New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1864-12-02
MR. SUMNER on THE FLORIDA
CASE,

We collected on Tuesday some notices by the
English press Of the Florida case; not because
we think our opinions or the course Of our
Government ought to he Influenced in the least
degree by tho declarations of British ncwspa-
pers, bat for the sake Of exhibiting once more
the rude haste with which those journals are
wont to take sides against this country. We
desire oil Americans should learn that the opin
ion which is Of consequence to them is not the
opinion Of Europe, bu, their own. five appear
before any tribunal let it be at home; and il
We accept any verdict, lot II bo miae up ~ al
American jury.
To-day. however We are willing TO present
what may pass for the reverse of that pie
ture. Mr.. Senator Sumner has contributed
to The Boston Daily Adrer,istr an essay upon
the Florida case, devoted especially TO the ftca-
ptulation of English precedcnis bearing upon
it. With his usual abundant learning, Mr..
Summer brings together less than seven
teen instances which in their essential facts
are similar TO the capture OF the Florida.
His list extends all the way from 1868, during
Queen Eli2abeth's reign. 10 the year 1850, in
Guiding all the most familiar cases and many
which by most peraOns will now be heard Of
for the first time. We apprchend that even
those who have looked with favorable eyes
upon the seizure by Capt. Collins viii he
amazed at the number Of precedents in English
naval history which afford Justification for 1t.
On the question ar sing between this Govern
mcnt and that OF Brazil, Mr.. Sumner expresses
no opinion. Recognizing fully the general
principle that ait is by no means lawful 10
attack or take an enemy in the port Of q neutral
who is in amity with both parties" be suggest.
that nevertheless there may be decisive con.
siderations, distinguishing this case from every
other, which will justify our Government, while
recognizing the violation Of Brazilian territory,
at least in declining any restitution of the ship"
&" But" he adds, "my present object will be ac-
complished if j exhibit those historic precedcnis
which must close the British mouth whenever
it opens to condemn capture like that Of the
Florida"
Omitting the well-known cases of the Essex
and the Armstrong, We select from the remain
der two instances, both in principle identical
with the seizure Of the Florida. Tho first is
from De Cussy, Phases ct Causes Cel,Jres, tom. 9,
'p. 81:
1.-The French ship ofthe lire LImpereux separated in
storm from the feet TO which she belonged and muoh
disabled, discovered. September 1906 by several
British men.of war of Cape Henry. The French ship
turned her head to the land and actually aground
before the British ships within cannon shot But
though in this disabled condition and tie very shores
Of the United States, she received British broadside
The French commander protested vainy that he was
on neutral territory. His taken prisoners
and his ship was burnt. THIS act was a violation 81
the law OF nations. doubly noticeable. as tho I'm.
muny Of coast within SHOT had been O..
presy recognized In the Treat pi 1894 between Great
Britain and the United States As the ship as Jrrned
there could bs question Of ito restitution But it does
not appear that there any repara,on Of any kind
not even an apology"
The second is told at greater length, and is
memorable as embracing an expositionOi British
policy from the pen of one of tho greatest Of
British statesmen. In 1853 French fleet was
attacked near the coast Of Portugal by British
feet superior in strength. Two Of the French
ships were taken, two others were forced on
shore and burnt The Prime Minister of Portu.
gal instantly wrote to England that the Portu.
guese territory had been violated, and demanded
from Great Britain that satisfaction which was
due by the law Of nations. The answer to this
demand was framed by no Less person than
William Pitt, afterward Earl of Chatham. In.
styVctioas were sen. by hin to the British