New-York tribune., 1868-12-25

me FIc,gfnfs of Maritime International Ld'c,
=, wf,rt.v u,, Piircu NJ 4 d.ondOn: Longman Coz
..rs az presenting summary view of the lesd pih'
,i,,s which andy 10 the maritime intercourse Of ma
fots III mo Of including the rghts ana ophGaohs
Of peutral states the OF contrabaud aud blockade
mud me rules which are binding private persons en-
Raged ~ commerce with beihgerent countries Ihe SUD
ICES has heretofore not been treated as distinct branch
of ar.sprudcLce, but general title IN the depart
Al, 10 Of International Law. and IL was necessary for the
,tudeut OF praconer TO seek its principles IN larger
trsatses o scattered through Reports OF cases Inc
rresent volume brings together those principles N con
dcused form, as founded the leading "e-
,isout Of the COnrts both OF England ana he
United States together with the Opinions "i e'hi
Eent cIy,liaus who are regarded as authorizes Oh
oaes,ous ~ public law The author justly remarks Una"
much Of the awakened interest In the study OF h'erh"
,oua aw s 10 he ascIbed TO the recent civil war III
America which has given prominence 90 several nIp9ii
mt points on which conflict Cf law has been tenacous
maintained. Among these questions may he noted 'h
effect Of a declaration Of war ON the property Z" an
enemy fouud IN the country at the tme-the obligations
involved IN complete ueutraltyW articles are con
fad Of war-and the rights Of neutrals TO SEND goods
hy the ship Of a begercnt TO carry the goods of /"
helIgerent their neutral ships one 0f the piH
opal points which the practice Of Great Britain ana
the United States has been at variance ~ the obligations
incident to perfect neutrality. The Of the Ala
hama Of course under this head Several pages
Of the preface are devoted TO that question by
Nj DC Burgb who states the conclusions 10 which
lie has arrived IN explicit paragraph :;
The claims brought against the British Government 10y
The Government Of the United States in the matter Of the
thp Alabama may he summed up briefly thus that In
aud forcetu or Observant Of these principles ~ the
law 81 nations did maintain true neutrality true
neutrality that is TO say, having regard 10 the principle
az reciprocity OF doing ne would be done by. And
when the equipment or the vessel Itself Is considered
hat in her very form and construction she was hosle
mat she needed hardly any further muniton than that
which her own frame supplied make her formidable 10
Yacinc merchandise that Of her might be sand in an
almost literal Of The poets words She walked ne
waters as a thing 81 lie ; aud that attempt made
o. The part OF her builders disguise what indeed was
most apparent that ehe was intended vessel of war
me conclusion seems forced upon that England IN hc
matter OF TINS vesse chiefly obous Of those Cuu,s
which lay the Of real and genuine neutral
ity, and does 10 her powerful neGhbor some ac-
Know edgmeut, IL not substantial repaTatluu.
for the injuries which the property ~ peaceful
citizens have sustained from such forgetfnlness"
The author admits that the UDited States have been more
familiar with the rights and dutes Of neutras than Eng
land and that the judges Of the Supreme Court we're
Tie give the fullest and eearest exposition Of the
IN the early part Of This century His work
hibts very familiar acquaintance with the decisions Of
American tribunals and discusses the snbect with great
eandor and ability chef between this country
ard Great Britain that fail 20 call forth as deep
al interest Oh this lde Of the Atlantic among British
TealCTe