Cleveland daily leader. [volume] ([Cleveland, Ohio]) 1865-1873, 1865-11-29
prtvateertn~-Enorts tori Abolition.

Prfvafesrfne=EHOrtS Orifs Abolition.
The d~epredations of rebel privateers
upon our commerce during the late rebel
lion, the probability that Peru win issue
of marque in her unequal struggle
with Spain, and the threats of extensive
privateering upon the commerce of Great
Britain in the event of an Irish revolt,
combine to invest the system of warning
upon private property, and the efforts of
the nations toward its abolition, with more
than ordinary interest. Privateering,
or the practice of making war upon mer-
chant vessels bearing the flag of an enemy,
is a relic of barbarism, being only a mod
ification of the code of the dark ages,
when all the possessions of the enemy,
even including their wives and children,
were regarded as legitimate spoils of war.
The Government of the United States has
ever been opposed to this system of war
fare, and to a greater extent than any 9TH
er nation has labored for its discontinuance.
On the 10th of April, 1856, in a Diplomatic
Conference being held at Paris, the Plen-
ipotentiaries of Great Britain, Austria,
France, Prussia, Russia, Sardinia and
Turkey signed a declaration of adherence
to the following principles of international
law;
al. Privateering is and remains aJol-
ished.
40. The neutral flag covers enemy's
goods, with the exception of c%ontraband
of war.
"3. Neutral goods, with the exception of
~contraband of war, are not liable to cap
ture under enemy's flag.
"a. BlOckades, in order to be binding
must be ~effective-that is to say, main
tanned by a force sufficient really to pre-
vent access to the coast of the enemy
The French Minister to the United States
subsequently presented this protocol to our
government, requesting its concurrence,
Mr.. Marcy, Secretary of State, replied,
July 2Sth, 1856, that the fourth proposition
had long been acknowledged universally
as international law; that the United
States cheerfully accepted the second and
third propositions, embodying as they did
doctrines for which the United States had
long commended; and pledging the concur
renee ofthis government in the first clause,
provided the European powers would ac-
cept the following amendments or addition
HAnd that the private property of the
subjects or citizens of a belligerent on the
high seas shall be exempt from seizure by
the public armed vessels of the other bel
ligerent, except it be cOntraband.'
twill be observed that the United States
did not reject any of the propositions OF
the Maritime Powers for the amendment
of international law, The question was
still an open one, and so Secretary Marcy
declared in an official letter to Count Sar-
tiges, the French Minister, under date OF
August 18th, 1856. That it was so regard
ed by the Powers interested, was shown
by the fact that negotiations were pursued
with some prospect Of success until the
accession of President Buchanan in 1851
when all discussion of the subject in OIL.
cial circles was suspended.
Whatever of censure may justly attacf
to President Buchanan, who seemed to SCI
his face against everything progressive Oh
beneioent, We hold that with England anC
France, as the most influential Maritime
Powers of Europe, rests the responsibility
for the defeat of the proposed reform
The amendment proposed by the United
States was prompted by the purest phi
lanthropy. If it were wrong for private
vessels to prey upon private property, i
could be no less wrong on the part of ship
of war. The acceptance of this amend
ment at the time it was offered woulC
have saved the United States millions 0
dollars in ships and property, since de
stroyed by rebel cruisers fitted out il
British ports. II, in the complications o
the future, Great Britain be made to pay
the penalty of her folly and s~ellishness, il
the destruction or serious Gripping of he
commerce, she will have the satisfaction
of knowing that British diplomacy i
mainly responsible for her misfortunes.