Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1863-01-20

In
declaration that foreign governmt nts could not
,ssnue to Judge between tire conic' ing representa-
;o Of the two parties as the tru nature Of their
orovious mutual relations. The governments oil
Great Britain and France accordingly signlhed their
to coEfne themselves to recognizing
the self evident fact of the existence oil war; anu
emaintaininga strict neutrality during progress
Some of the other bowers of Europe pursued the
same course of policy sI4d it became apparent that
by some understanding, express or tacit, europe
had decided 10 leave the initiative IN all action
touching the contest On this continent to the Two
mowers lust paRed, who were recognized TO nave
The largest interest Involved, both by reason OF
nroximity and of the extent and intimacy OF their
with the States engaged IN war.
II is manifest that the course Of action adopted
nv Europe while based on an apparent refusal 10
determine the question, to side with either party,
WAS in point of fact an actual decision against our
rights and in favor of the groundiesS pretenslons oil
the United States. 1t wasa refusal 10 treat US as
an independent government. If we were indepen-
dent States the refusal to entertain with US The
same international intercourse as was maintained
with our enemy was unjust, and was injurious IN
its effects whatever may have beer the motive Whcn
prompted it Neither was it in accordance with the
high moral obligations Of that international code,
whose chief sanction is the conscience OF SOY
eregns and the public opinion Of mankind, that
those eminent powers should decline the performance
of duty peculiarly incumbent on them, from any
apprehension Ct the consequences to themselves.
One immediate and necessary result OF their decn-
ing The responsibility Of decision which must have
been adverse to the eXtravagant pretensons oil the
United States was the prolOngation OF hostlles TO
which our enemies were thereby encouraged, and
which have resulted in nothing but scenes OF carnage
and devastation on this continent and OF misery
and suffering on the other, such as have scarcely
parallel in history. Had those powers promptly
admitted right to be treated as all other nde-
pendent nations none can doubt that the moral
effect Of such action would have been to dlSpel the
decisions under which the United States have per-
sisted in their efforts to accomplish our subJugaton.
To the continued hesitation Of the same powers in
rendering this act of simple justice towards this
Confederacy, is still due the continuance of the
calamties which mankind suffers from the inter
rupton of its peaceful pursuits both in the old and
the new worlds.
There are other matters in which less than justice
has been rendered to this people by neutral Europe,
and undue advantage conferred on the aggressorS IN
a wicked war. At the inception of hOStilitles the
inhabitants of the Confedcracy were almost excu-
sively agriculturists those of the United States 10
a great extent, mechanics and merchants. We hao
no commercial marine, while their merchant vessels
covered the ocean. We were without a navy, while
| they had powerful fleets. The advantage which
they possessed for intlicting injury on our coasts
and harbOrs was thus counterbalanced IN some inca
| sure by the exposure of their commerce to attack
by private armed vessels. 1t was known to Europe
| that within very few years past the United States
had peremptOry refused to accede TO proposals for
aboliShing privaeering, on the ground, as alleged
by them, that nations owning powerful fleets would
thereby obtain undue advantage those possess
| ing inferior naval forces. Yet sooner was war
! fragrant between the COnfederacy and the United
| States than the maratime powers Of Europe issued
orders prohiii ting either party from bringing prizes
into their ports This prohibition, directed with
apparent impartiaty against both belligerents was
in reality effective against the Confederate States
alone, for they alone could find hostile commerce
on the ocean. Merely nominal against the United
States, the prohibition operated with intense sever
ity on the Confcderacy by dep:iving it of the only
means of maintaining, with sumo approach to equal
ity, its struggles on the ocean against the crushing
superiority of naval force possessed by its enemies
The value and efficiency of the weapon which was
thus wreSted from our grasp by the combined action
otneutral European powers, in favor of nation which
processes openly its intention of ravaging their COM
merce by prvateers in any future war, is strikIngy
illustrated by the terror inspired among the comuer
cia classes Of the United States by single cruiser
the Confederacy. One national steamer commanded
by officers and manned bya crew who are dcbarred
by the closure OF neutral ports, from the Opportu
nifty of causing captured vessels to be condemned
in their favor prizes has suifced TO double the
! rates Of marine insurance in Northern ports and
consigned TO forced inactIo2 numbers of Northern
vessels in addition to the direct damage inflicted
by captures at How difficult thea, to ovcres
innate the effects that must have been produced by
| the hundreds of private armed vessels that would
have swept the seas, in pursuit Of the commerce o
enemy, If the means OF dspoSing of their prize:
had not been withheld by the action of neutra
, Europe.
But i. is especially in relation to the so-caIlec
blockade Of our coast that the policy Of European
powers has been shaped as to cause the Creates
/ fp,a- ~ no c,J, 4
vantages on the United States. The importance o
this subject requires some development.
Prior to the year 1856, the principles regulating
this subject were to be gathered from the writings
of eminent pubcists, decisions of admiralty courts
international treaties, and the usages Of nations
The uncertainty and doubt which prevailed in refer
ence to the true rules of maritime law, in time OIL
war, resulting from the dscordant and often con
ilicting principles announced from such varied an,
independent sources, had become grevous evil t
mankind. Whether a blockade was ALLOWABLE
against port not invested by land as we'll as b,
sea whether blockade was valid by sea if the in
vestIng fleet was merely sufficient to render ngres
to the blockaded port evidently dangerous" o
whether 1t was further required for its legality tina
it should be sufficient "reay to prevent access
and numerous other similar questions had rerna;nc
doubtful and undecided
Animated by the highly honorable desire to pu
an end ito differences of opinion between neutral
and beliigerents, which may occasion serious diff
cultics and even conflicts" q quote the official Ian
guage) the five great Powers of Europe, togethe
with Sardinia and Turkey, adopted IN 1856 the fol
lowing solemn declaration" Of principles:
l. Privateering is, and remains abolished
2 The neutral flag covers enemy's goods with tn
exception of contraband of war.
s. Neutral goods, with the exception of contra
band of war, arc not liable to capture under enemy
flag. .- ...
f. Blockades in order 10 he h;pding p,ust bo aI
fectivc; that is to say. maintained by force sufi
really to prevent access to the coast of the enc
my.
Not only did this solemn declaration announce to th
world the principles to which the signing powers agree
which those powers gave immediate effect and which prC
yded that the States not parties the Con gress of
should be invited to accede to the declaration Jnde
this invitation every Independent State in Europe velde
its assent at least no instance is known to me of re
usal and the United States, while declining to a.sen
tho nrnnnStinn which,