Cincinnati daily press. [volume] (Cincinnati [Ohio]) 1860-1862, 1861-05-25
Greai Britain and The United states

The CoIToS CRoP of the South will soon
be in a marketable condition. Old England
and New England will need the staple to
keep their manufactures in operation, aud
the Cotton States will need to realize on
their crop, in money or its equivalents
The newspapers of Great Britain probably
reflect with accuracy the alarm which pre-
walls among the manufacturing classes of
that country, at the prospect before them in
consequence of the blockading Of the South
ern ports. There is not only danger of loss
of profit to the manufacturing capitalist,
but Of suffering among the working masses,
and of consequent insubordination to law
a thing of which Governments and men in
official positions are always afraid.
What, under the circumstances, viii Great
Britain do2 This is a question which men
ask, and newspapers at home and abroad
discuss, arriving at a variety Of conclusions,
apparently as they are influenced by views
of personal or general interests, or by party
feelings and p~rejudices.
New England will be as much affected by
the blockade as Old England. Her cotton
manufacture and her coasting trade will both
be temporarily Frustrated. But there is no
doubt as to what Massachusetts, or Rhode
Island or Connecticut will do. They will
bear the inevitable evils of a state of war,
complain little, and threaten not at all.
Under the recognized laws of nations, the
position of Great Britain is easily ascer-
tanned. Great Britain is a neutral power.
In a controversy between the United States
and the neutrality-suspicious. the latter is
to be looked upon as a distinct NATIONAL
ity, or only as a province in a state of revolt
che is not a party; nor can she rightly,
except upon some grounds affecting her as a
nation, make herself one.
THE neutral"-as is agreed by all the &C.
credited writers upon international law-"is
the common friend Of both parties, and, con-
sequently, is not at libertyto favor one party
to the detriment of the other" at is the
duty of neutrals to be every way careful not
to interfere in the war, and to do equal and
exact justice to both parties" "As to what
relates to the war, let them not prefer one
party to the other, and this is the only
proper conduct for neuttals.n "a neutral
has nothing to do with the justice or Unjust
ice of the war; it is not for him to sit as
judge between his friends, who are at war
with each other, and to grant or refuse more
or less to the one or to the other, as he thinks
that their cause is more or less just or un.
just"
No writer upon the laws of nations has
contemplated any exigency a%ccruing to a
neutral State, by which she is justified in
interfering between belligerent parties, ex-
cept through the stipulations of treaties en-
tered into between the neutral and one of
the belligerents before the war; and even
such treaties, except they contemplate war
in which case the neutral ceases to be neu-
tral-are Of no effect in case of a blockade.
The Government of the United States has
seen ft to blockade the Southern ports. In
either case-whether it looks upon them as
its own ports, or those of q nation with
which it is at warts right to do so is ALSO
Lutte. The only rule which the Government
is required to observe, is that the blockade
shall be actual; that is to say, sustained by a
sufficient force upon the spot to make it eff.
fective.
These are plain principles of the law of
nations, universally recognized in theory,
and as generally observed in the practice of
European nations; and it seems hardy prob
able that they will, in the present case,
be disregarded.
A question was asked of the Foreign Sec
rotary in the British House of Commons,
"Whether any attempt of the Government of
the United States to levy Federal duties off
foreign vessels outside the ports Of North
Carolina and Virginia before such vessels
break bulk, would not be an Infringement of
international law ?" The question was evil
IDENTIFY asked for a party purpose, and to pro.
duce an effect at home rather than in the
United States. The disposition of the United
States Government to modify the blockade
if any such disposition exists-is evidently
with a view TO render it as little burdensome
as possible to third parties. It is a question
to them whether they will accept it or not
if not, it will simply devolVe upon the Gov.
erDment to make the blockade absolute.
The question, however, was, in every re
spect an idle one. The right to levy duties
upon foreign goods is one which attaches t.
the national sovereignty, as do all thing
that are incidental 10 il, including the rat'
of the levy and the place and manner Of the
collection. If the United States has thu
power to impose the tax, it has, as 3 neees
sary concomitant 10 such power, the righttC
prescribe when, where and how it shall b
paid. Any other rule by which a third party
was permitted to come in and regulate it
incidents might defeat the levy altogether.
An American stickler for the letter of th.
Constitution and the statutes might-al
there are some who do-eGvil at the eollee
tiop Of duties by the Government eIsewher,
than the 0ustom-houses but with thesI
questions of Interpretation, GreNt Britain
has no business.
Another question was asked aWhethe
the Government Of the United States having
refused 10 ~relinquish the belligerent right Q
issuing letters of marque, the seven soye
reign and Confederate Southern States hav
ing become 70 the United States a separat
I'd independent and foreign power, He
ML'ssty's Government recognizes the RICH
ora President Of the Southern OOnfederae
70 issa Letters of marquee"
Undel The influence Of Southern men /
The GoVensasnt, contrary to the will of th
majority Of be people Of the North, ana
one would simoA think, in view Of the prsser
state Of sfhAirSs theUnited States did reful
TO enter into = conyeAion, proposed hy SCI
eral European powers % do away with pr
watering. The British Gosernmentrecogniz