Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1863-04-14
MIR. Mason and the BrIti.h government.

been addressed by Mr.. Mason to Earl RUSSELL oc-
ours criticism by the former of the construction
placed by the latter upon the article on Blockades
in the Treaty of Paris The criticism is the same
as that adopted by the President in his latemessage
to Congress. Our government seems to be COM
United to this criticism, and yet is worthy OF re-
mark, that no such censure has been uttered by
France, so far as we hear, in its government or
press; or indeed by any other party to the treaty
We are not parties to the treaty, for two reasons;
lst, we are not recognized such person as can
be party to any treaty; and 2nd, do not affect
to take it as whole and it was to be taken as
whole or not at all In giving in adhesion, we
excepted the article against privateering
However, if we are to put on an appearance ofhav-
ing foreign relations, it is desirable that any com
mitment of this people to certain construction of
public engagements should be we'll considered
There reasons for believing that the present po
sticn is not.
The article in the treaty is" Blockades to be
binding, must be effective; that is to say, main-
tained by force sufficient really to prevent access
to the coast Of the enemy" Here it is asserted that
to be effective, blockade must be maintained by
force having a certain character l. e. Sufficient
really to prevent to the coast of the enemy"
1t is upon these words that the question turns In
a letter to Lord Lyons, dated 18th February, 1862
Earl Russell gave us paraphrase of these words,
the expression-suticient "to create an evident
danger of entering leaving it. and that the ships
do not voluntarily permit egress or ngress." Earl
Russell in his letter gives the exact words of the
treaty, and adds those just given by the word "Or,"
which clearly means in that connexion, shat is"
In either case, that is, whether the blockade be
maintained by force sufficient really TO prevent"
&c, sufficient /" to create an evident danger"
&C., Earl Russell says 1.-THE fact that various ships
may have su uccesSfully escaped through it, (as in
the particular instance referred toy will not OF itself
prevent the blockade from being effective one by
international law" With this conclusion our gov
ernment is dissatisfied 1t disputes first the legal
identity of the two hypothesis connected by or;
and then, it denies that where blockade is main
tanned by force Sufficient really to prevent access
to the coast access will be attained This po-
sition is assumed with perfect confidence by both
the President and Mr. Mason; with such confidence
indeed as to occasion defamation upon the part Of
both in grave State papers. The latter says" 1t
may be readily admitted that the fact that various
ships eutering or leaving port have successfully
escaped blockadng squadron does not show that
there may not have been an evident danger in
terng leaving 1t; but it certainly does show that
the blockade not, in the language Of the treaty
Of Paris, maintained by force sufficient really to
prevent access to the coast Of the enemy" The
President said" Access is really not preve nted by
the blocSadng fleet to the same port Wilmington
for steamers continual yarriving and departing,
hiatt hrt tba =;
and invalid"
Both the President aud Mr. Mason have come to a very
hasty conclusion in this Neither reflect
that if Treaty of Paris what thny """tand Gr
it would have been much easier for its authors VIII
snIrsd tersfyfss So much 10 have said Blockudas to
be binding be effective that is must really prevent
access the Of the enemy. Nor in making their
construction 10 thev have had the smallest refer
ence the object of this "decaraton appended tn the
Treaty Paris That object is declared by those who
framed the paper be the settlement of deplrrble dis
putes the removal OF uncertainty, and OF" differences
of opinion Now the disputes" which formerly existed
about GckdeS not between the advocates Of
per bockades upon the one hand, aud 6ockades pre-
venting access" upon the other; but between paper
bluckades aud such established by furce sta
ioned eff the pert and creating evident danger to such
IS wished II between these disputes that
this declaration decides and it decides against the former
As for the Of the which has led our gov
better citing the following passage from the great
work of Chugwnrth paSSag" whose significance does
not depend on The pecuar Ihenngy of that book Speak
ing of the Christian ministry, and the Holy Scriptures,
&c as the means of Sa ovation, he SAYS
and these means the Prov ence or God hath still
preserved and s6reserves h thy sufficient for all
these uieuS sufficient. thou h through the malice
of men, always eif-cCI; for that the SAME means
may be sufficient the cpmyasSng end and not e
fecuIl DENY. ~hp hud that God gives to
all sufficient OF salvation aud yet that all
saved See " The Religion Uf PrUestants, &c,
page 81.
Il clear that that the President and Mr.. Mason
blund a of consistency, To hid that God has
not gwen men salvation sufficient prevent
the eternal of all men, of all men who live in
Christian land, because all men, or all such men are not
prevented.
The is palpab,e. and it is additional cause of
regret was uttered "Rer the circaStdRcss which
are that in order get opportunity ot saving It, Pres
idcnt Davis and Mr. Mason engaged in the very undgnl
fe of talking at who would not RcknoWl-
edge that they had any right to talk 10 tbem..