Cincinnati daily press. [volume] (Cincinnati [Ohio]) 1860-1862, 1861-05-18

An EDGIish Opinion Adverse TO the
American Blockade Interference of the
British Government IBtimRted.
The London Herald, q Derbyite organ, of
the Sd inst, has the following:
1t is Just possible that Mr.. LiucoIn's proc.
lamation of blockade has the same double
meaning as his other state papers; but it is
not likely. That point we would fain be-
lieve has now been reached when nothing
more is TO be gained by ambiguous wording,
and when the Federal Government may
speak that language to other Governments
that he who runs may read. Skillful and
successful hoodwinking of Lord John Rus
sell up to the present time may still suggest,
however, one last American diplomatic
stroke Of double dealing, that it may remain
epen to seize neutral vessels and their car
goes, or to let them go. If this should be
apparentin the proclamation, it is to be hoped
that neither merchants nor ship-owners will
put themselves in Mr.. LiDcoln's hands.
Were the United States possessed of q
navy like our own, the blockade of the South
ern seaboard could be maintained easily by
a sufficient force but in the virtual absence
OF a feet the blockade must be maintained by
privateers, and be a paper one. All the
public armed vessels at the service of the
Federal Government will be required for
tonvoJs, for the bombardment of works held
by the enemy, and for making demonstra-
tions on the coast. And it is a safe assertion,
that as soon as t~hetighting has begun in earn
est, and the smart rsking schooners and well
appointed steamers hailing from the cotton
ports begin their depredations on American
trade, not on the Atlantic seaboaId only, but
in Europe, not a single American ship of
w6r viii be employed in mere blockade. p
That form of blockade resorted to by our
selves during the long war, and the right OF
which the United States have alone retained,
is what circumstances in the end must re-
quire, and, while under such q blockade the
neutral flag covers nothing, neutral goods
under an enemy's flag may be captured.
In other words, under such q blockade as
it is alone the interest of Mr.. Lincoln to es-
tablish, ships of neutral nations making for
Southern ports or leaving Southern ports,
or with the produce of the Southern States
upon their bottoms, may be oVerhauled and
taken TO a prize port and condemned by the
private armed vessels upon which this duty
must alone deyolYe. American pFivateers,
following the example Of British ships-of-
ocean and prevent q single bale OF cotton
from reaching England, unless British ships
of war are employed to put them down.
To put down Federal privateers would,
we need scarcely cay, be an act of war
against the Federal Government; but not to
do 30 threatens an alternative still more dis
sstrous than even such a war. This is the
dilemma into which Lord John Russells
American policy has brought himself aud
the country. II cotton is not to be got by
fair means, we must not scruple TO use foul
nesns, or the daily bread Of four or five
million Of the working population will be at
OF ce stopped. = . . To blockade the
cotton ports is TO destroy the British cotton
trade, to involve, not in remote, but in i'm
mt diaie destitutiop, several million of the
British people, and il would be a better
reflection for the present generation as well,
perhaps. as to the one that folio VS. II, that to
the shortsiR htedness of Lord John Russell
and the present government il was entirely
owing. Had they lone as mere common
SCI Sc would have suggested, the present
danger would not only have been averted
hut cotton would have been supplied with
out let OF hindrance, and we might have
remained on good terms with both belli
gerants. 2 70