, 1863-05-14
ennf;scatinsr neutral goods in hc11ireren1


bottoms, and bcl1igcrent goods in neutral
bottoms; and the old law was finally re-
rc1sed in both points, making neutral bot
toms cary free the enemy's goods, and the
c,cn'ys bottoms confiscate neutral goods.
Various such treaties were subsequently
drawn up and ratified between the Euro
pean nations, and what is most remarkable.
treaty Of this SORT, with these very p7ovi
sions and clauses was entered into between
France and England hcrsclfi in 1867.
England, however, never dreamed Of
su1Tcndering what is called the" Right Of
Search (which, indeed, has no judicial
signi6cation, and merely means the right
10 visit ships, and.not the right to seize the
goods-tlis last including the right of
search--although the two terms have long
been confounded as identical in meaning
for in her case, as well as in the others
where treaties were made to this effect
they were sort Of private compacts, ap-
plying to particular exigencics, and grant
ed for an immediate object. England had
made treaties with other powers OF di.
rectly opposite sense and character, which
maintained the old law; and the treaty Of
1867 with France, did not touch in any Of
its stipulations, the right Of seizure as re-
CARDS each other, in case Of their going
to war. It affected only the case Of either
going to war with q third power, and was
clearly an advantage to England, because
her merchant navy being infinitely greater,
she profted most by the immunity.
| Similar examples run through modern
history from that time downward, and
have never come to good but have brought
confusion and disaster upon those who
signed them They are kind Of compro-
mise-made from sordid, OF unworthy mo-
tiyes, or upon short-sighted policy-of
the great fundamental principle Of govern
ment-the Magma Charta Of national cx.
istencc, which the right Of seizure has nj.
ways been regarded.
In 1883 the United States signed q
treaty with France, in accordance With
the doctrine Of the armed neutrality; and
in 1904 they signed another with England
in which they stipulated the old law, plac
ing themselves in the predicamcnt Of tht
European nations before alluded to, vht
had signed treaties in one sense with on'
power, and in another sense with another
No private treaties, however, betwee1
neutral nations, can affect in any, th
slightest degree, their right Of seizure a
be]jigcrents. It is right not enacted, bu
acted upon, and is to be found HISTORICAL
in laws. After the dismemberment Of til
Roman Empire, when new order {
things and principles, sprang up in Europ'
through the agencies Of Commerce IN
Christianity, and great trada1 cor
munities were formed, the laws whic
! they enacted became the laws
modern public right. These wei
collected in the 18th century, and bore Ii
title Of Consoldto del Mare, and embraced
wide circle Of civilization, including tt
sovereign enactments Of Byzantium, G.,
prus, Jerusalem, and even Scandinayi
Marsci]1es and the Hanscatic towns Of tt
North. There is no provision in them fl
,, the seizure Of belligerent goods, because
:, was the unwritten law of common sen:
:, and se}fdefense that they should be seize
It furnishes however, the historical re-
, ord Of the existing law, which is bot
curious and interesting. The clause col
= tanning it, is from chapter 273 Of that cod
, and runs thus: ''If the captured vessel
neutral property, and the cargo The pro
), erty Of enemies, the captor may comp
the merchant vessel to carry the enemy
cargo to place Of safety, where the prl
may be secure from a1l danger of 1e-ca]
ture, paying to the vessel the whole freigl
, which she would have earned at her deli
cry port; and this freight shall be asce
tained by tho SLIPS papers or, in default
= necessary documents, the oath Of the ma
. ter shall be received, as to the amount
y freight"
i England has always maintained the rig
If Of seizure, and twice, against the arm
y neutrality Of the world; and Nelson sa
" he always should maintain it so long as
n had plank, and 4 man to stand on
u When in 1900 Danish Frisate resist
+ this right-here is England rcmonstran'
e. made by Mr.. Mercy, Minister at Copenl
IS gen: "The right ofyisiting and cxamini1
n in the open sea, merchant vessels Of VIII
a ever nation, or whatever may be their d
Id tination, is regarded by the British G.
i'd ernmcnt, as the incontcstible right Of cyt
s- nation at war-a right which is founded
q the law Of nations, and which has be
of generally admitted and acknowledged" )"
lis To say nothing Of the recent expositi
ce Of it made by Lord John Russ
re- the evidence is conclusive that it belong
all nations actually engaged in war, &
d. there is no instance Of its ever having b.
n given up by belligerent, except in the
v, famous example Of England during the
u. war with Russia, when to spare the cc
nd mcrce Of the enemy, her Ministers beca
dy traitors to the people and the law, :
he wholesale murderers Of their OWL armit
at
he DIsL0Y.ALTY IN PIHLADELPH
| Teto 113..1n1,1r1,;o A-o+fb A-r@-.1.~ .