Cincinnati daily press. [volume] (Cincinnati [Ohio]) 1860-1862, 1861-05-25

ing the declaration 70 hat effect as follows
"That the character ofbeligerency is not 20
much a principle ~ a fact; that q certain
degree Of force and consistency acquired by.
any mass Of population engaged in wa, e.
titles that population to be treated e bel.
ligerent and even, IL their title were ques-
tionable, renders it the interest we'll UNDER
stood of all civilized nations 50 treat them
OF this, however inconvenient it may DO
in its effects, the United States has little
right to complain. 1t has always been fore
most-exeept in the discreditable case Of
H~syti-to recognize, not merely the bellig-
erent but the national character Of rSvo.
lutionary people; and however desirable 1t
may have been for the British Government
to take a different view of the present case,
it could hardly, under the circumstances,
have been expected.
This recognition on the part Of the British
Government Of the belligerent character of
the Oonfederacy, only renders a rigid block
ade Of the Southern ports all the more neces-
sary. Shut in, or not permitted to reach
the Confederate harbors with their prizes,
the privateersmen will either be obliged to
abandon their commissions, or to plumber
their prizes without the necessary formality
Of condemnation by the proper courts; in
which latter case they viii become guilty of
piracy, aad subject to capture and punish
ment as the enemies of all nations
We remember to have seen IL stated by
one Of our city contemporaries, that the re-
cognition by the Governments of Europe,
of the Confederacy as d belligerent would
enable the privateers of the latter to carry
their prizes into the ports of the former for
condemnation. This is incorrect. 'This
jurisdiction" says q late eminent writer,
team not be exercised by a delegated author
ity in a neutral country, such as a consular
tribune sitting in the neutral port and act
ing in pursuance of instructions from the
captor's State. Such a Judicial authority, In
the matter of prize of war, can not be con-
ceded by the neutral State to the agents Of
a belligerent power within its W trrritory,
where even the neutral government itself
has no right to exercise such jurisdiction,
except in cases where its neutral juris-
diction and sovereignty have been violated
by the capture. A sentence Of condemna-
ton pronounced by a belligerent Consul in
a neutral port is, therefore, considered as
insufficient to transfer the property in ves-
sells or goods captured as prize Of war, and
carried into such port for adjudication"
The London Times, in an article which, in
the style Of its argument and the knowledge
of facts and the law applicable to them,
might better have appeared in the New
York Herald, attempts to show by an Amer
lean precedent the right of European nations
to trade at the Confederate ports, in spite of
the blockade. 1.-THE coast of the Confederate
States" it remarks, " will be to the Northern
States of the Atlantic what the coast Of
Africa was to Great Britain. Cotton will be
to the New Workers what negroes were to
us. . = The merchant ships which will
trade between Europe and the Confederate
States have only to hoist an. English or a
French flag, and the great war. steamers of
the United States Navy must, in obedience
to the law their own Government has in
other cases enforced, allow them to pass"
There is a slight difference in the two
cases, which the writer found it convenient
to overlook. The United States did-with
Mr.. Buchanan for President, and Mr.. John
B. Floyd for Secretary Of War-exhibit a
ridiculous squeamishness, or a quarrelsome
| captiousness, in respect to the sacredness of
the ''stars and stripes !" but in order to make
the two cases parallel, Great Britain and Da-
honey must have been at war, the former
blockading the ports of the latter, and the
United States Government sanctioning a
breach of that blockade by vessels sailing
under its flag-none of which things ever
happened. Great Britain was not at wal
with the coast of Africa. Its vessels and
those of the United States were watching but
not blockading the coast; and the United
States did not claim that vessels bearing its
flag, gained thereby a right to carry on the
trade which the 1eets were stationed there
to prevent,
1t is no more than fairness to assume-ir
the absence OF anything like evidence to the
contrary-thatth the British Government, even
though the material interests of its people
may be temporarily affected by events trans,
piring in America, will not be found sane
tioniDg any fragrant breach ofthe plain prin-
ciples of international justice on that &C.
count. We see nothing in the remarks Of
the Foreign Secretary that looks as if the
British Government entertained any inten-
ton to interfere ~irregularly in American af
fairs. The debates in the House of Com
mons, although of interest, as exhibiting the
varieties of English opinion under the infu-
ence of party feelings, are no more infallible
indices of the policy of the Government than
the debates in the Congress of the United
States are to that of ours; and even The
great and potent Times newspaper may, OF
occasion-as can be seen in the article Il
which we have alluded-fall into the sensa
tional vein, and talk like a school. boy.