Brownlow's Knoxville Whig. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1855-1861, 1861-06-15

set lor.h in lhc proclamation.
Eon us Eoadla Tma Of Ray,h
Letters of MsrQue A Review,
The common law of European nations as to
prizes OF war has been supposed to rest upon
a very celebrated statement drawn up 10y the
law officers OF hs country IN l152, alta crisis
when the King OF Prussia was threatening ic-
prsals for damage done TO the property Of
Prussan suhicctsby British pri,atecrs. This
statement WAC acted upon M the time, was
forty wears later repeated by Lord Stowcll,
ana has been adopted by that great American
authority Judge Story when treating on
prize courts, Il may be taken, therefore, as
nu enuucation Of tue public law relating to
bcllgorcut rights ON the high seas, as that
law was understood by England and America
In years past
According to this declaration the property
of an enemy may be taken, although on board
the ship ot friend and on the other hand,
the property Of friend, although on board
the ship OF au enemy, ought to be restored
This declaration also states 1t to be part Of
the hwu nations tha,, where two parties are
ut war 400 ships are liable to be stopped aud
examined us TO whom they belong to, and
and whether they are carrying conlhband to
the enemy These, In default OF specific
treaties, were the three propos.l ions acknowl-
edged by England in early days to be the
beams and rdters OF maritime international
law. But an international law prcsumcs u
universal consent OF great Powers, and this
reading Of bell Ecrcut rights at sea never had
such general sanction,
France never willingly acceded TO the doc
trnc that the goods OF a friend were sacred
from seizure although found IN m enemy S
ship, aud America never agreed TO the right
Of search. France, from time to time, press
ed by some temporary cXigency, made special
treaties TO this cncct but, as general rule,
there WAS IL total difference in the English AID
/ the French readings OF the maritime intcrnn-
/ tioual law. Whereas the French held that
/ lroe ships made free goods, we held that free
/ ships did not free enemies goods aud where
as the-french held that prize ships made prize
| goods, we held that friends goods were not
/ pr2cable in enemies ships
/ The French view, that the cargo followed
the. character of the ship was andoa6tedl ]
the easier to carry GU. and the less obnoxious
to legal quibblug. The English view was the
more strictly correct. But as neither had the
sanction Of an universal assent it Is difficult
10 claim for either ,he force of international
Lava In lsla, howeser, Ehen We took tgaace
With rs TO the Criulea, II eas neoessarytc act
under some common rules--we agreed, there-
fore, to meet each other halfway England
accepted the French principle hat free ships
make free goods, aud France cup her pre-
tensions 10 make prize of the property Of
ncutrals taken in enemies ships.
There was, however, no permancncy In this
compact, and when the treaty OF Paris was
concluded in 1856, the PlonipolentiHres Of
Great Britain, France, Austria Russia, Sar-
dinia, Turkey and Prussia made - solemn
declaration ON this subject, in order TO put an
end TO She uncertainty Of the law, or rather Of
the practice. This declaration was in the
following words:
81. Priyateering il, and remains, obolish-
ed.
q. The neutral flag covers enemies goods,
with the exception Of contraband OF war.
"3. Neutral goods, with the exception Of
contraband OF war, are not liable to capture
under an cnemy's flag
Blockade in order to be binding, must he
effective this is TO say, maiut med by force
sufficient really TO prevent access to the coast
Of the enemy. The present declaration is not
and shall not be binding, except between
those Powers who have acccded or shall ne
ccde to it,
To this declaration the United States never
acccdcd II 0ppears by the Presidents mes
sage of 1857 that they distinctly refused their
assent to the abolition of priyaleering.
The declaration itself when we withdraw
the cause which abOlishes priyaiecrinp, and
give effect to the proviso contained IN the last
member Of the fourth clause l. little more
than pcrpctuation Of the Convention be
tween England and France. ltgves the force
OF law to the French principle, that free ships
make free goods aud this would give security
TO as AS neutral traders in carry ing our CN-
ports 10 both Northern and Southern States,
and in bringing back our corn from the North
sud our cotton from The South Il the United
States had acccded wholly to the declaration
appended to the Treaty Of Paris, there would
have been 20 further doubt upon this part Of
the question. How itr they did accede TO It
will, perhaps admit Of some dispute. Their
objection was not TO the protection of neutral
ships. On the contrary America proposed to
herself always 10 be At peace, and always
rendering profitable assistance TO nations that
might be at war. Whether In the Baltic, or
IN the Chinese seas, or in the narrow waters
about Canton, The American policy WAS al
WAYS to extend the rights OF neutI7lls, and 10
contract the rights Of bcligcrcnts, She even
went to war with US to resist the right Of
search, which W. claimed ~ bclhgercnt
right. She hns always utterly denied the
right 10 visit any vessel sailing under her ilug
Tor any purpose whatever.
Stil more. therefore, would she resist a
fight to take any cargo out Of any ship nc
tulliy belonging 10 her under tho Pretcnce
that the cargo belonged to an enemy. Il was
MOTTO this part, therefore, Of the declaration
Of the Powers that were parties to the treaty
Of Paris that she objected It was simply TO
the clause which abolished priyateeriug. This
right to send forth priyatccrs she clung to MS
the resource of q nation which did not choose
60 keep up "a large navy, and which, being a
distant Power. bad 90 dangerous ucighbofs 10
cope " Job. and need not fear any sudicn NJ
tack. To this clause alone she objected MI
The rest was 10 accordance with her own
policy
Americas present POSITIONS Que which she
never could have f0roseeu, and never con.
tcmplatcd 10 b. tht direct CONTRARY OF 90
that she boz ever marked out fur herself aud
shc has consequently been iuduiiu1usIy vim
digauug PRINCIPLES anl making frrrdcui., all
nj which will nov 20 ~ The contraction Of
her oWn hellirerrm rights. Nhc hHs saved
from petishing The vile trade of ph,ateer.ug
sud che rtisiru,sui pfItairrfs. scattered over
,,rty s,s. will ueDetsitato tbe dividing her
nset in order a. protect her commerce.
rbt has firft,hsd ihs right Of ueuirlls 90
feaIsnnrsoi ihroure conceded f.ght u seafch
aui ,lsIif cod sbo boo Thereby giyen us inl-
munty iur every character of goods Which
we NAY Clng boz 0ur Tree nrulr4i fhlps She
Doe eltr. W. htiot. gone further than ibis
if ur mIstaAe not. iue. in D. veg nrsui ease
0f an imfrran iu'p fItsd ~ heap0IItHu
Dfaiifft on hiellT. fiIffi and Insisted uplp
ils point ihai q State eanu0i blockade BE-
osu port. Wf tptst irom Impression, aud
noi fom Tfierneei tut We believe ~ o.
eaueoi In saJins nat the initfi states d.
manafd cod nhisinfd ifaillauoa and CON.
p'aia''an hom ihs, i'ng Of h.lls' upea ihs