New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1862-01-10
United States and Great Britain, containing the fol-
lowioo stopl,t;oc.

whstevet shil the high Wftout
the jurisdiction Of either parry be demanded taken cot e
ship vessel belonging to citizens subjects Of =
pt sss S Of P Ss ohs ] ,s b. az r. g.:
~ re military "Triee ~ an enemy II 'Se" oasr po~tv-
Mr.. Monroe pressed this stipulation most earnestly
upon the British Government; but though treated
courteously, he could get satisfaction with regard
to 1t. Lord Harrowby, tue Foreign Secretary, in
one of his conversations "expresseds concern to find
the United STATES opposed 70 Great Britain on Ger.
tam great neutral questions In favor Of the doctrines
Of the modern law, which he termed noUeit,es."
lState Papers, vol. 3, p. 99.) And Lord Mulgrava,
VINO succeeded this accomplished nobeman, perez
vered In the same dissent. DIR. Monroe writes,
under date Of Oct. IL, 1895:
" On review Of the conduct OF this Government toward
ne Inled states AN inclined TO thk tha, the delay which
has been so 'adooy sought par, system u
intended 50 circumstances favor subject -
preient End hereafter to every restraint their power"
I a. - 80 Estate Pspers. vol p lol
Aiterward, Mr. No roe was Joined by Mr. Pink
ney in be mission 10 London, aud the two united IN
presenting the same proposition again 10 the British
Government. State papers, vol 3, p. 1871 IL was
rejected, although the Ministry OF Mr.. Fox, who
was then in power, seems to have afforded at one
| time the expectation Of an agreement. While these
distinguished plenipotentiariee were pressing this
pIinciIle at London, Mir. Madison was maintaining
| it at home. 10 an unpublished communication 70
Mr. Merry, the Bri,sh Minister az Washington,
bearing date Sch April, 1906, which extract from
the files of the State Department, he deelared
1.-The United States accede to the claim Of any NJ,
ton their the high any dsypss
" except sd1srs Ia the SEXUAL ervco oil the enemy
In reply, bearing date 18th April 1905, thi, prin-
cipe was positively repudiated by the British Alin-
iser; 80 that the two Governments were ranged I'M
equvocilly on opposite Sides The treaties of the
United States with foreign nations are IN harmony
with this principle energeically proposed and up
held by Mr.. Madison. la the treaty of commeroe
with France, in l77o, it is expressly provided that
Enemies to both either patty not to be taken ont q
tho said hips iey s0tders and "a actual
tae eaemIes"-l Statutes 81 Large. vol .. p 20
In the treaty with the Netherlands, 10 1884, the
c, pton is confined to "military men actually In the
ssrvice OF an enemy" ubld p. 3S; and this same
exception will also be found 10 the treaty with
Sweden, in 1882 ibid p: ca; with Prussia in l7Ss
with France, in 1900 Ibid p. 1874; with Column
bis, in 1924 Ibid, p. 1926 with Central A@eriea,
in 1875 ibid, .. 32sl with Brazil, in lS2o Ibid,
p. 39p; with Mexico, in 1881 Qbid., P. 4I6l; with
Chill in 1882 ibid, p. 4J6l with Venezuela, u
1896 Hold, D. am; with PeIu-Bolivia, in 1886
Ibid. .. 1901; with Ecuador, in 1889 Ibid, p 5iO);
with New-Granada, in 1886 Statutes VOL ., SsSD;
with Guatamala ia lsiJ Statutes, vol TO- p. $500;
with San Salvador, in 1850 ibid, P. S9i; aud in
the treaty with Peru, in 1851 Ibid, p. 1885,. Such
il the unbroken testimony, In the most solemn form,
10 the policy OF orr Government. la some OF the
treaties the exception Is simply "solders, 10 others
il is oifcer5 or solders." Ii is true that among
IN treaties there 10 none with Great Britain; bus
II aso true that this Is simply because this Rover
reuset it's assent when this principle was pre-
sented by our Government an uudOubted part OF
imte national law which il desired TO confirm oy
treaty. Clearly ana beyond all question, according
t. American principles and practice, the ship wss
not liable 10 capture account OF the presence Of
euissaries, - not soldiers or officers; nor could
such emissaries be legally taken fiom the ship.
But the completeness OF this authority Is Increased
by the conCurrlog testimony Of tie continent oi
Europe. Since the peace OF Utrecht, IN iII3, tue
policy of the Continental States has refused 70
sanction the removal of enemies from Leutrai
ship, unless military men In sctual service. And
now siuce thi. DEBATE has commenced, We nave
the positive testimony OF the French governments
to the principle, given with special reference
to the present care. NJ. Thouyenel the MinsNf
Of the Emperor for Foreign Affairs, IL recens
letter to Mr. Sc ard, published with the papers
now before the Ssnste, earnestly insists that the
rebel emissarits, not being military persons
actually in the service OF tie enemy, were nos 81
iect 20 seizure on board neutral ship. leave tnis
uart of the subject with the remark chat 10 10 Greas
fr;tain alone whose position this question can b
brought into doubt But still another question
occurs. Beyond all question, there were us
matches" fr,m the rebel belhgerents ON board TIE
ship-such "dispatches as rebels can write. fuo-
lie report the statement of persons board the ship,
and tIe boa tful declaration OF Jeterson DAVIS III
pubc document that these emIssa les were proceed
ing N der an appointment from hD--~hich appoint-
uient would be dispatch Of the highest character
this fact, the ship was h,ole TO capture and 70
be carried of for adjudication, according to bnt.
ish authoriies-unless the pos tive Judgment OK
Sir William Scot ID the case OF the Ataianta 70
Robinson r.. D. 4l0l, and also tue Queens Proc
Lmation at the commencement OF this rebellion,
wnere dispatches are enumerated among coasra-
band articles are treated as nulles, 50 Tar modi-
fed in cir application az TO lie words, aud nothing
more. But however binding and peremptory Ihess
authorities may be- in Great Britain, they cannot DC
accented 20 reverse the standing policy OF the United
Statee which here again leaves no room Tor ooaot.
In order TO give decision ~ the nights Which
claimed and at the same tue accorded on the ocean,
our Government has sougt TO expiaia IN treaties
wha il meant by coutrsband As early ~ H9o, IN
the treaty with Spain, after specifying contraoand
articles without including dispatches, It Is declared
that
Free goods all other merchandise and a.Hg, which are
not 81 soed a. Large
vol 9, 7. Ii5' -,
In other treaties subsequent to the Judgment OF Sr
William Scott, Recognizing dispatches As eontraDahds
and therefore practically discardng It, after enumef'
atm conlraband articles. without specifying Dis
patches" the following provision is Introduced;
All other and iTg' not couprehendod 10 ne
articles Of con,raband explicitly enumerated ara css'ea
above shall be held aud considered Sc Zee liV'I 'Ds
Treaty with Columbia and later treaties ps'sim'
Thus We have not only positive words OF euumera-
lion without menIiJning "dlspatches, but also
posiive words OF exclusion, so thai Ispa'ches can
nor be considered Ms cOnIfa6an1. these treaties
constitute lie conclusive record OF our governments
on III question. Aud here le' me remark, that,
While decisions of British Admiralty Courts on all
thess matters are freely cited, no decisions Of our
Snnreme Court are cited OF course, if any existed,
thew would be of the highest value; but there are
none and the reason i obvious ihese Soa nr
Government they are SO clearly settled BY ire Aties
and diplomacy as to be beyond question. CleAily
then, and beyond all question. according to Amen
can principles and practice, the sbp was not liable
to capture on account OF dispatches on Ooard. Anu