The New York herald., 1862-01-10

PRICE TWO CENTS.
And this proposition though in some respe cts nde
nnte mas been often repeated since by writers on tho
law OF nations On its face leaves the question unset
ted whether the emssaries OF unrecognZod govern
ment can be stopped But there another in which
the same British Judge, who has done much 10 Illus
trate International law has used language which seems
TO embrace not only authentic pre-
tenders TO this character and all others who public
agents OF the enemy Says this eminent magistrate
T. appears to prineple to be but reasonable thar
such persons should be sent the public serre and q te
.san,t ss n
RobtHson r., p 4A
Admit that the emssares Of an unrecognzed govern
men cannot be recognized ambassadors with the LA
oties as wen as mmunities OF tins character, YET IN
the face Of these words il difficult 10 how govern
men bowling habitually TO the authority OF Sir William
Scott and regarding our rebels as "begerents can as
belgerents, "sent out the public service and at the
public expense was according 10 the language OF Lord
Russell, pursuing lawful and innocent voyage" A.
least in this assertion this government seems to turn
its back again upon its own history or II sets aside the
facts so openly boasted with regard 70 the PUBIC 9,
racter OF these ugtves On this question British policy
may change with circumstances and British prece ents
may be uncertain but the original American policy III!
changeabe, and the American presidents which
illustrate It solemn treaties; Tho words Of
vattel, and the judgments Of Sir William Scott
were well known to the statesmen Of the United
States: and yet, in the face of these authorities,
which have entered largely into this debate the Anne
rcan government at early day deliberately adopted
contrary policy 10 which. for half a century IL has
steadily adhered. II plainly declared that only SOL
diers officers could Be aped thus positively excluding
the idea OF stopping ambassadors emssaries OF
kind not in the military naval service Mr. Madison,
who than any other person shaped our national po
Icy maritime rights has stated 1t on this question In
his remarkable despatch to Mr. Monroe at London dated
January 5, 1904, he says
article the claim take from the vessels Of
the neutral party the high whatever nc
I" ne ybn AN % n S Ss S %e
traband OF war WitS this respon zoe consider neutral
ss%hs hsS %.saslara 70 those 'aii~ under d
Then again, in the same despatch, Mr. Madison says
Great Britain them must produce exception in the aw
s s 'ss III
usage except her own will 1t b. fSundf n,,
freedom of the seas and Of neutral ass which ases
found on board neutral vessel-IGid., p. 81
And then, again in the same despatch, he says-
Whenever beigerent claim against persons board
neutral vessel referred to in treaties ,n.m: e m,'ay
"aaiv J" Of those %So are not Included IN ~iSd r S.
II was in pursuance Of this principle thus dearly
nounced and repeated that Mr. Madison instructed Mr.
propose between the United States
and Great Britain, containing the following stipulation
the jurisdctcn Of either party be demanded
ship vessel belonging 10 citizens subjects OF one
service Of the other, unless such at the
| Itid, p. g.
Mr. Monroe pressed this stipulation earnestly upon
the British government but though treated coqrteousY
he could get satisfaction with regard to it, Lord Har
rowby the Foreign secretary in OF his
cxpessed to find the United States opposed to
Great Britain certain great neutral questions in favor
of the the modern Law which he termed
uelties." State Papers, vol 81 p 9e) And Lord Null
grave, who succeeded this accomplished noblenan per-
severed in the same dissent Mr. Monroe writes under
date Of 18th Of October. 1906
review Of the conduct Of th: towards the
been studiousiy sought Is part OF system and that
pesen. and hereafter to every restraint Ia their
| State Pdpers, rot X p. lU7
Afterwards Mr.. Monroe was joined by Mr. Pinkney in
the mission to London and the two united in presenting
this same proposition again TO the British government
Estate Papers vol p iss was WAS rejected @ although u
have afforded at time the expectation Of agree
While these distinguished plenipotentiaries were
pressing this principle at London Mr. Madison was main
tanning ut home. In unpublished nication TO
Mr. Merry, the British Minister at Washington, bearing
date 9th April 1S05 which extract from the dies OF the
state Department, he declared
The United States the claim Of any nation
to take from their vessels on the high seas ary d.o" "
ecpt soldiers In the actual service of the enemy
In reply bearing date 18th April, 1905, this principle
was positively repudiAted by the British Minster-so
that the governments ranged unequivocally
opposite les The treaties Of tho United States with
foreign nations in harmony with this principle
encrgecally proposed and upheld by Mr. Madison. In
the treaty Of commerce with France, in l7s, 1t is ex-
Enemies to both or either party are not 70 be taken out Of
the sa shP ss ~ y IRE s.e yo S1ap a % :" a" "
In the treaty with the Netherlands in 1882 the excep-
tiou confined to 'mary men actually in the service
Of enemy Qbid, p. 3sD and this same exception
GCid, @ p p ss - with with Prussia, in iSss, Sid So with
SPAN, in 1895, (Ibid p. 1859 with France in 1870,
dSsa ls. with ,sss IL sas asd ,i
p iiS9 with thie, IN 1882 tiSid. p 1se) with vsne,
GOd;, p. sOo5 with EcaadSr il 1889 (teid., p sso2
with New Granada, in 1876, (Stautes, vol 0, p. Sss
with ssn snador Sd p VS. -" and in me
treaty with Peru, in 1851. Qb'd, p. $780, such Is the
unbroken testimony in the most solemn form, TO the
policy Of government In some OF the treaties the
exception simply soldiers In othcs 10 Is ohcers
soiders" 1t is true that among these treaties there s
with Great Britain but II also true, that This
simply this Power refused its when this
| principle presented by our government
doubted part OF international law which desired
confirm by treaty Clearly and beyond all question. ac-
cording to American principles and practice, tho ship
Was not liable to capture On account OF the presence
| such emissarics be legally taken from the ship
But the completeness Of this authority increased by
Since the peace Of Utrecht 17i3 the policy OF the
tnenta States has refused sanction the removal Of
active servc. :, nd now since this debate has com
menced hav, the positive testimony OF the French
government to the same principle, given with special
reference the present NJ Tn uvcncl the Minis
ter OF the EmI for Foreign Aas In recent letter
Mr. Seward published with the papers before the
Senate earnestly insists that the rebel cmissares not
being military persons actually In the service OF the
enemy were not subject TO seizure board . neutral
ship. leave this part Of the subject with the remark
that II Is Great Britain alone whose position
on this question be brought into doubt.
But still another question Beyond al
question: there despatchcsr from the rebel belige-
board the ship-such 'despschcs rebels cn
write Public report the statement Of persons board
the ship and the boastfu declaration Of jefferson Davis
in public document, that these cmssaries pro-
cccdng under appointment from hm--which appoint
ould be "despatch" Of the highest character
seem to place this fact beyond denial Assuming this
fact the ship liable 10 capture and TO be carried OF
for adjudication, according to British authorities unless
the positive judgment OF Sir William Scott the case OF
the Aalanta Robinson r., 440), and also the Queen
proclamation at the commencement Of this rebellion,
where "despachcsn are enumerated among contraband
atices, treated nuIties far modified in their
application as to be words. and nothing But how
binding aud peremptory these authorities may
In Great Britain they cannot be accepted the
standing pdicy Of the United States which here again
leaves for doubt In order to give precision TO