The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-07-30

The Neutrality Laws.
From the Times.
In its general reasoning, perhaps, the report
of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs
upon the neutrality laws correctly expresses the
prevailing sense of Justice. There is proper
aversion to changes of law made at the instance
and TO serve the convenience OF foreign powers;
and the fact that certain features OF existing
legislation originated thus is sufficient 70 insure
their condemnation. The ieelng Is strength
ened when 1t is remembered that the friendly
action of the American Government has not
been reciprocated For surely legislation by
the United States by which other countries pro-
fted should have induced corresponding egisla-
tiOn on their part that there might be among
nations something like oneness OF principle and
policy in their respective enactments on the
subject OF neutrality.
Now the report presented by General Banks
establishes the first oil these points. 1t shows
that the provisions of the law in respect OF
neutrality, which were deemed adequate and
Just in the early days of the republic, were'at
different times altered in the direction OF greater
stringency on the suggestion or solicitation OF
foreign Governments that OF Great Britain
being among them. 1t shows that the laws now
in force III this country exceed in comprehen-
slveness and stringency those III operation
elsewhere. And the argument Is fairly and
strongly put, that the comfy of nations de-
mands something like mutuality OF duty upon
question in which they have common interest
The obligation to do unto this country as this
country mas done unto others has, however,
been per5isJenJly disTegarded; and at this mo-
ment American citizens are subject to restrlc-
tlons and penalties far in excess of those inn
posed by the Governments Of Europe. To these
inequalities in laws affecting international
interests there is q natural, if not very ntelll
gent repugnance; and hence the proposition to
regulate the restrictions upon American citizens
in matters affecting British interests, by the
restrictions which Great Britain has placed
upon her subjects in matters affecting American
interests, may be expected to commend itself to
popular favor.
But though the law is unsatisfactory and the
amendment OF il necessary, the wisdom OF pre-
cipitancy In regard TO it is not very clear. 1t
was wrong III former Congresses to comply with
the requests OF Great Britain, or Spain, or Por-
tugal, seeing that none of them has returned the
compliment.
There would be less reason for caution if this
effort to mend the neutrality laws were not evil
IDENTIFY connected, In a near or remote degree,
with movements which the friends of order
cannot contemplate with indifference. The pre-
vention Of raids upon Canada led to the intro.
duction of the subject into Congress, and it Is
well understood that the change proposed is
deemed to be favorable to the plans and pur-
poses OF the Fenian organization. "The modi-
hcation," says the World correspondent, Twill
prove to be largely IN the Fenian interest
as was evinced by the presence of President
Roberts and other prominent Fenians on the
floor during the dis cussion OF the BILL"
1t is not alleged by the advocates OF the
measure that the President exceeded his
authority in the steps recently taken on
the Northern frontier; aud the absence Of
complaint upon this head is equivalent TO an
acknowledgment OF the strict legality OF his
course. The apparent desire is to prevent
further Executive interference, should the occa
sion for it be renewed; for though General
Banks' bill comes up to the standard OF Wash
lngton, and 1t is in every respect equal to the
restrainb which Great Britain deems sufficient
for her subjects, it effects marked relaxation
in the law now in force here. The inquiry
arises, therefore-ls it more dignifed, more
proper, or more expedient to modify the
neutrality laws for the accommodation of the
Fenlans than lor the accommodation OF foreign
Governments?
The present position of the Government in
relation to neutrality is confessedly strong. 1t
has eXtorted gratetul.testimony from the organs
of British opinion and has commended itself to
the moral sense of the American people. 1t
occupies a vantage-eround in the great arena OF
nations, and may with proprlety call upon other
Governments TO revise their legislation, and
enter into reciprocal obligations in mterna
tional concerns. Its prompttude and vigoT
against tenlan torays will Justify it in present
ing to England pretty little account of her
Indebtedness on account of failure TO preserve
an,equitable neutrality during the Rebellion
And its own laws will be a standard to which
the neutrality laws OF other countries may be
required to advance.
II, after all, the leading powers of Europe
refuse to recognize the obligation of reciprocity
it Britain will neither atone for injuries anC
losses produced by her lax ideas of neutrality
nor restrain her people alter the fashion set by
the United States-the obligation on the side o
this country will cease, and Congress may
loosen Its bonds tn the utmost limit. But a
least let the change be brought round deco
rously. Let not the spectacle be presented o
legislation in matters OF the highest import
ance pushed to maturity at lightning speed
without thought, without care, and Withou
regard to the possibilities of the immediate
future.