Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1861-11-29

Er the En3Ii-g.
rhs csro or messrs. rson and slidoil.

to this affair says: s
. "Bu. not contcu. with violsting our rights,
under the law of nations, ct home, they have
attended ,hcse iriuries to Us within other jI-
risd;ctions The distinguished gentlemen
whom. with YOUR approval, III The last sessicn,
commissioned n rrp:esnul the L;uDiodtracy
ut ccr,si. foreign courts have been recently
seized by the captain ota United S'e:es St'p'oi-
war on board British steamer, On th@ir VoI'
Ave from the neutral Spanish port OF DaTana 10
Esrlaui Tire United Sin,es hare thus
claimed a general jurisdiction over tho high
seas. and en.crag British ship, sailing under
lis coun,rr's tiag, violated the 'sh's VI elnoAs.
sy, fer the most part h"l;: sacrca eVea a'nop :.
barbar;ans. by SEEING our ministers nni,Ss
u,ii,, he rrrior,;nn MD within the dominiors
ul 4 .e,,.ral nation. These gentlemen were as
,npci und.r -. Jurisdiction Of the British GoV'
eminent uDnn ihs; ship and i,encath It's hag SIS
If ,h.y bei h,., VI its sD:l, and claim on the
BART Of lhr United States 10 seize them III tne
streyts Of London would have been Us well
iuunaed as tina. 10 apprshend mem "here
they were taken. Had thev heea maieiaciolS
and citizens even If the U"lied states, tney
could not have bucn arrested on b:lt'sn SUP
or en- British soil, unless nAoes the express
provisions Of treaty and accoEuihS 20 tlic
ferns therein provided Tor 'he cSi:s'!'lon Oh
criminals"
the truth Of inc propositions of law here so
plainly expressed, il was not eHpectto "ouia
have Geen questioned by any j1rlst IN Chr!s'eti
dym Iadaed, considering that internat'ohai
!am is but nataral law, WHEREOF every hohess
maa ought 20 have an original sense, aPplieo
10 tho STARS OF nations, and only Var'eo ano
givra precision in things lot essential OF 'nos'
finite i.y the customs Of nations ara convex
tons between their governments, 1t m'Ene nave
been supposed that every enlightened mau CT
ccmmon sense would have concurred 10 these
sssr sppr s s Of tvi rs Pan q fsSensoy
would have felt ms indignation kindled against
the barbarian v;olatorS Of such sacred rights.
Bat, one of the public j,uruuls O! South
Carolina, in its hurry to frankly admit every.
i!iIng it verify believed to be tue, however it
might cpera:e IL the advantage oil enemies who
had proved themselves utterly regardless vi
all truth and ncnnr, entirely misunderstood
dec,eN;n rf the British Court of Admiralty,
arsi III he supp9si,ion that it had decided tbs
very cna;rad:rt0rr OF what It d:d aGjGdSc,
c:Incs e. Tie conclusion that that government
CANNOT, consistently With lis own recognition OF
tie law, utter am complaint on its own behalf,
and will decline any interference on oehait o.
our captured commissioners And, writer IN
one OF the journals OF New York has exercised
himself in production Of Two columns in sup.
port OF the same conclusion by an argument
on numerous citations from the books OF Ia.
ternstional law o.
They are both wrong, and We will not only
.clutc their Specous arguments and expose
their fallacles, out provo that the message OF
The President is the law in all its positions.
The advocate or judge N a discussion, for
the purpose o:spriying judicial decision as a
precedent to I case uncer argument, or Tor
his Judgment, ough, always 10 ascertain in The
ti7sl place wust are The two cases. and to be
careful thu, hc does moi conclude tina, tie thing
Gil VII CT The lwo depend Is the same when il
is essentially different, and remember that all
that is Said By the Judge in the decision in
vcked must be applied in reference TO the case
before lin for his decision. These precau-
:;uns we're rot nsei by either the writer in the
Charleston Mercury" or New York "Herald."
The argument in the Mercury" IS based
exclusively u,l ;,.a case of the Caroline, Doal,
i"s,t":, '!rc:t, d il the English Court Of Al
rp:"s,;y N i6u5, in tue time Of var between
tires. y !a;n and France, reported in RIB
rtrn Now what vas that case!
Ia, Caroline vas an American vessel-a
snip &! the United States. She was captured
ny i,!itiSh vessel on her voyage from New
I,rk 10 Bordeaux, French port, and dis
patches were found on board, not from the
n:ScsEmett Of the United States, but from the
French minister in America 10 the G,vera
Tnent Of France. Great Britain and France
we're then at Wharf.-The Uaittd States neural
AID the question was whether the vessel OF the
neutral might lawfully carry dispatches from
TIC minister u The be!l'geren, IN 4 neutral
country In MS own GOraruni"a. a. loInc? /;
was pot The case CT neutral vessel cl!rying
the ministers Of one OF .ae bsliigarea!s %iEn
their letters o. c.edence ard instructions, from
the port Of another neutral Stale 10 her own
hom- port, on their way 10 the courts 0: neu
IIal States; and no question on such case
arose for decision.
The court had Just before decided the case
Of the Atlantic. TIE Atlantic was Bremen
ship, and was, together with her cargo, all
neutral property. She was captured on voy.
age from Batavia to Bremen, on the 4sh Of
JAY, 1907, having come last from the Isle Of
France, where packet containing dispatches
frcm the Government Ct the Isle OF France "a
French colonyJ 10 the Minister Of Marine o,
Paris, was taken on board by the master and
one OF TIE supercargocs, and was afterwards
ioucd concealed m the possession Of tho second
super,arso. Tee court iound OF tho evidence,
ths, bula inc master and supercarsocs had FIJI!
knowledge that the dispatches were or board,
and that they frauiulentiy concealed them
ard the Judgment was the condemnation q
both the ship aid caTgr.
Tho distinction between this case OF the
A;la:;ic aud tue case Of Sfcssrs Sldel ard
Mason, i: will be uol'csd, is this: In the case
II li,r Atlantic, the dispatches were from Q
:,nc,ionary OF French Colony to the Gov
crumeEt d; Paris, with which Great Britain
vas then at &er where's, in our case, Mrssrs
SIideli and Mason we're tne Ministers Of one q
he hei,gercn,s, on their way to the court o!
s ncurIl power
The principal question discussed in the case
Of the Caroline was the distinction between i,
and this case Of the Atlantic.
o. this matter The court says:
"Tnc circumstances Of the prescn! case
however, do not bring it within the range o.
lesc considerations because 1t is not n clsc OIL
dispatches coming from caJ pGrt Of the enc
my territory, whose c"H'merce and co!nmun'.
GATORS Of every hind. the other bel!icercnt has
2 right To Interrupt: They are dispatches
from parsons who s:r, in a peculiar manner.
tho iavUri;e objects Of the protection Of the
law o! nations, Ana5aasadors resident in q
neutral couaty, for the purpose Of preserving
the relations 0! anily between that State, ard
ms own government
"On ;sese grounds very material distinc-
zion arises with respect to the right Of fur
nishing tbs conre;ance. The fnrmnr ca,cs
we're cases OF neutral ships, carrying the enc
my dispatches. from his colonies to The motbel
country. Ia slI such cases you have right
to conclude, that tie effect CT those dispatches
is hostile 70 yourself, because they must relate
20 The security CT the enemy possessions, and
10 the maini-naEca OF a communication be-
tween lheu,; yun nave right 10 destroy these
p,sse ss'oDs and that communication; aud il