The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1866-01-30
l<EOKI1K. IOWA:
The Consequences OF English
Neutrality.

From the London Daily News, Dec zo-I
We have taught the Americans and every
foreign government that the measure OF a
neutral's duty toward beibgerent Is the
British Foreign Enlistment Act that, having
this act on our statute book, we are not called
upon as neutral TO do anything more that
a statute which b as been found utterly power
less to prevent the destruction of American
commerce during the late civil war is the only
kind of statute which any nation can be called
upon to pass or to enforce; that all the addi-
tional securities which were supposed to be
contained IN the American statute book are
useless, and that in case of war their pro-
visions might be repealed or unenforced with
out exposing the American Government TO
the charge of neglecting their duties as neu-
trails If such are the principles which are to
be applied to the people of this country when
they are next engaged IN war, 1t Is not dlrn-
cult to anticipate the fate OF the British mer-
camille navy. Its destruction by cruisers OBJ
tanned from American ports must be speedy
aud complete, and neither the American
Government. nor any other Government, will
be considered responsible. In short. no new
laws need be passed, and those already in
existence are admitted to be absolutely use
less. Such is the conclusion which follows
from the justification of their conduct put for
ward by the British Government.
But let as hope that there are some men in
Parliament who will discern the character of
this argument. The common sense of the
nation cannot be hoodwinked. War must be
admitted to be always possible, and to leave
questions Of such gravity unsolved would be
10 expose our interests to too serious a risk.
If the argument were worth anything-if the
statutes OF England and America are so utterly
useless-it ought to prove that some change
n hp 10 of hot trio INN 20
needed. And it seems that Lord Russell,
feeling this, actually suggested to the Amerl-
can Government the propriety OF making some
change. 1t Is, however, useless to make any
such suggestion before some mode of settling
the existing disputes upon this very subject
has been agreed to- Indeed, according to
Mr.. Adams this was the very suggestion
which the American Government pressed
upon the attention of the British Government
at the commencement of the civil war. 1t is
the same suggestion which was then rejected
by the British Cabinet. "1f,n says Mr..
Adams "the reasons for it are sound now, |
am at q loss to perceive why they did not
avail at a time when my country could have
felt the benefit of them To adopt the sug-
geston now would be to proceed upon the
assumption that the duties of neutrality had
changed their character since the conclusion
OF the war. This is obviously absurd. If the
municipal law enforcing these duties ought to
be made more stringent now, it ought to have
been made more stringent before the war
closed, and the Government which declined
to take this course must be responsible for
whatever damage has resulted from its neglect.
In other words the question, what are the
duties OF neutral2 must precede the ques-
uon, ought the statute inforcing them to be
altered Means should therefore be taken to
ascertain whether during the American civil
war England performed her duty. This can
only be done by referring the matter in dis
pute to commission; and now that Lord
russell and his successor have refused to refer
the matter. 1t can only be done by the inter
vention of Parliament.