The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1861-06-07
If place is ,blockaded by sea only, aneu-

Ii place Is bl0ckaded by sea only, aneu.
trail may carry on commerce with it by in
land communications. The neutral vessel
may enter neighboring port not included
in the blockade with goods destined to be
carried thence overland. For instance,
goods might now be landed in q Mexican
port to be forwarded by land to any port in
Texas, or even to Charleston, without q
violation of the blockade. This is one of
numerous ways in which blockade is
evaded but, after every evasion, it must
still prove most destructive to the CONNER
cial interests of the States blockaded.
From the Toronto Leader, Government Organ.
RECOGNITION OF NEW STATES = THE
THEORY AND PRACTICE. ,
Whether the recognition by England OF
the Southern Confederacy as belligerents is
a cause of offense or of war, is question
that the United States press has begun to
discuss. A virtual recognition frequently
precedes the actual recognition of new
State. Of the former kind is the recogni-
tion of the Southern Confederacy as bellig-
erents. 1t shows lamentable unacquaint-
ance with the principles of international
law, and the usages of nations to assume
that, by pursuing this course, England gives
the federal government any just cause of
offense, much less of war. But since the
question has been raised, it must be consid-
cred.
Prior to the Peace of Campoformio, Ma.
poleon the First said I" the French Republic
no more needs recognition than the sun re-
quires to be recognized" The facts convey
practical recognition, and no silence can
alter them. "There u.s." says Phillimore,
the latest and best authority, in the Com
mentaries upon International Law, "no
proposition upon which there exists more
universal agreement of all jurists than upon
this, viz, that this virtual and de .facto
recognition of new State gives no just
cause OF offence to the old State, inasmuch
as it decides nothing concerning the asserted
rights OF the latter. For, if they be even
tually sustained and triumphant, they cannot
be questioned by the third power, which,
pending the conflict, has virtually recog-
nized the revOlted State" 1t has been
questioned whether the refusal to recognize
a new State, when the final issue admits of
but little doubt, though the conflict may
not be abandoned, is not an ofense against
the law of nations Oppenheim decides it
in the negative and though be admits that
such refusal may border upon injury, it does
not constitute casus belEi.
The conduct of the old State from which
the new has separated, is no guide for the
rest of mankind. The old State may refuse
to recognize the new, as Phillimore express
ses it, Z" upon the bare chance that she may
one day or other recover her authority;"
but this is no bar to the complete and
formal recognition of the new State by
other communities of the world" The doc
tIine goes much further. Recognition is
an International duty, which nations cannot
in fairness neglect, because power that is
not recognized as having position among
the family OF nations is at great disad-
vantage. The Courts of any power can
only take notice of a new State after their
government has recognized its existence.
Fill then they are bound to assume that the
old state OF things exists. This would de-
prive the new power of advantages to which
in common with all others, it is entitled.
The time when a new State may be recog-
nized admits of some latitude of choice.
What is necessary is the existence of
government acknowledged by the people
over whom it is set" 1t is not necessary to
wait for perfect undisturbed tranquility
for it often happens that this is not found
even in old communities.
From the theory of international law we
come to the practice OF nations, and we
shall soon find the absurdity Of the pretence
that ali other nations must wait for the re
cogntlOn OF the new State by the power
from which it has revOlted. Examples are
ABUNDANT. Spain refused for nearly eighty
years to recognize the independence of the
United Netherlands but every power 10
Europe, with the exception of Austria, ex-
tended to the new State in the interval both
virtual anu formal recognition. When
Portugal revolted, and broke off it's con-
nection with Spain, the deprived State did
not acknowledge its disobedient child for
twenty-One years, though England recog.
nized Portugal as an Independent power
within year from the issue of the procla-
nation by the Cortes of the Duke of Bra.
CANA. The English government entered
into treaty with the new power, in which
the King OF CASTLE was spoken of as dis
possessed ruler. The formal recognition OF
Holland took place without the consent of
Belgium. England and Russia covenanted
to send Consular agents to Greece several
years before the formal recognition of that
power, irrespective of what the Porte
might do in the premises. France accep.
ted the declaration OF independence by the
British Colonies OF America as a complete
act OF independence, describing them as
Lies Etats Unis de rAmerique setentrion-
ale, que sout en- pleine possession de Pinde-
pendance pronounce par leur act du Juliet
4, l776.'
Two years alter, France entered into
treaty with the revolted Colonies under the
name OF the United States OF America. 1t
is common mistake to suppose that Eng
land declared war against France because
she recognized the revolted Colonies as au
independent nation. The cause of the war
was the course France had pursued in ex.
citing the rebellion by the employment of
agents, in whose memoirs the whole plot is
confessed. Both England and the United