The New York herald., 1862-02-12
THE MAs0N.sLIDELL ARREST.

Rights OF Neutrals-Hfs Points OF Dif.
ference from Mr.. Stewards Position.
The following copies Of correspondence with her
MAjesty's Minister in the United States
EARL RussELL TO LORD LYONS.
FOREIGN ovyIcE, Jan. 23, 1862.
that her Majestys government differed from Mr. Seward
OF the conclusions at which he had arrived
these differences consisted. now proceed 10 do co.
is necessary TO observe that propose 70 discuss the
questions involved In this correspondence solely
the principles Of international law. Mr. Seward himself
speaking the capture Of the four gentlemen from
board the Trent, says''Ths question before us 10
whether this proceeding authorized by conducted
According TO the law Of nations This ie lin fact Inc
OF the question which has been but happily no
longer at issue. II concerned the respective rights OF
bslgsrents and Of neutrals. We must therefore discard
entirely from minds the allegation that the captured per-
sous rsbs ana mast consider them oiv az enemies
The ground on which Mr. Seward ultimately places tho
discussion It 10 the only ground upon which foreign
governments can treat II.
The FIRST inquiry that arises, therefore, is as Mr.
Seward states IL, "were the persons Named and their
supposed dispatches, contraband Of warr'
Upon this question hcr Majesty's government differ
The general right and duty Of neutral Power to main.
tain its own communications and friendly relations with
both belligcrens cannot DO disputed. "a neutral ma
ticn,' says vattel (vstte book ILL., ohap z, sso 1ls)
"contnuss with the two parties at war, in tho several
TO perform towards both OF them the duties OF human
ty rccprocally duo from nation to natonu Ia the per-
OF these duties, both Sides neutral ma
tion has itself most direct and material interest espe
ciay IL has numerous citizens resident the terri
tories OF both bcligerents; and when its citizens resi-
dent both there and at homc have property Of great
yaiue in tho territories OF the which may be
exposed danger from acts OF conlsaon and violence
il the protection Of their government should be with
held This s the case with respect 10 British subjects
during tho present civil war In North America.
Acting upon these principles, Sir William Scott, in the
case of the CarolinslTho Caroline (Chr. Rob-, l6l);
cited and approved by Wheaton C'Elemsnts," part w.
chap g. )during the war between Great Britain
and France decided that the carrying OF schcs from
the French Ambassador resident In tho United States TO
the government Of France BY United States merchant
ship was no violation OF the neutrality Of the United
States In the war between Great Britain and France and
that such dispatches could not be treated a. consband
Of war;
The neutral country he sad has right 10 preserve its
cude that any conmunicsoa between them can partsic
in any degree Of the nature Of hostility against you The
the neutral state but your reliance Is the Integrity
or that neutral state, that will favor psrc
pate IN such designs but ~ far as its counses and
actions are concc ned Will oppose them. Aud there should
the good faith of the State has doubtful founda
uon that s matter for the caution Of the government TO
ceunteraced " Just measures OF Preventive policy; but
no on wnich h court can pronounce that The
which, far ashe know may presumed 10 bs of an
innocent nature and In the maintenance Of 4 pacific conuec
onn And he continues shortly afterwards dt s 20 be con
dsred Also wn rssa5a I % 70 this wha. be
require that the intercourse Of ith M
cnemyp country should not be altogether nterdrted n
might be thought 70 amount almost thst A.
subssssdorf We enemy shall not reside in tHe nsSr