The Portland daily press., 1863-03-31


Incumbent upon the United States to indeDa-
nifv the otrners of those prizes; the indemni-
fcafion to be reimbursed by the French
nation.'
The basis of this voluntary action Of our
government was that sound maxim oil the law
of nations. that state is priB,d .fdeie respon-
sible for whatever is done within its jurisdic-
ton, since it must be presumed TO be capable
of preventing or Furnishing offences commit
ted within its boundaries; and that body
polite is, therefore, responsible for the acts of
individuals which are acts of actual or medita-
ted hostility towards a nation, with which
the government of these subjects processes to
maintain relations of friendship or neutrality.
In the year following, upon the application of
England, and for her better protection. we
passed the act Of 1794 and lastly. aud most
important TO be remembered when the day of
settlement comes, we, in that year, entered
into treaty of amity and commerce with her,
by which, on her demand, zoe undertook to
pdy TO her and her citizens all losses suffered
by armed ressels fitted out in our ports.
Mr.. Canning and Others in the British Par
lament, at a later day, did not fail to refer
to the action of the American govern
ment on the neutrality question, and to
give it the full endorsement of their approba-
ton, and to call upon their own government
to give equally honorable examples in its atti-
tude towards belligerent nations. In one of
Mr. Canning's speeches in 1919, he said
In 1894. Immediately after the application
from the British government, the legislature
of the United States passed an act prohibiting.
under heavy penalties, the engagement of
American citizens in the armies OF any foreign
powers. Was that the only instance of the
kind? 1t was but last year QSls) that the
United States passed an act, by which the act
of 1894 was confirmed in every respect, again
prohibiting the engagement of their citizens
in the service any foreign powers and point
ing distinctly TO the service of Spain or the
South American Provinces.
Again, in 1923, the same speaker said "If
wished for guide in a system of neutrality, |
would take that laid down by America in the
days of the Presidency of Washington and the
secretaryship of Jefferson. Here, sir" he add
ed, after stating what he had done, Il contend,
is the principle on which we ought to act"
In Mr.. Jeferson's Message in 1903, referring
TO the renewal of the war flame in Europe he
said:
We have seen, with sincere concern, the
flames OF war lighted up again in Europe; and
nations, with which we have the most friendly
and useful relations, engaged in mutual de-
strnction. In the course OF this con-
fc, let it be our endeavor, jas it is our interest,
10 cultivate the friendship OF the belligerent
nations by every act of justice and innocent
kindness; 10 receive their armed vessels with
hospitality from the distresses of the sea but
to administer the means of annoyance to none
to establish in our harbors such a police as
may maintain law and order; to restrain our
I aitizanS from mi arsiop in1iyiduailr n "a w y
in which their country has no part, and to
punish severely those persons, citizen or alien,
Uho usurp our flag not entitled to It.
1t is well known fact that the Alabama
usually approaches her victims under the Eng
llsh flag. and thus decoys them to sure de-
struction. In 1906 Mr.. Jefferson found it nee
essary, in order 10 prevent inffactions of our
neutral obligations, Ito equip force, TO cruise
within our own seas, to arrest all vessels OF
this description found lowering on our coasts
within the limits of the Gulf Stream, and TO
bring in the offenders for trial as pirates."'
Mr.. Lowrey shows that we pursued tle same
line ofpoicy towards Spain, and her South
American colonies, in their wars for indie
pendence. A single instance may be given,
which occurred in Baltimore, related to Mr..
Lowrey by gentleman coguizant of the fact
A suspected vessel had been seized, and to
prevent her going to sea before the matter
could be investigated, her sails were taken
from her and packed in a warehouse. After a
time, the captain, who persistently asserted
his innocence, asked permission to take the
sails to spread them Tor drying, they being in
danger OF mildew. The port officer. a eoniidng
and not over-shrewd person, consented. and in
the night the vessel slipped away, leaving the
simple official to make the best settlement
with his government that he could. Upon the
final adjustment OF the respective claims be-
tween Spain and the United States. it was not
denied by us that we were liable TO make COM
pensation TO sufferers by armed vessels, which
we might have stopped; but, on the contrary,
we took from Spain a release from all claims
of this character, as part of the consideration
for the concessions which we then made
Again, when the British government was
called upon to deal with a rebellion on its
Canadian frontier, our government pursued
the same strictly neutral course of policy.
The Secretary of State, in an official letter
in 1888, says:
The President directs me to say that II is his
fixed resolution that all such disturbers of the
public peace and vioaters of the laws of their
country shall be brought TO exemplary pun
ishment.
IL has often been stated in vindcation OF
the British government, that the Alabama and
other similar vessels were built by private en-
terprise, with which the government could
not interfere, and that during the war between
England aud France on one side aud Rus
STA on the other, our American builders actu-
ally constructed war vessels Tor Russia and
the case Of the Grand Admiral. built by Mr.
Webb Of New York, has been referred to as
case in point. But there is popular error on
this matter. In the case of the bark Maury
seized at New York in 1855, on suspicion OF
being Russian privateer, our government
made careful investigation, and only dis
charged her upon the production of evidence
that she was bound upon a Legitimate voyage
TO China. In the case of the Russian frigate
Grand Admiral, work was wholly suspended
until the close of the Crimean war, and the
ship did not sail from New York until 1859
three years after the declaration of peace
Numerous other cases of similar character
are cited in Mr.. Lowrey's pamphlet, estab
fishing the fairness aud consistency of the doe
trine of neutrality.
Mr.. Lowrey shows that the Alabama ant
Florida originally sailed from British ports
were manned by English breakers, and
are still the property of English owners, and