The New York herald., 1869-05-24
BELLIGERENT RIGHTS.
The Position Of the United States Twenty
Years Ago.


The Position Of the United Stntes Twenty
Years Ago.
WASHINGTON, d. O., May %, 1869.
very slight examination Of precedents in the
history OF our own government VIII enable one to
see that Ben Butler, and not Charles Sumner has
hit upon the right ground OF complaint against Eng
land for her conduct during the existence OF the late
Southern rebellion. Sumner nods that England was
culpable in according land ocean belligerency TO
the Confederates, particularly in such great haste,
while Butler seizes the British bull right by the horns
and declares that he don't complain because bellige-
rent rights were granted month"; week, day. or
a minute after the breaking out OF the rebellion
but because England, finding US in a great peril,
took advantage OF our embarrassing position to de-
stroy us as a great nation. In other words, Buffers
idea s that England sought not merely to recognize
people struggling for independence (her right to do
which, under the law OF nations cannot be disputed)
but deliberately conspired by aording material aid
and comfort to our enemies, 10 cripple US CONNER
cally and politically, and, II possible, sweep out OF
existence her only great national rival. This view
OF the case tested by the light of historical prece
dents seems 10 be the only one that can be MAIN
tanned with consistency by government. AS
Butler properly remarks, 1t from the neces-
sty Of repudiating our repeatedly expressed views,
and enables us to stand up with dignity to our old
principles.
In point of fact we have, in our dealings with
other nations contended for the right to do pretty
much the same things those assumed on principle
by England to be her right in her dealings with the
United States during the late rebellion.
One illustration Is az good as twenty, and need
20 no further back than 1850 to find one apt TO the
purpose At that time Old Zack Taylor was In the
Presidential chair and took it into his head to send
O special agent to Vienna charged with tine duty OF
investigating the resources and prospects of the
Hungarian revolution, with view to an early
recognition OF the independence OF Hungary and
the formation OF commercial relations with her.
Mr.. A. Dudley Mann was the person chosen for this
delicate mission. 1t was intended TO be entirely
secret mission, but somehow other II got to the
knowledge Of the Austrian government, and a little
diplomatic rumpus was the result. The Chevalier j.
e. Hulsemann was at tne time austrian ,t Cnarge
to make confidential and pressing representations"
to our government against the propriety OF the
Mann mission and all interference In the domestic
affairs Of the Austrian empire. The diplomatic cor
respondence which resulted must be toerably fresh
IN the recolleetions Of the public; Husemann nsaI.a
OF state. and was assured that the only
object OF ine Mann mission was 70 OBTAIN
luton. President Taylor soon after died. Fillmore
became President and Daniel Webster Secretary OF
State. Husemann and his imperial master, not satis-
fed with the Clayton explanation, reopened cor
respondence with our government on the subject,
u
date september sO 1850, made a very pointed pro-
test against the Mann mission which he believed to
be an unwarranted interference In the affairs OF
Austria. Mr. Hulsemann in this letter called atten-
to the published instructions OF Mr.. Mann, which
he declared IN diplomatic LANGUAGE let the cat com
or our government was TO recognize the Hungarans
and make treaties OF commerce and friendship wilh
describing Austrian sway as an "iron rulen over
Hungary, and found fault because Kossuth was
characterized as an 'iu5tri0us man.
To this letter Mr.. Webster replied some two months
later, discussing pretty freely the subject OF the
right Of independent nation to accord beligerent
rights to revolutlonists and making several points
that may be studied with advantage by some Of our
public men OF the present day The letter Is too
lengthy to reproduce IN eJteSO In correspondence
like this, but believe few extracts Will not be in
appropriate at this time, when so much Is said and
written about the subject OF beliRerent rights. In
one part Of the letter Mr. Webster uses the following
language
the course year Is4s the early of s4as
states Among them were individuals representing
the
80 recognize the existence OF that government In these
BY the Rss.asn there WAS netting S Hns,Sa ~ s
friendly with every other independent State or
new States brought BY successful family
g eG,
the state No principle Of pubic law has been more
of Ss world %sp han Within
sn. within he m. o. the coons do%nions Spain
This continent; and in Europe the thing has been
recognized BY some Of The ssan
s d y wen y ns W y hss
themselves IT, therefore, United had gone
although as the result has proved would pre-
Spa's s' 10 ls sad p. Would rnSs
an act against the law OF naon provided they took no part
Again. in another part Of his letter, Mr.. Webster
states that
with respect the communication Of Mr.. Manns nsruc
couched has already been said and Mr. Husemann must
feel the justice Of the remark, that there domestic sna
admit the sshes responsOy The oi
Independent permit the Language which nsy instruct
it's own officers In the discharge Of their duties to ,ss to be
called IN question, under any petex by foreign Power
These two extracts will sufice to show what was
the recognized policy OF our government nearly
twenty years ago IN regard to beigerency, and fur-
tner that what then contended for II pretty much
the same tning which, according 10 Summers idea,
we ought TO make our chief ground VI complaint
against Great Britain to-day.
Mr.. Sumner also holds that English Statesmen
were culpable In expressing sympathy Tor the south
Hungarian revolution Mr.. Webster did quite as bad
thing when he made public speech In the pre-
sence OF Kossuth encouraging the Hungarian rebels
from Austrian rule. When Chevaller Husemann, IN
letter to Mr. Webster, complained OF this action
an Official improperly, what was Mr.. webster's
replyf Did he not boldly and sharply snub the Aus.
TRAN representative and tell him IN effect that what
ne said or d,d as private citizen was none OF hls
bear me out. The correspondence that occurred be-
tween Mr.. Webster and Chevaer Hulsemann on that
subject is not very lengthy aud viii come IN appr0-
priately at this time II Is as follows:--
HULsTMANss LETTER To wEBsrFg
. AUSTRIAN LEeArIos, WAsuiNGIoS, April q, ls5s.
Mr.. SECRETARY or STArR:-
On my return from Havana lately found ths, she
moment had arrived for carrying the intentions OF my
government In regard 10 Official relations with the gov
ernment Of the United States The Secretary Of state has
not thought 10 reply TO the which deemed
my duty TO address him. with date of December s relative
TO the reception and military honors which had been paid
70 kossuth By the federal authorities The Secretary OF state
had induced me TO hope that interviews with him at the
Department OF State would be commented IN
yle Of derision In certain newspapers OF baltimore and
Philadelphia These assurances which had given In
writing even, were Immediately buriesqued in those very
Sheets and have only led TO fresh vrent attacks which
have been continued In Journal largely circulated IN
New Orleans, and during passage through that city
was made the subject OF demonstrations extremely
dsaereable character thought duty then (hc fls
OF NovcmbcrD TO inform the President Of these im
pfoprteties SO singuarly countenanced tcreupOn
ms sscresay OF state declared to me lon the