The Portland daily press., 1864-12-09
Friday Morning, Dec. 9, 1854.
The Case Of the Florida.

~~~~~~S ~scNt@
ultimo contains learned and able exposition
Of international law, and usage in cases SINH
lar to that of the capture, by United States
ship-ofwar, of the rebel piratical ship Flori-
da, in q Brazilian harbor. The article Is be-
heved from internal evidence, and from an in
timation thrown out by the editor, to be from
the pen of Senator Sumner. Its object is to
show, not that the seizure of the Florida was
justi6able, but that Great Britain, above all
the nations Of the world Is estopped, by her
immemorial practice, from joining in the con-
demnation of the act; and never was a propo-
sition made clearer. The testimony adduced
is, to this extent, overwhelming; and no Eng
lishman, far less the rulers of Great Britain.
can read the article without blnshing for his
ignorant presumption, or for his manifest hy.
pocracy, in venturing to arraign the Ameri-
can Government for the unauthorized act of
one of its naval commanders. Il 81 brs Aasg Il,
The writer admits, in the outset, that ssthe
general principle of international law applica-
Dle to such an incident is beyond question. 1t
may be found in the authoritative words of
the Dutch publicist, Bynkershoek, when he
says, Certainly 1t is by no means lawful to
attack or take an enemy in the port of neu-
trail who is in amity with both parties9" And
Chancellor Kent is cited to the effect that at
is not lawful to make neutral territory the
scenes Of hostility, or to attack an enemy in
it." Other authorities, European and Ameri-
can, are quoted to the same effect, and there
is no doubt about the general principle. a 4.
But the author proceeds at considerable
length to show what has been the practise OF
Great Britain, our principal assailant, in this
connection; and more damaging record
could not be invented or imagined than Is
made up, mostly from British authors. To
the earlier class Of cases produced, in which
English naval achievements In Queen Eliza
beth's time partake strongly of the charac-
ter of piracies, the modern English viii pro
baby plead the statute of limitations, and we
therefore pass them over. But no such ex,
cuse can be set up in behalf of those which
have happened within the last hundred years,
when the establishment of British law and
freedom, and what is called the British consti
tuition, We're firmly fixed on the basis of the
revolution of 1885, Going no further back
than 1850, and coming down to the present
day, the author has presented an array of in
stances Of British invasion OF neutral rights,
which should seal up therrnouth of Lord Rus
sell hermetically, as it regards the capture OF
the Florida; and even the London Times, one
would think, would refrain from. provoking
further investigations into the history OF Brit
ish regard for the rights Of neutrals. ), We will
briefly refer to some OF these more recent
cases cited by the writer in the Adpertiser.
In 179S, British ship-oEthe.line seized the
French Frigate La Modesto in the port of Ge-
noa, and because the commander refused to
surrender Immediately on being summoned,
the vessel was boarded, and three hundred OIL
the unarmed crew were massacred. The Fri
gate was carried off to England; the Genoese
Government was too weak to insist upon res
titution or redress, and none. was ever made
to that power as an atonement for its slighted
authority, though Genoa, some years after
wards indemniHed the French. 1t was In that
year that British ship was captured in Del
aware bay by French frigate. The Ameri-
can Government, on complaint being made by
that of Great Britain, demanded restitution
from France, which was made About the
same time Admiral Nelson seized two other
French vessels, one in the harbor of Genoa
"in full view of its batteries" and one in that
of Leghorn. No redress was given in either
case. In 1895 the British ship-of-war Africa
attempted to seize the French minister, M
Fauchet, on board an American packet. The
sloop was boarded at the entrance of New
port harbor, and the trunks of the minister
were overhauled. The latter was not on
board. Several cases are given in which the
British navy invaded the neutral territories of
the small Northern Powers-Sweden, Norway
and Denmark-in pursuit of It's enemies.
Oay one instance is mentioned in which
any other redress was given than empty apol-
ogies. The most fagrant outrage was the
memorable seizure Of the neutral d anish feet
In Copenhagen harbor in 1907 by Great Brit
ain, to prevent its falling into the hands Of
Napoleon, the argument being that If we
don't steal it, Napoleon will. In the same
year, when America and England were at
peace, the British frigate Leopard captured
1lO NnSSdp6dk6s Ill AuucAiCaA NCSoCA Va W0A,
on suspicion of having British sailors on
board. No redress was offered or made. The
American frigate Essex, during the war which
followed, was captured in the harbor of Val
paralso, as is believed, by order of the British
Admiralty mot to respect any port as neutral
Dhere the ESser should be found.n She Law
In pistolshot of the shore. No redress or
apology was made to the insulted majesty of
Spain. In 1914 the General Armstron, an
American privateer, was destroyed in tho
neutral port of Fayal. No redress was made
A case which cones nearer home to ns is
that of the Caroline, a steamboat on the wa
ters OF Lake Erie, which was seized at the
American shore, In 1887, by an expedition
from Canada, set on fire, and then towed int
the current, of the Niagara river, and precipi
tated over the Falls. There was no offer t
restore its value, and it was several years be
fore an apology was rendered. In 1850, tn,
Brazilian ship Santa Cruz was seized ant
burnt, with all her papers and contents, by I
British cruiser In the Brazilian waters. Tht
two nations were at peace. The pretext wa
that the Santa Cruz was slave ship: but th
Brazillans deny the fact. No redress was Civ
en-.
The following, and last, we give in the Ian
guage of the writer 1t il 30 much In point
H