Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1867-04-25

u Iron the Bo&a nP6stll
Mr.. Dana's twelfth and last lecture was
upon the neutrality laws of England and
sumo of all the principal subjects treated in
the OfhefsE WaT u TAa43AD
Down to the year 1919 Great Britain had
no ostatpte Tor the preseTyatioR ef peFtrality :.
Our statute Of neutFallsy vas psssea In
enacted it as permanent law in 1918. The
difficulties which grew ont of the insurrec-
ftiOn EOf ef3pa0islH fcOl0aHeSq agaiusGr the
nParent States Ied90 the seaactmen5 of SUPP
Elementary articles to prevent violation Of
SSgAsgtTsl ;ss Gsnnng RI s6ssr e.
House of Parliament. He introduced IT.
with the highest eRoominmsI upon Washr
ington; he paid high compliments to our
law itself. and having our statute before it
that body passed. q law which was simply
it in s6fis part an; Is it, ii the speakers
judgment, the great object of the British
statute, and one Which g eftainly could not
have escaped their attention is this: It has
no PROVISION int the way OF prevention.
There is no power to compel the owners of
vessels to give bonds in advance; nor is
yrtaere the pOWeEvtosseize yesselsg Gni mere
epfobable causes THESE two isione IN
our law were not ia our original statute,
but were introduced IN 1915 at the request
ofaPert1gai. New EnglandEha.f thetxE Of
1918 before her, She kaete 4b MAJ aFeeent1
addition made at the request of Portugal
and Yetsit was omitted sentirelY from the
British statute. 1t lis clear, Mr.. Dana
thought, that it was omitted Intentionally
AperhapsfOr reasons Of "a political chafac-
ter. To show how much England had done
TO enforce her neutrality, case was cited
In her history when vessel sailed from Ply+
mouth, atthe time of a 9civii war in PoFtd-
-igal, ffllediiwith Portuguese. citizens who
were intending to give their aid 60 the.
<snt1 of n nj afla rfU 1 m
country. 10 The vessel was totally unarmed
and her passengerso only went as individuals;
vet. nevertheless a British cruiser was
sent, in pursuit. by authority of the Govern
sment and, the, vessel was overIaken and
compelled by a shot to turn about and the
result was that expedition was broken up.
The case came up in the House of Com
mons, and the action of the Goyernment
was supported by a large majority. This
was the, most extreme act any Government
ever did in the way of maintaiuing its neu-
trality. The next time was during our late
war. Soon after it had begun Captain
Bullock, of the Confederate Navy, estab7
1ished an agency In Liverpool, He bought
stffps and fitted them out, to prey upon
American commerce. Frazer. TRENHOLM %
Co. were the agents, and they advanced
Fthe necessary money tor the work. The
first ship about which any consldera-
BILE, controversy arose was the Alexan7
dria. This vessel, after some delay was
taken possession. of by the British Govern
ment,s and The case brought before the Court
of Exehequef, when il was ruled that in
order tor avessel tosviulate the neutrality
she must, when she left the British, port, be
''cofnpletely fitted for active warfare; and
the verdict Ia the case was decided against
the GOgernneht,s and tn vessel wasordered
to be released, A bill of exceptions was
then filed, aud the case was taken up for a
new trial, but:the Lord Chief Baron refusing
to sign the, bill the case was taken before
The House Of Lords, where's a decision SINH
lar TO the first was Sustained, which de-
cided that vessel must be fitted out per-
fectlY for hostile purposes when she leaves
the British port in order to violate the men,
trality laws of the country. When the
news of the first decision reached America,
rulings of the Lord Chief Barou were adj
hered to then the United States would be
sleft to understand that Great Britain had
no law at the point of danger; and under
such circumstances he desiredsthat the two
Governments would enter into Joint re-
syisionsof their neutrality laws. Lord Rus
sell declined, and the offer has never been
accepted. After the decision of the Alex
sndria, the Alabama, Florida. Georgia, Rap
pahaplOck andr Shenandoah sailed from
LiVerpo0l or Glasgow These vessels had
only 10 be fitted 5out entirely with the ex
!cepttpn of one thing-the crew, OF, powder,
or armament. When they had passed be-
yond the marine league these could be sup
piled from a tender and then theyessell had
Violated no law, and had no consequences to
suffer. That was the course that was after
wards pursued and WAS justified by the
Cohftsof the Exchequer. The most serious
Saseswas that of the rams, which are in
themselves complete engines Of war, and
aresfOrA1idable for hostile purposes without
qequiring guns or powder: en- They are built
toicut at the wafer 3 edge any opponent
Mr.s.Adams farnisEed evidence to Lord
Russell that two rams were in course of
construction for the rebel service. Lord
.RnsseIlreplied that he saw no cause for in
terfeFingsq Mr.. Adams then furnished new
evidences of the character ofsthe vessels;
but it was very difienlE to make his Lord
ship understand theBg great danger of this
act being followed sbglWar.s On the 18th of
September, when the, rams Were just Onthe
pOintcof sailing Mr.sAdams for the last
time, addressed letter to Lord Russell, in
which he saws: .stYonr Lordship will allow
me to express to you. my last earnest re-
quest. I have Information that the rams
are about to SAIL will not repeat the
arguments / have used upon this subject;
ali Ihave to sayis that if the rams saiIit as
SOdr.~ He does not say It Is likely to be
WAR 5or that i6 will be- War 1but heESays
that it.is WAR; Ina few hours he received a
letter saying thatsthe, rams had been stop
pedsivNo one can read that spondence
without seeing that it, was the last asigniti-
CANT sentence Of this sycerrespopdenee that
course it was war for enginessof war to be
sent out in that manner. bqAts the close of
the war we made our demands upon Great
Britain for remuneration for the damages
done our ships. Mr. Dana then brought
up the famous CORES pohdence be-
tween Mr.. Adams and Lord Russell
uponu this subject. The points of
Mr.. Adams argument were: ID That
Great Britain recognized the belligerency
of the rebellion unnecessarily premature.
~ They. allowed Liverpool to become a
naval depot tor the Confederacy. (3) The
tickleness of the exercise of their power. az
their laWs.io (5) They permitted those yes
sels after having broken their neutrality
laws to lresupplya themselves in British
ports and never attempted to disarm them
The reply was that England was then
obliged to recognize the belligerency of the
rebellion; that they had done their best to
execute their laws; that they were not
obliged to amend them, and that the Brit
ish, Government could not be responsible
for, the acts done, by, the Alabama, &c
Then whenit was proposed to refer this
question to safbitratienit was beneath the
Government to submit TO arbitration. 1t is
asutficient answer to say that Lord Stan
ley, when he came into office, saw no OBJ
lection whsteVer in submitting these ques-
tions to arbitration. n The speaker then de-
sired to say a, word upon the recognition o.
belligerency. When two nations are Al
war all neutrals ought to know what course
to take, aud shape their conduct accord
ingly!d Yet to recognize the beliigerency
of rebellion too hastily is manifestation
of hostility to the parent Government. i
we should undertake to recognize the bel
ligerency of Hungary at the beginning OF
if yOrl6 ho Of r.fE hos