are no. at liberty
to ascertain by sufficient inquiry whether there |
is property that can bo legally captured, il is |
impossible TO capture. The many Euro |
pean treaties which refer to this right /
refer to II a. prc-eNisting, and merely
regulate the exercise OF it. All writer's upon |
the law OF nations unanimously acknOW. |
ledge it, Tho great American authority |
Kent, treating upon tho same subject in his |
Commentaries, says -" The duty oi self pres
ervaton gives to helligerent nations this right.
The doctrine Of the English Admiralty Courts
on the right of visitation and search, and on
the limitation OF tho right, has boon recog-
nized in its fullest extent by the Courts of
Justice in this country So far as the an thori.
ties 20, the testimony of International Law
writer's is all one way that belligercnt war
cruiser has the right TO stop and vi It ard search
any merchant ship upon the high seas.
We quote these authorities because 1t IL es-
sential that upon matter no important as that /
now before us the public should lie we'll inform
ed, If We give full scope to law It remains
sun TO he askei whether the men who have
been taken from beneath tho protection of our
iiag were liable TO seizure. They were not
officers OF tho army or Of the navy Of the Con-
iederntc States Ihey were Diplomatic Enyoys,
wanting only in some iOrmalites % he Ambas-
sadOrs TO En- land and France. We do not say
that there Is any provision In the Law of nations
which will entitle us 10 maintain that their
persons were sscr, by reason of their mi sion |
ut, on the other hand, we are not aware of any |
authority which will show that these Envoys |
we're contraband Of war. II wo hal rccog.
nized the Confederate States We apprehend that |
NO should have beon perfectly justified in
takitg these Ambassadors on board our own
essel' Of war and bringing them to England
without in any way iorieitng our character
Ds noutrals. Hut, even il it were necessary to
sdmit that these gentlemen were In beligerent
or cOntrahand character on board the English
vessel, is, We believe, the opinion Of very
eminent jurlsts that this was not question 10
be adjudicated ON by naval officer and four
boats crews, The legal course would have
been TO take the ship itself into port and to ask
for her condemnation, or tor the condemnation
OF the passengers, in Court OF Admiralty. The
result might, no doubt, have been the same,
but ii the proceeding was irregular we have
surely right 10 demand that these prisoners
shall be restored.
When such tremendous interests are at stake
v feel deeply the responsibility of discussing l
question like this. Our iiTs. duty is to Clim-
not to inlame-the general indignA.
ton which will he felt in these Islands AZ the |
news is told We cannot yet believe, although |
the evidence is strong, that il is the fixed de-
termination OF the Government of the northern
states 10 tore quarrel upol the PoWors OF
Europe. We hepe, therefore, that our people |
will not meet this provocaton with an outburst
Of passion, or rush 10 resentment without full
consideration OF all the bearings Of the case.