The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1864-07-02

war In the hope that by becoming a party 20 il
Great Britain would illegally hold that the Con-
fcdCra'e States now acknowledged as be gercnts
would be b und by the act Of their enemy The
British Foreign Secretary knew his business
b tier than this. With the most clmmeud1ble
sagaDity, he took care Of his logic and Of his
friend MT. Seward u the same time, and accom-
phi he'd the object Of the Federal Government by
his orders in council, without permitting lis
minister to humiliate himself
This was one result of the declaration Of ucu-
trality-dnghce pauialy-put forth by Great
Britain But the mischief did not end here. The
Confederate States being compelled 10 restrict
their operations upon the high seas 20 their shi1s-
oi-war, those ships were also seriously emhar-
msscd by this declaration. Their inability to
aCludcatc their prizes has already been referred
to. As a consequence Of this inability they could
make no beneficial use Of them.
Not only so, they were compelled in many
instances TO release them on ransom bond for
the benefit Of neutrals-that is to saw TO giyo
neutral claimants Of cargOes an opportunity afer
the war, when the bonds should be sued upOn
10 YindiCate their claims in a court of Justice
which opportunity their own Governments had
denied to them during the war BY rendering IL
impossible for them to 60 before a Confederate
Prize Court.
"The release Of these vessels operated strongly.
too, in favor Of the enemy. For il amounted TO
a loan TO him Of so much property, Of which he
had been righfully deprived, with which to carry
on the war his bonds, In the meantime being of
no use 70 the captors, II was impossible to col
lect them until after the war. This double mis-
chief, therefore, ensued In these bond cases--the
enemy continued to carry on his commerce. and
commerce to a bclligerent is strength; while the
captor's means, qUoGd the war, were not increased
by his captures.
"The reader will now see why as few of these
ships as possible were released ON bond, the
release being COnfdCd TO those cases in which an
apparent bona fde neutral claim was presented
on the face Of properly prepared papers. Never
theless, to show the good faith with which the
captor must have acted towards neutrls In this
matter, every ship destroyed by him was so much
property destroyed against his own interest; for
the ship being destroyed, no prize.money would
be realized whereas the bond would be valuable
TO him at the end of the war.
And although twas to be presumed thatevery
officer would, from sense of duty destroy as
many of his prizes possible, yet we see that at
least he had no private interest TO urge him TO
destroy them, when there was question of
neutral rights, his leaning being, in fact, the
other way.
"This, then, is the working Of those British
orders in council which, on the face Of them,
appear TO he entirely uncXceptionabe. Stripping
of the diplomatic disguise of language (Which
is so thin and transparent that The wonder is that
II should have been resorted TO nc all with the
hope OF concealment) more unjust, oppressive
and unnatural orders could not have been devised
"lt the practical effect of these orders is such
as have stated, what excuse can be offered for
adopting them Can il be said that no other
course was open to the British Government
under the laws of nations Ii so, that would be
sufficient excuse; for where Government has
no alternative would certainly be unjust to hold
II responsible for all the consequential damages
of its acts.
at might be said with truth in reply 10 our
complaints, we were Obliged under the laws of
nations regulating and controlling our neutrality
TO exclude your prizes from our ports and II, by
reason of your inferior naval force aud the con-
sequent blockade of your ports, the rule operates
more harshly upon you than upon the enemy,
that is your misfortune, not our fault But the
fact is, there is no such excuse TO offer"
The writer then gives number of preccdents
10 show that IL was equally open to Great Britain
to admit aswell as to exclude the Confederate
prizes; and also contends that, had the entry OF
the prizes been permitted, the captors would
have been able to condemn them, SO as TO give
an indeieasibe title TO the purchaser. Ia con-
cluSon he urges that there is no difficulty in the
way of revoklng the orders in council, and ere
turning 20 sense OF Justice"
The "Times'' Don't ThiRk Much OF the
bold SailIeur BOy's' Argument.
From the Times, June i6.
The SUM and substance of his argument is
that he burned the ships because he had no other
means of annoying the Federas, and this is the
best account that he could give of the matter.
The basis, then, of Captain Semmes' reasoning
being radically unsound, the superstructure can
hardly be stronger. Ii is in vain that he accu-
muates authorities to show that ii we had not
expressly excluded the prizes of both belli-
gerenis, the presumption would have been in
favor of their admission. ..
Very likely 1t might, though il is a point upon
which the text writers speak with hesitation ;
but what is beyond all question, is that we had u
perfect right so to exclude them, and that we
exercise IL. Of course, 1t would have been very
convenient to the Confederate States TO have
prize courts Of their own, sitting at Charleston or
Savannah upon prizes constructively in their
custody but In fact lying In the Mersey or the
Thamts.
No doubt ii was extremely Yexatious to see
the prime indueement TO priyateerng cut away
by the order in council, for private adyenturer
could afford to adopt the tactics of the Alabama
and her cOnsorts. "As il by magic, the priya-
teers which had already been commissioned dis
appeared from the seas, and $50 far as results
were concerned" the Declaration Of Paris was
put in force against the Coufederates.
The inference drawn by Captain Semmes is
that being free to choose one Of two alternatives
we should have chosen that which would have
been least hard upon him. This reminds us of
the sympathy" which the NOr,herncrs used TO
demand thatwe should nfuse into cur neutrality.
Had we yielded to such appeals on either side,
we should by this time be playing the part Of the
Homeric Zeus, now giving the Trojaus a lit, now
inclining the scales In favor of the Greeks.
Again we must protest against so absurd a
view Of our true position as neutrals. IL would
have been more to the purpose IL, instead of i'm
putting unworthy motives TO this country, he had
taken the opportunity of explaining the circum-
stances under which the AkabdmG and other Con-
federate cruisers have been equipped In fraud of
that neutrality which he invOkes. Ju,tce is one
thing, but parties who claim something more
than justice, because they are Struggling against
odds, must at least come into court with clean
hands