Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1863-11-04
olusion should be. Some weeks have clap.


sed since we referred to the. subject; the
length of the time was in itself a, proof of
the care, and We may say of the pains. given
to the question, and hence those out Of
doors could not assume the upshot one way
or the other.
Certain inconvenience are very likely
to flow from the decision; nor is tito be
expected that the troublous relations of neu.
trails to belligerents, even when they are
kept on their most precise and sound foot.
ing, should be entirely free from embarrass:
ment. We may, for instance, apprehend
that some among the Federala will regard
the proceeding as dictated by the threats
which have been levelled at this country
unoficially, no doubt, for we have admitted
that the tenor of the Communication from
Washington occasioned nojest ground for
complaint. But the public of the Northern
States is likely enough to ascribe the Coon
.cession" to judicious reverence for Amer
ican power and daring; and it would not
at al! surprise uslifjthe event were associa-
ted with certain unprecedented phenomena
of the Russian navy at New York.
!. That the necessity or expediency of the
seizure was not selfevident, is apparent
from the time bestowed on the inquiry into
the facts and it also shows clearly enough
how deeply impressed was her Majesty's
ministers with the paramount importance
of keeping the duties, and, therefore, the
correlative rights Of neutrals clear from any
new ambiguity. Independently Of abiding
considerations which would suggest that
jealous caution-the lively interest Of this
country in securing the greatest distinct
ness and the most. general observance of
maritime law-the present condition Of the
world forces the whole class ofsubjects up:
on our attention with peculiar emphasis.
tits impossible to assert that we may
not, at very early date, have to appeal to
the guarantees and immunities Of the inter-
Sternational code and i'll would that minis
ter serve his sovereign or his country who
should, in view Of these very contingen.
.cies, provide case to be thrown in our.
teeth on the next occasion. If the unwon:
ted and, to:say the least oft, odd cruise,
of the Russian feet had no other effect, it
might at least have reminded our public
servants not to forget themselves just now.
But as we, stated so long since, they had
already applied themselves to the work
with all honest diligence; and it did not
prove to beschild's play. The actual law of
the case was not SO ready cut and dry as
some might suppose. rina .facis the
probabilities lay against thesneed or even
the power of seizure.
That the shipWrights Of a neutral coun.
try have a right to make ships for the mar
ket. of the world; that the right does not
lapse on the mere opening of arintwhich
their Government has no concern; that the
actual knowledge of "a practical and partic-
ular demand in the market aforesaid no
more destroys their right than their chance
of proft-these, be believe, are conclusions
which can be as little gainsayed as they can
with regard to gunpowder, rifles or Sheffield
cutlery. So far as the facts of the present
case have been, not known, but surmised,.
it might have been conjectured that Mes
srs. Laird had every ground for free trade
in their business; and we are well aware
that certain of the very ablest legists in this
country-possibly We might venture to
guess that even some who were ina yet
more responsible position-at first inclined
to the opinion that the international code
would afford neither the requirement nor
the warrant to arrest the departure of the
vessels.
At the same time, all who are familiar
with the special branch Of study, even in
its acoidence, must be aware no persons,
subjects ola neutral power, are at liberty
to accept direct commission from a bellig-
erent to construct. and equip war ships for
use in hostiiities against an ally of that
neutral. The practical question in the
present case, therefore, was, not whether
ship, builders at Liverpool, or any other
port, may or may not construct vessels,
though they should ultimately sail under
the flag of the belligerent-for on that
point we have no doubt-but whether the
ship builders specifically named had, avow-,
edly or ascertainably, accepted the orders
of the belligerents, through bis agents and
if SO, whether the mode of proceeding was
such as to render the British subjects amen
able to the charge Of infringing the law of
neutrals. .
In that event, of course, the Government
of those British subjects must hold itself
responsible for the due enforcement of the
law. 1t is not for US to criticise the sagaci"
ty or the discretion of commercial gentle
men who should turn out to be so much at
fault in the comprehension of their own liza
bilities; nor need We spend one moment in
asking by what lack of discretion or inven-
tion they stumbled into so false position.
At the proper season, no doubt, the grounds
of the step which we now report will be
fully explained meanwhile, we are bound
to take the result as showing that the emf
nent firm in question had permitted itself
to become amenable to the public law and
in the act itself we have the substantial test
of the assurance we have already given, that
whatever the decision of the law should
prove to be, it would Immediately be enfor.
ced without fear or favor.