New-York tribune., 1869-06-10
THE WAY TO HONORABLE PEACE.

to that the Constitution OF the United States,
in the eighth section of the first article, expressly
empowers Congress "to define and punish pira-
" ces and offenses committed on the high seas,
"and offenses against the law Of natiOns:" :" thus,
in the fundamental charter of our Government,
recognizing the controlling power of that law
as law of peace and it may be remarked,
that not only has our Constitution thus recOg-
nized the control over our nation OF the law OF
nations, but that we have concluded more
treaties, notwithstanding our recent existence
as q nation, than any nation of the whole world,
and that these treaties are based upon the
largest and most liberal principles of intelna-
tional intercourse. And it may further be re-
Marked that in the conduct of our relations
with other nations, the United States have
applied these principles most strictly as to their
own rights and duties, and this under circum-
stances the most perplexing and trying. This
is the vantage ground on which this young
nation stands among the elder nations OF the
earth. This conduct has been chiefly evinced
in regard to its neutral position amid the great,
the almost unparalleled warfares OF other
countries.
Forced into state of belligerency to pre-
serve its life, it thus had claims, not exceeded
by any other government, to require and to
insist that, during such beligerency, nations
not parties to the war shall have performed all
their neutral obligations with the strictest and
steadiest honesty and assiduity: the very eX-
emptions of neutrality imposing reciprocal
obligation of such conduct. Where such Obh-
cations have not been fulfilled, and injuries
have been consequent the right TO demand
and to compel ample reparation for such inju-
ries, so far as it is practicable, is unquestiona-
ble But such reparation is Oftentimes imprac-
ticable, for the reason that such injuries may
be not only to the people individually Of a
nation, but to the nation in mass, because of
wounds to its honor, because of prOtraction
of its hostile condition, either by an undue or
untimely OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES of
a state of beligerency, or by an unwarranted
restriction of its commerce, or by forced re-
duction of its commercial marine.
Where such q state Of things has existed, it
is the part of wisdom and of duty, with view
to prevent q recurrence of wrongs, not only
to require and insist upon reparatiOn for the
past, but also to provide, if possible, preCau-
tions as to the future.
But how far shall this requisitiOn of repara-
ton gOl AS to the wounded honor of the
country and the requiring an apology, this Will
be adverted to below. AS to the prOtraction
of the recent civil war; and the consequences
of it. requirement of reparatiOn by way Of
indemnity would be an extravagant pre-
tension, and indemnifcaton is impractcable.
No instance in all modern history, it is be-
lieved, can be adduced where such requirement
has ever been asked, or if asked ever granted {:
for to ask and to grant are the offices OF
treaties, and every treaty assumes that the
powers in treaty are to be deemed equal.
Such indcmnities can only be imposed and to
impose implies conquest, or an apprehension OF
conquest, or Of gIievOus injuries that cannot
be repelled Such indemnification would also
he impracticable, for the obvious reason that
no measure of the injuries can be found or
| suggested. In confirmation of these views, the
language of Alexander Hamilton, who was the
founder of the neutral policy Of this Republic,
may be advantageously referred to. An objec-
ton TO the treaty concluded with Great Brit
ain, in the year 1894, was urged "the want of
indemnifcation for the expenses of Indian
wars consequent on the detention" of the
British frontier posts. HamiltOn's reply in de-
| fense Of that treaty, which he originated, and
which reply had much to do in securing its
confirmation, is in these words
Those who make the objection may be safely
CHALLENGED To produce precedcnts of similar indemni
cations, unless imposed by coRquiRg powers on the
| yauquishcd or by powers of overbearing strength
upon those which too weak to dispute the logic
| of superior force"
Is this the relative situation of the United
States and Great Britain If not, then, as
Hamilton remarked, "the pretension is eXtrav-
agant and impracticable.' "The want of q
"rule TO adjust consequential damages" he OBJ
| served as to the matter in question, is very
great difficulty" AS to the matters now il
queston-those of general grieyous c0nse-
quences not direct injuries-no such rule can
be found or suggested.
This being so, how far shall the requistion
of reparation go Beyond all question, to q
full, ample indemnifcation for every illegal
capture or destruction of the property of Amer
can neutral vessels during the recent civil war
In the words of Hamilton:
"In cases where clear injuries are done, affecting
| objects of known or easily ascertalned values, pecu
MARY compensation may be expected TO be obtained by
| negotiation"
The ascertaining. of such values is the proper
Office of n commission of proceedings; this must
bo the sole object. thus expressly excluding
every class of offset of any and every kind.
| Great Britain, well aware of the atrOcious con-
| duct of her late ministry, from which this coun-
try has so greatly suffered in the loss of lives
and money, and in the transfer of its tunnage
ought gladly, and it is not doubted will gladly
agree to such commission; ana, with SIN
cere view to its composing influence ought tc
appoint Commissioner tomeet a Commissioner
of the United States in the United States
here to enter into n negotiation that viii re-