True Democrat., 1863-02-25

!
 to the federal government to represent them in
 foreign intercourse, and led Europe into the
 grave error of supposing their separate sover-
 eigniy and indepepdence had been merged into | one common sovereignty, and had ceased to
 have distinct existence. Under the influence
 of this error, which all appeals to reason and | historical fact were vainly used to dispel, our
 ministers were met by the declaration that for l egn governments could not assume to judge I between the conflicting representations of the
 two parties as ta the true nature ot their previS
 ons mutual. relations. The governments .ot
 Great Britian and France accordingly sl9mtled their determination to coffine themselves 10
 recognizing the self-evideut fact of the exls-
 teRce of a war, and to maintaining strict neu- trality during it's progress. Some of the other
 powers of Europe pursued the same course and E policy, and it became apparent that by some
 understanding, express or taeit, Europe. had
 decided to leave the inniaiive in all action touch
 ing the contest oa this continent, to the powers
 just name,L who were recognized tohave the
 largest interests involved, both by reason of
 proximity, and of the extent and Intimacy ot their commercial relations with the States en-
 gagged in
 It is manifest that the course of action adopt
 ed by Europe, while based on an apparent re.
 fusal to side with either party, was, in point. of
 fact, decision against our rights, and Tn favor
 of the groundless pretensiens of the Unted
 States It was refusaito treat us an inde>
 pendent government. If we were independent
 States, the refusal to entertain with us the same
 international intercourse as WAS maintained
 with cur enemy, was un ust and 1t was uyuri-
 ous in its effects, whatever may have been the
 motive which prompted 1t. Neither was 1t Tn
 accordance with the high moral obligations Of that international code whose chief sanction IS the conscience of sovereigns and the pubic opinion of mankind, that those eminent pow
 CTS should decline the performance of duty peculiarly incumbent on them, from any appre
 hensions of the consequences to themselves One immediate and necessary result Of their declining the responsibility of decision which must lave beeu adverse to the extravagant pretensions of the United States, was the pro- 1ongation of hostilities to which our enemies was thereby encouraged, and which have result. ed in nothing but scenes of carnage and devas s tation on this continent, snch as have scarcely parallel in history. Had these powers prom ptly admitted our right tobe treated as all. other independent nations, none can doubt that the moral effect of such action would have been to dispel the delusion under which the United States have persisted in their efforts to accom- | plish our subiugation. To the conlinued heSi tation of the same powers, in rendering this act of simple justice to this Conederacy, is still due the continuance of the calamities which mankind suffers from the interruption of peace ful pursuits, both in the old and new woods.
 There are other matters in which less than tIs- tiee has been rendered to this people by neutral Europe, and undue advantage conferred on theag gressors, ina wicked war. At the inception of hostiiities the inhabitants of the Confederacv were almost xcusive aggrcultOrisis; those of tine United States, to great extent, mechanics and merchants. We had no commercial marine, while their mer- chant vessels covered the ocean,. We were with out a navy, while they had powerful fleets. The ad vantage which they possessed for inhictng n-
 jury on our coasts and lIarbors was thus counter balanced in some measure by the exposure of their commerce to attack by private armed vessels. It was known in Europe that within few years past the United States had peremptorily refused to cede to proposals for aboshing pryateeting, on the ground alleged by them, that nations owning pow erfui fleets would thereby obtain undue advan- tage over those possessing inferior naval forces--- Yet'no sooner war hacrant between thc Con- federacy and the United States than the naratime powers of Europe issued orders prohibiting either party from bringing prizes into their ports. This prohibition, directed with apparent impartiaIIty against both bellgerents, was in reality effective against the Confederate States alone for they alone could find hostile commerce upon the ocean
 Merely nominal against the United States, the pro- hibition operated with intense severity on the Con- federacy, by deprvng it of the only means of maintaining, with some approach to equality, it's struggle on the ocean against the crushing supe- rorty of the naval force possessed by it's enemies
 The value and efficiency of the weapon which was thus wrested from grasp by the combined ac- ton of neutral European powers in favor of ma ton which professes openly it's intention of .rayag- ing their commerce by privateers in any future war; is strikngly illustrated by the terror inspired among the commercial classes of the United State hv eli frlo oft fplp Ono
 tional steamer, comrnandedby officers, and manned by crew who are debarred, by the closure of neu. ta ports, from the opportunity of causing captur- ed vessels to be condemned in their favor as prizes has suficed to double the rates of maratme insur. ance in northern ports, and consign to forced in- action numbers of northern vessels, in addition to the direct damage inflicted by captures at sea- How difficult, then overestimate the effects that must have been produced by the hundreds Of pri vate armed vessels that would have swept the seas in pursuit of the commerce of our enemy, if the means of disposing of their prizes had not been withheld by the action of neutral Europe!
 But it is especially in relation to the so-caled blockade of our coast that the policy of European powers has been shaped as to cause the greatest injury to the Confederaey and to confer signal ad- vantages on the United. States. The importance of this subject requires some development.
 Prior to the year 1856, the principles regulating this subject to be gathered from the writings Ot elnineIL puUHciSte. ueCiSiOHS or d0in.raty courts international treaties. and the usares of na tions. The uncertainty and doubt which prevailed in reference to the true rules of maratme law in time of WAT. resulting from the discordant and often conflicting principles announeed from such varied and independent sources, had become grievous evil to mankind. Whether blockade was allowable against port not invested by land aa well as by sea; whether blockade was valid by sea if the investing fleet was merely sufficient to render ingrcss to the blockaded port evidently l dangerous" or whether it was further required for its legality that it should be sufficient really to prevent access" !" and numerous other similar aues- tions, had remained doubtful and unheeded
 Animated by the highly honorable desire to put | an end " to differences of opinion between neu- trals and belligerents, which may occasion serons difficulties and even conflicts" Iquote the official ianguage,) the five great powers of Europe, to- gether with Sardinia and Turkey, adopted, in 1856, the following |. solemn declaration of principles:
 l Privateering is, and remains abolished.
 2. The neutral flag covers enemy's goods with exception of contraband of var. 5. Neutral goods, with the exception of contra band of war, not liable to capture under eue. my's flag rs4o.a
 4. Blockades, in crdcr to be binding must be effective, thatis to say, maintained by atorce stuff cient really to prevent access to the coast of the enemy.-
 Not only did this solemn declaration announce to the world the princi ples to which the regnng powers agreed to conform in future wars, but it contained clause to which those powers gave i'm mediate effect, and which prov ied that the States arffn ns fAt tto of ID,