Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1861-05-23

are presumed to be only sucn as are usually urgeu
against the exercise of that belligerent right
The prevalence of Christianity and the progress OF
civilization have greatly mtgated the severity OF the
ancient mode of prosecuting hostihtles. w ar Is no"
an affair of Government. 1t is the pubic autnorlty
which makes and carries on war the individuals are
not nermted to take part in it, unless authorized to 40
so bv their Government 1t is generally received rule
of modern warfare so far at least operations upon
land are concerned that the persons and eects OF no
combatants are to be respected Inc Wanton pliiage
or uncompensaed appropriation OF Individual properly
bv an army even in possession OF an enemys country
is against the usage of modern times Such MODE OF
proceeding at this day would be condemned Dy the en-
iobtened Judgment of the world unless warranted py
special circumstances Every consideration whlcn up
holds this sentiments in regard to the conduct OF war
on land favors the application of the same rule 10 the
persons and property OF citizens OF begerents louno
upon the ocean. :
rate the severe usages of war by exemptng private
property upon the from hostile seizure 10 the eX
tent it is usually exempted on land, was the CHIEF IN
ducement which led to the " declaration by the con
gress at Paris that prvateering is, and remains aool
shed.'
The undersigned is directed by the President to say
that to this principle of eXemptlng private properly
upon the ocean, as well upon the land, applied with
out restriction he yields most ready and wiling as
sent The undersigned cannot better express the Pres
idens views upon the subject than by quoting the Ian
guage of his annual message to congress December f.
1854!
The proposition to enter into engagement to forego
privatees this country should De forced
favorable consideration would be proposition to agree
accept the of volunteers for operations on
land When the honor rights of our country require II 10
assume attitude confidently relies upon the pa
of citizens ordinarily devoted to the military
profession augment the army and so as to MAKE
them fully adequate the emergency which calls them into
action The proposal to surrender the right to employ p
protessedy founded upon the principle that pr
property of unoending ncombatants, though enc
mics should be exempt from the ravages OF war out tne
proposed surrender goes but little carrying out that
principle which equally requires that such private proper
y should be seized moesed by national ships OF War
rule of international law to exempt private property
upon the from seizure by public armed cruisers as
well by prvaeers the United States Will ready meet
them upon that broad ground"
The in favor of the doctrine that private prop
erty should be exempted from seizure in the operations
of war are considered in this enlightened CONTROL
ing as to have secured its partial adoption by all cvii
zed nations but it would be difficult to find any sub
stanal reasons for the distinction recognized IN Its
application to such property on land, and not to that
which is found upon the ocean.
If it be the object of the declaration adopted at Par
is to abolish this distinction, and to give the same secu-
rity from the ravages of to the property OF belg-
eren subjects the ocean, accorded to such
property upon the land the Congress at Paris has fall
en- short of the proposed result by not placing ndlVdu
al effects of belgerents beyond the reach Of public
armed ships well prvateers. Ii such property is
to remain exposed to seizure by ships belonging to the
navy of the adverse party it is extremely difficult to
perceive why ii should not in like manner, be exposed
to seizure by prvateers which in fact but another
branch of the public force of the nation commissioning
/ them.
If the principle of capturing private property the
ocean and condemniDg it prize OF war, be given up
that property would and of right ought to be secure
from mOeStatiOn by public armed vessels by prlva
teers; but if that principle be adhered to- it woad be
worse than useless attempt conne the exercise OF
the right OF capture to any particular description OF the
public force OF the beigerens. There is sound prn-
cipe by which such distinction can be sustained no
capacity which could trace definite line OF separation
proposed to be made and proper tribunal to which
disputed question that sub Jet could be referred for
adjustment The preence that the distinction may be
supported upon the ground that ships not belonging
permanently to regular navy more likely to dsre-
gard the rights of neutras than those which do belong
2 to such navy, is not well sustained by modern ex
: perience If it be urged that participation IN the
prizes calculated to stimulate cupidty that, as
peculiar objection removed by the fact that the
passion is addressed by the distribution of przemmoney
among the officers and OF ships of regular navy
Every nation which authorizes privateers is RESPONSE
BILE tor their conduct it is for that of its navy, anC
WILL as matter of prudence, take proper precautor
s and security against abuses.
e But if such distinction were to be attempted, il
would be very difficult, if not impractcable to define
the particular class of the public maritime force which
S should be regarded prvateers. "Deplorable dis
putes" in number and difficult Of adjustment
y would arise from attempt to discriminate between
0 privateers and public armed ships
II such discrimination were attempted every nation
would have und0ubted right to declare what vessel
should constitute Its navy, and what should be requisite
o to give them the character of pubic armed ships
Ihes3 matters which could not be safely prudent
left to the determination supervision of any Oreg
power, yet the decision of such controversies wou
naturally fall into the hads of predominant naval power
which would have the ability to enforce their judgments
e 1t cannot be offensive to urge weaker powers to avO
/ far possible such arbrament, and to maintain
with frmness every existing barrier against encroach
IL m9nts from such quarter.
No nation which has due sense of self-respect wi
allow any other beigerent neutral determine th
character of the force which it may deem proper
e in prosecuting hOstilities will it act wisely if
voluntarily surrenders the right to resort to any
sanctioned by international law, which, under any Gil
= cumstances may be advantageousy used for defence
J. aggression.
+ The United States consider powerful naves and larg
standing armies permanent establishments, to be d.
rmena to national prosperity and dangerous to civ
=, liberty The expense of keeping them up is burden
some to the people they are in the opinion OF this go,
u eminent in some degree menace to peace among
lions. A large force ready to be devoted to tn
70 purposes of war; is temptation to rush into it, Th
d policy of the U. States has been and never NOR
than now, adverse to such establishments and they
never be brought to acquiesce in any change in nte
national law which may render it necessary for them
maintain powerful navy or large regular army in tim
OF peace. LII forced to vndicate their rights by
they are content in the present aspect of ntenation
relations to rely, in military operations land manl
upon volunteer troops and for the protection of the
commerce. in inconsderable degree upon their me
camille marine. If this country were deprived of thes
resources it would be obliged to change its policy an
assume military attitude before the world In ress
rg an attempt to change the existing maritime law ths
ID may produce such result it looks beyond its own il
tees and embraces in its view the interest of all sue
III nations as are not likely to be dominant naval power
Their situaton in this respect similar to that of tt
United States, and to them the protection of commert
auu LUG maintenance OF INTERNATIONAL relations OF peaC
appeal strongly as to this country to withstand Ii
proposed change in the settled law of nations To snc
oe the