The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1863-11-20
Giving Up the Case.

In late number of the London Times
we find the following remarks on the in
ternational question which has recently
occupied the attention of the British Gov
eminent and our own. 1t is not only a
remarkable change OF front on the part
of that inconsistent journal, which is a
matter of small consequence, but it is a
confession of the truth which stops the
mouths of those in this country who &C.
cuse our nation of unfounded hostility to
Great Britain:
To build, arm and man a vessel of war from
a neutral port is surely to fit out q hostile ex.
ditiOn from that port; and as an expedition
may be great or small, it follows that neutral
might thus take almost any conceivable share
in war, provided only that the aid it lent to
one side was not greater than the aid it was
ready to lend to the other. But is that rea-
sonable doctrine? 1t appears to us that the
supply of munitions, money or material differs
essentially in character from the supply OF an
armed ship of war. We can understand that
even such vessels as are now lying in the
Mersey might be sent across the Atlantic,
and delivered at Wilmington or Charleston,
without any more breach of neutrality than
to New York. In that case they would be
empty huls, and would only receive their
crews their commissions, and their offensive
capacities from the begerent State itself. But
if the successive processes by which q ship of
war is created are all performed by a neutral
country, that gives the adventure @ perfectly
different character, and amounts either to a par
ticpation in the acar on the part Of neutrals, or to
the employment of neutral territory for purposes
of ,car by belAgerent. If it is, then, said that
neutral power may, if it pleases, permit its
territory to be so employed, we reply that the
mere permission to buy rifles and gunpowder
that it is no wonder the latter should be grant
ed while the former is withheld We are very
sure that it would be a bad thing for most
countries, and especially for England, if the
practice of equipping vessels of war in
the controverted fashion were recognized
or established, nor do We see that
the commercial interests of q country
require any such latitude of adventure
1t is certainly reasonable that the Gus.
tomary trade of ship builder IN a neutral
state should be preserved from injury as well
has no connection with that equipment" of
the ship to which objection is taken. 1t is no
part of shipbuilders business to arm ship
with cannon or equip her for action. 1t is said
| that the builder proposes no such equipment;
then the reply is that when an equipment is
lHdhACStiy COHtCilI iitcu ny SOIIe pdTtlcS Or
other the unlawful intention may be defeated
The suggestion of ''Historicus" is that such
transactions should be stopped by warning
given or complaint addressed to belligerent
powers, but we confess we should prefer to see
Il direct prohibition take the shape of law.
Great Britain never did grant permission to
either North or South to equip their ma' ships,
within Britih territories The COnfederates
therefore, have no right to despatch their
steamers from our ports. and if any such de-
sign is suspected on reasonable grounds we are
justified in taking measures to prevent it.
This admission would justify reclama-
ton on the part of our government for the
damage inflicted by the pirates who sailed
from British ports to destroy our COM
merce. What is more, it would Justify us
in sending an expedition to the mouth of
the Mersey to cut out the offensive vessels
now building, just as MoLKoD cut out the
Caroline during the troubles in Canada.
If we do not, however, resort to these ex-
treme remedies, it is not because we doubt
our rights, but because we hope that Great
Britain, discovering her errors, is rapidly
coming to better mind. I