Daily Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1860-1862, 1861-10-20

ty of Kentucky.
We have said that the European Powers
should remove the Northern blockade of our
ports. Were they. to do SO, it would not be
violation of their neutrality, nor could it
justly give offence to the government of the
United States. Among all the indisputable
rights of belligerents, none are more clearly
established, or better defined, than this of
blockade. But it so disastrousIy affects che
| commerce OF neutrality, that it must always
be exercised within the strict rules and limits
prescribed by the law of nations. All the old
and recent writer's of International law, as
well as the decision of the courts and practice
/ OF modern nations, concur in the following
/ definition of a blockade To be effective
against, and obligatory upon neutral powers,
| 1t must exist an fact and the naval force or
squadron, must be entirely competent to cut
| on all communication with the iHterdicted or
blockaded coasts or ports and that all pro-
CARNATIONS or DEGREES declaring entire coasts
| or countries in state of blockade. without
the presence of an adequate naval force to
| support them, are illegal and void, and have
no sanction in public law. Judge Kent says
| that the definition of a blockade given by the
Convention of the Baltic Powers in 1880, and
again in 1901, aud by the ordinance of the
| American Congress in 1871, was 'sIhat there
/ should be actually number of vessels sta
| toned near enough to the port to make the
/ entry apparently dangerous and the gov
/ ernment of the United States has uniformly
insisted, that the blockade should be eff ctivc
| by the presence of competent force station
| ed, and present at, or near the entrance OF
the port; and have protested with great ener-
| gyaagai1st the application Of the right OF sci
zure aud confScation to iaefectudf aud fictitious
| bLocsdGeS. The definition in the treaty uf
| commerce between Chill and the United
/ States, in May. 1882, of besieged or block
AIDED place. sis one actually attacked by
| belligerent force capable of preventing the
entry of the neutral.n The blockade must
| be SO complete that ii must prevent all egress
| as well as ingress of vessels. To justify the
| confiscatiOn of neutra's vessel and goods
| due notice must be given him of the blockade,
which may be done by a formal notice from
the blockading power, or constructiveiy by
| a notice to his government or by the general
notorety of the fact.
We have given a sufficient exposition OF
this belligerent right, to answer our present
purposes. 1t is a notorious fact, admitted by
the leading Northern press, aud known in
Europe as well Ill the G 'nfederate States,
that such has been the neficiency of the Nor
thern blockade of our coasts and ports and
such has been their incompetent naval power
to enforce it, that great number of both
foreign neutral vessels. as we'll as those OF the
Confederate States, have entered and depart
ed from interdicted and besieged places with
out danger and molestation. Now let US ask,
is it not well established principle of the
law of nations, and especially is it not part
OF the international code of the United States,
that this failure to maintain the existence of
legal blockade amounts 10 entire defeaSancs
Of the If these vessels escape the crui-
sers by the latter's remissness, or because
the squadron was applied to other objects.
still such suspensions destroy the validity of
the blockade. There is no excuse for the alb
sence OF the feet but the accident of a storm,
aud then the siege must be Immediately re-
sumed.
II, therefore, what we have stated be true,
why do not the European powers, so much an
teTesttd in the benefits aud profits OF our COM
merce, in the maintenance of the law OF ma
tions, remove this fictitious and illegal block
ade; knowing az they do our incompetence
to do so, and that such an act Is no violation
of their neutrality, and cannot justly (by
its own decisions aud treaty stipulations.)
give offence to the government OF the United
States?
There is one other question of information
al Importance of which we wish briefly 10
speak: 1t relates 10 the position of neutrality
formerly assumed IN this By the State of
Kentucky. From the inauguration of hOstili-
ties by The North. the Confederate Govern
ment have recogniz the independent SOW
have permitted each State, that did not join
our Confederacy. if it so desired, to exercise
this incontestable right of sOvereigniy-to |
observe towards the two belligerent Republics |
a position of perfect neutrality. The State |
of Kentucky did adopt this position, and |
proclaimed her firm resolve to maintain it. |
Thrice at the ballot box, once through her |
Representatives. in the General Assembly and |
by the proclamation of her Governor did she |
hss- in CT
her Legislature passed anti-coercOn resOlu- |
tions-only four members dissenting; aud in |
April last, the addresses of the Central Union |
Committee, of which Prentice and James /
Speed were members, proclaimed Neutrali- |
ty as the policy of the State, and declared |
that an attempt to coerce the South would /
induce Kentucky 10 make common cause |
with her, and take part in the contest for |
Der, arititOM counting the cost" Beside all this,
the Union vote up to the very day OF the
last election, by nearly all the Union press
aud speakers, was claimed as given for strict |
neutrality and peace. These facts none will |
dispute. Now let US see what was the i'm
perative duty, and what should have been
the conduct of the people of Kentucky, in
this attitude of inviolabe neutrality, ac-I
cOrding to the established law and usage OF
nations.
A neutral is The common friend of both bellig-
erent parties, and therefore cannot favor one
to the detriment of the other. AS a neutral |
cannot sit in judgment to determine the JUS
tce or injustice of the war, it must observe
the strictest impartality towards its mutual
friends and hence it cannot grant one more
or less than the other, as it may |
deem the cause of the one more or less just.
No uses of neutral territory for purposes of
war should be tolerated. 1t is a gross viola
lion of neutrality to permit the ships or ar
mics Of either belligerent TO enter the waters
or the territory of the State to carry On hos
tiliiies from thence, or to send their ships to
capture the vessels of tho other belligerent,
DR. their armies to invade its dominions. That
these maxims constitute portion of the law
Of nations upon this subject, we refer to the
standard works of all publicists, and espe- |
sally are they the doctrine of the United
States.
In their circular address to the American |
this doctrine maintained
w the limited States Observation-Disclosures.
Lee, Silas Deane and Benjamin Franklin
% the Court of France in l777, Again by
he treaty of Amiiy and Commerce entered
Rto between France and the United States IN
IT'S, France coutended that she had the
iebt of. ayu,inq and equippng pessels for ,car
md of enlising men within The territory OF ,
he American govei nmtnt. The United
States denied this construction, aud produced |
proof from the most distinguished interna-
ional law writers, that the law and the prac- ,
ice of the civilized world were, that neu- {
raj must, in respect to the war. observe an ex- {
act Immortality towards the belligerent par Z
favors to the one to the prejudice ;
If the other, would import a fraudulent nea- I
rality, OF which no nation would be the dupe
that no aid in arms, men or anything that
,ertained to the war ought to be given to
.ither; aud that enlisting or arming men for {
hostile purposes, were in violation of an i'm ,
partial neutrality. By the Congress of vi !
,nna in 1915, and in the declaration signed
It Paris by the four Powers and France,
the perpetual neutrality of 3
and the inviolability of her ter !
-itory, these same principles were asstered
md recognized. Again-England. in 1928,