Polynesian. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu], Hawaii) 1844-1864, 1862-02-01

ready opened Port Royal better harbor than either
which VIII have advantages both ports that long
ago Southerners themselves pointing out Perhaps
diff use entirely is to be made of them to wit
stopping the rathOles that enable the rebels to run
their little hghtdraught tugs out from the chief Cities
though the blockade of the main entrance is perfect
1t has been the boast of the Conederates that thew have
fourfold coast that the sand-bars and sea-islands
outlying all their great harboIs make a labyrinth of
channels so that if the main one is stopped thew can
have access and exit in craft of humber tonnage by
those that remain If Secretary Weles desired to seal
the approaches of Savannah Oy every entrance other
than that which Pulaski guards his fleet of
whaling hulks cOud doubtless do it, and yet no perma-
nent damage be done by which on the restoration of
peace the city would suffer.
The other theory, however, is more Ekely the true
One-that the intention is to lock the main doors to
Charleston and Savannah and let them perish as Ant
werp wasted after the Scheldt was closed Beaufort
stands ready to put the garments of her executed
sisters. and it will be but briefly hence that England
can find cotton port quite open and anxious for her
trade
Our Relations with England.
AS so much has been said and thought about the
right of the seizure of Messrs. Mason and Slide on
board of the English mail steamer Trent, from Havana,
make the following extracts from American journals,
taking opposite views the subject The first is from
the San Francisco Bulletin, the other from the New
York Albion:
There doubt. many persons both in the United
States and England, who believe that Captain Wilkes
in the seizure of Mason and Sldel greatly exceeded
his powers as commander IN the United States Navy
and, perhaps, this is not surprising after what has
taken place between the two countries in relation to the
right of search 1t should however, be borne in mind
that there is very great difference between the right
of search in time of peace and In time of war. The
Limited States has contended and we think Justly that
ID time of peace vessels inyolste and that no
power has the right to stop ships at sea- under any
pretext, to examine their papers Our Government,
however, has also distinctly ayowed that it would over
look searches when they were induced by enable
probability as when flag being prosttutcd by
slavers pirates. England, having held the supre-
macy of the seas, has often in time Of peace assumed
the right of visitation and search and the subject has
been Of very great difficulty between the two
tries But it is understood that the British Government
has finally acquiesced in the American doctrine that in
time of peace the national sells of power have
right overhaul the merchant vessels of another The
right of search has been steadily persisted n under
pretext another, by England that we have been
upon the point of becoming involved in a with her
several times during the last fifty years. In the end,
however, just stated-under the Administration of
Buchanan-it understood that she would not per-
sst further in a contest which it quite plain she
could never sustain by reference to international
law.
The right of visitation and search in time of war is
entirely another matter. Then a nation has rights
which no argument can Justify when the world is at
peace. For instance, many articles contra
band, far the United States is L. and it
would be perfectly preposterous to say that British
sells could hover along the Southern coast loaded with
powder, etc. ready to throw their supplies into
the Rebel ports under of night or fogs and still
| be exempt from search seizure. Such proceedings
not tolerated by international law, code which is
we'll understood and acknowledged by all civilized
tions Wheaton, in his "a Elements of International
Law" says:
The right of visitation and search of neutral vessels
at is belgerent right, essential to the exercise of
the right of capturing enemys property cOntraband Of
war, and vessels committing breach of blockade"
| Another authority, (English) Sir William Scott,
/ says:
sc The right If visiting and searching merchant ships
the high seas whatever be the Ships the csrgoes,
the destination is incontestble right Of the lawfully
commissioned cruisers of a beigerent nation.
This right is clear in principle that man can deny
it who admits the right of maritime captures because,
if you not at liberty to ascertain, by sufficient in
quiry, whether there is property that can be legally
captured it is impossible to capture. The
fraudulent carrying the dispatches of the enemy will
subject the neutral vessels in which they transported
to capture and confscation. . The limits as
signed the operations Of against Ambassadors by
writers public law that the belge-ent may ex-
ercse his right of against them wherever the cha
racter of hostility exists He may stop the Ambassador
| of his enemy his passage. 1t has been
soemnly adudged in the British prize courts. that be-
ing engaged in the transport service Of the enemy or
in the conveyance of military persons in his employ
ment the carrying dispatches, are acts Of hostility
which SUBJECTS tne property 10 cOluScatlOn.
Another writer upon international law, Fillmore,
says:
sit is indeed, competent to bellgerent to stop the
Ambassadors of his enemy his passage. As to car
ryng of military persons in the employ Of begerent
being any way engaged in his transport service
has been most soemnly decided by the tribunals of in
ternatiOn1 law both in England and the United States
of North America that these acts of hostility the
part of the neutral, which subject the vehicle in which
the persons conveyed to cOnscaton at the hands Of
| the belIigerent . Official communications
from official the affairs of belligerent Govern
ment such present hostile character on the car
riers of them The mischevOus consequences of such
service be estimated and extend far beyond the
effect of any contraband that be conveyed for it
manifest that by the carriage of such dispatches the
most important operations of begerent army may be
forwarded or obstructed''
The authorities sustaining the above doctrine could
be multiplied to indefinite extent Indeed it is
plain matter that the vessels of neutras may be seized
and conseaed for certsn acts in time Of war, that it
seems needless to give quotations Nearly all writers
who have touched upon the subject agree that the tran
sportation of military persons official communications,
dispatches articles contrabaud Of war etc., sufficient
to Justify the seizure of the neutral vessel upon which
they being conveyed There seems to us no doubt
but the British Government will speedily arrive at this
conclusion.
Whether we will have war with Great Britain is
another question: but think that she will not engage
in struggle with the United States account Of the
seizure of Mason and Slidell LII should arise, 1t
will be because she was awaiting to break the
blockade. Even then do not believe she viii inter-
ere in our difficulties, except be in concert with
France for her statesmen are perfectly aware that she
cannot spare men to protect Canada IN the present
aspect of European affairs. In Tord she will not
haust her resources in with the United States,
leaving France earrange the map Of Europe at her
pleasure But jointly with France, there is no knowing
what she might attempt to do, for there IS growing
belief the minds of Engshmen that the United States
is emineny aggressive and that with an increase of
power by this country there would be danger to her
possessions upon this continent
England is now anxious that the war in the United
Sates shnnld cease for while il lasts abe loses both