The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-03-18
SPIRIT or THE PRESS.
EDITORIAL OPINIONS or rBR LEADING JouRFALs
UPor cuRREET T0PIcs-CoMPnRD EVERY
DAY FoR THR EVENING TRIBGRAPH.



sion which Mr.. Johnson5 Manchester speeSh
afforded him. Mr.. Harcourt has long Deen
Bhsilv engaged in undermining, Dy MS Iogto
regarding British responsibility iOr the AlA,
bama the high esteem ana respect he nao
nreviously built MP in America by his support
a. tbe cause OF the Union against the cause OF
the insurrection Que happy chance for diver.
sion he had, and used, when recognition OF
Rebel belligerency" was dragged in by head
and ears as the foundation OF our peounisry
claim for the Alabsma's ravages; another he
now enjoys in the remarks let fall by Mr..
johnson regarding the hoped for immunity OF
private property in time OF war.
But his second diversion i5 not so happy as
his first. It was no difficult matter to show
two sides to the question OF considering
highlands recognition of the Confederate
States as the ions ct origo of our suit for the
liquidation OF specific damages caused by
single class OF war casualties. Bat, when IL
comes to this second affair, what does ellis
toricus'' make outH He diverges from the
field OF legal decision into that of private or
Individual opinion, and gives us, in place OF
his customary eruditiop, very general and
inexact assertions to the fleet that the amelio-
rating tendency OF war cannot be applied to
the protection of private property at sea.
The new doctrine is, as our readers know,
that international law ought to protect private
property at sea, as Mr.. Johnson somewhat
generally, but intelligibly, presented it, "pri-
vate property upon the ocean, during war,
shall never be subject to capture-men may
be killed upon the land and upon the ocean
in battle, but the merchant will go his own
way unharmed" This doctrine, we may add,
has been forced upon the attention of iurists
by the mercantile community of the world,
which comprises some of the aoutest thinkers
as we'll as the most Influential citizens and re-
solute Legislators Of all commercial nations.
Mr.. Harcourt, in his late letter to the
London Times, rehearses the view he expressed
at Birmingham last autumn, namely, that 'it
is idle to attempt to put an end to the horrors
of war except by preventing war ITSELF" and
that, as the wanton destruction OF private
property at sea is one OF the horrors of war,
II cannot be prevented. "When the dogs of
war are once slipped from the LEASH" he says,
81 have very little faith in moderating their
havoc" And, in brief, bis theory is, that we
should make war so terrible, and especially
so Injurious to commercial wealth, that "the
most powerful and influential interests may
be banded together to discourage it."
We confess frankly our astonishment at
hearing the enunci .tion from such a source
of such doctrine; we fancy it was the con-
tr0versial and syll CYSTIC reasoning, rather
than the rich historic knowledge, to say
nothing of the phlanthropic sentiment, of the
writer which projected it. On the same
ground we are under obligations to take
OaOkW61U bteps III ClVIlIdtiOu, dnu Tcuuco war
to Indian butchery; and whereas by degrees
certain conceded ussges of humanity have,
under the influence of Christian nations,
become binding claws of war;" whose trans.
gression is severely punished even in theii
own troops, by all civilized nations, our intel
hgent international jurist has ''no faith in
uoderating havoc.' On the doctrine of ellis
torious" we must go to medieval times and
savage isles for our exemplars in warfare, and
fQkQ taaoharS mt WQsbinotOn and
Wellington, bat the Thug and Sioux. Who.
ever is c0nversant with the history oi
warfare, from earliest to latest ages, will see
how civilization and intelligence have re.
deemed it from being wild carnival of blood
and booty, wherein the wanton sacking o.
cities, the putting of prisoners by the thou
sand to the sword, the outrage of women, the
slaughter of infants, have borne conspicuoui
parts. Did these horrible atrocities evel
lessen the frequency of war; Let the Palati
mates OF history bear witness.
Should "Historicus" reply that he does no
seek q retrograde toward wanton destruction o
life and the means of life beyond the presen
rules of civilized war, we may properly insis
that he then abandops the fundamental ny
pothesis of his argument; for it is merely
further mitig alton of such horrors as hav
already been miugated by international agree
IneHt, that is now under discussion.
Mr.. Haroourt, in the next place, and indt
pendent Of his general theory, takes th
groupd, inferentially, that neutral property
sea is entitled to no more immunity than net
trail property on land, which latter gets in pra'
tioe none at all. We repeat, in justice to tn
able writer, that this argument is only fi
q ferential;" but SO much it certainly is; and
comes out during his overthrow OF a windmi
that he sets up, namely, that ''the most pop
lar argument for protecting private belligerer
property at sea is that private belligerent pr
perty on land is protected"
We shall not go into the side issue whiC
a'Historious" raises by disputing this allegs
proposition of his opponents. What we sa,
on the contrary, is that the two cases a
essentially different. II is difficult and pr
baby impossible, to protect from csptu
ssprivats belligerent property on land" bl
the reason is because it is so often difficult
restrain the needs of food and forage in
army: TO discriminate between real and pr
tended "farmers" and guerrillas in hosti
region; to decide when the products of Ian
or factories have or have not been carrie
habitually to the camps OF the enemy n
facts are different on the sea. Ia Semme
seizure of ships chronometers to be put on
par with Sheridan's destruction OF the whei
fields regularly reaped in season by Early
columnsY Ia the burning and scuttling
whaie-ships, armed with no more serviceal
weapons than harpoons, to be likened
Sherman's destruction of houses containi
extra shot-guns and cavalry brides, or ev
TO his seizure of food and forage out Of barn
That Ia what "Historious" argues.
For ourselves, we ask first to have 1t demo
strated that merchant ships, without arm
without contrabapd of war, and obvious
pacific In intent, cannot be determined beyo
doubt TO be peaceful commercial vessels, a
~ ouoh xnrofaofad bafor0 wa rive mn