New-York daily tribune., 1863-07-13
.u.wRENCE,sy WHEATON.

We have already presented some brief com.
ments on the literary merits of this edition OF
Mr.. Wheatons great work on International
Law; and we now propose to submit It's po'
litical character to an impartial examination.
That such book as this, known all
over the world as an American book-as the
American book, almost, as Mr.. Lawrence
would have us beeve-should be edited in
these times Of our national convu' %, by one
who is eithere Secessionist in sympathy, or
who has no preference to express for bis Gov
ernment-who has not one word to say IN
condemnation of that nefarious scheme to sub
vert the Nation, which is now on foot and IN
bloody prosecution. but who on the contrary
attacks the leading measures of Congress and
the President uecessitated to suppress 1t, Con-
fscation, Emancipation, and Suspension OF
the Habeas Corpus-who talks about "Our
Southern Confederacy," as if already aeknow-
lodged, and quotes its Constitution, laws, and
diplomacy, as if of equal Importance with the
Natonal-who quotes and discusses English
and French diplomacy toward u.s. without say
ing word against the hurried recognition OF
Southern belligerent rights, or against the in-
famed and menacing treatment of the Mason and
Slidell affair, or against the hollow neutrality
of permitting the escape OF Alabamas and
Floridas-who has no word OF ccnsure Tor
Intervention 10 Mexico-and finally who aims
at such cosmopolitan tone that be can praise
French. Austrian, and Spanish regimes, and
deprecia.e or ignore American statemanship and
diplomacy, unless of tie Buchanan or Ostend'
manifesto schools, to our thinking, style
of editing unworthy OF the name OF American
! and OF the illustrious author TO which 1t
attaches itself. How the family of Mr..
Wheaton and the publishers could have per-
mitted it, especially to the extent of allowing
the compilation to bear the name OF Law.
rence's Wheaton," is mystery. In behalf
Of Mr.. Wheaton's reputation and the country's
claim to share in it, We protest against the
usurpaton.
That We may not do injustice to the editor
and his publishers, We eiye as detailed a reier'
ence to the particulars on which we base
our opinion, as the limits OF this article viii
permit.
Iu his Advertisement to the preseps edi-
ton, dated Feb. llth, 1868, MIR. Lawrence
speaks of tho L" fratricdal contest" in which
wo are now engaged; and twice at least alter
wards, in notes to pages 597, 956, bemosns the
civil war in the same language, without any
alluson to those who were the authors of 1t.
Had Mr.. Wheaton lived to edit bis own
book, we think he would have much sooner
called the unhalowed treason Of Southern Con-
.prators pa.ria.eidal than . Jratr'e'dal con-
test.
On page I0i Mr.. Lawrence comes squarely
upon tho doctrine of Secession, where Mr..
Wheaton in good loyal paragraph in the text,
calls tho American Union Supreme Federal
Governmental "Bundesstaat and not
Staatenbund," in the language Of the Ger
man jurists; that is, Consolidated State and
not State Confederation.
Now, ut this point. where patriotic
American, or at least Mr. Wheaton himself,
az an international jurist. would have broken
forth in some such strain as Alexander IL.
Stephens held in his speeches Of the l4th Of
November, 1860, aud of January, 1851, before
no eaye in his adhesion 10 the Rebellion, or as
Mr. Everett used in his address last Winter
before the Boston Union Club, to the effect
that Secession was altogether unjustfable,
and, ia view of international law, huge
national crime, Mr.. Lawrence, after mildly
intimating that even South Carolina authority
regarded forcible nullifcation as revolutionary,
and giving q very brief history of the events
accompanying Secession, contents himself with
setting oil Federal manifesto against Rebel
manifesto. as if it were a balanced case, and
dsmisses tho matter with saying that many
questions of international law grow out OF 1t,
TO which he shall hereafter give attention. lie
never does give attention enough to the matter
TO furnish tho reader with his opinion whether
tho attempt to subvert ths Government is
right or wrong.
Is il not case for giving an opinion, q
foreign student Of Wheaton may well ask 7
Or is the natural inference to be made that an
impartial American cannot blame the Southern
ers for rebelns
In the recent debate in the English House OF
Lords, of May Is. wo see the Marquis Of Clanri-
carde in a violent Secession diatribe, quoting
"Lawrences Storey" against the American
cause. Doubtless this was . mistake OF the
reporters for "Lawrences Wheaton," III 90.
our enemies are not slow In discovering wnat