The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1869-04-19
treated as finally settled and barred,

treated as finally settled and barred,
and thenceforth Inadmissible."
All this 1 quote directly from the
treaty. It is Article s. The national
cause is handled as nothing more tn an
bundle OF individual claims, and the
result OF the proceedings under the pro-
posed treaty Is to be "full and final
settlement" so that hereafter all claims
'shaIl be considered and treated as fl
nalIy settled and barred, and thence
forth inadmissible." Here is no pro-
vision for the real question, which,
though thrust out of sight, or declared
to be finally settled and barred" &C.
| cording to the terms of the treaty, must
remain to plague the two countries,
there is no settlement in fact, and until
this is made there will be constant
menace of discord. Nor can it be for
gotten that there is no recognition of
the rule Of international duty applica-
BILE to such cases. This, too, is left un-
settled. While doing so little for us,
the treaty makes ample provision for ali
known claims on the British side. AS
these are exclusively "indiyiduaP' they
are completely covered by the text,
which has no Limitations or exceptions.
Already it is announced in England
that even those of Confederate bond
holders" are included. 1 have before
the latter claims as founded on sim
mense quantities ofcotton, worth at the
time OF their seizure nearly two shil-
lings pound, which were then IN the
possession OF those bondholders;" and
the same authority adds, "these claims
will be brought, indiferently with the
others, before the designated joint COM
mission whenever 1t shall sit." From
another quarter l learn that these bond
holders are Every sanguine of success
under the treaty as it is worded, and
certain it is that the loan went up from
nothing to 10 as soon as it was ascer
tntned that the treaty was signed" l
doubt il the American people are ready
Just now oprovide for any such claims.
That they have risen in the market is
an argument against the treaty.
THE CASE AGAINST ENGLAND.
Passing from the treaty, come now
to consider briefly. but with proper de-
cision, the true ground of Complaint;
and here again we shall see the con-
slant inadequacy of the remedy now
applied. 1t is with reluctance that l
enter upon this statement, and l do it
only in the discharge of duty which
can not be postponed. Close upon the
outbreak of our troubles, just one
month after the bombardment of Fort
Sumter, when the rebellion was still
undeYeloped, when the National Gov
eminent was beginning those gigantic
efforts which ended so triumphantly,
the country was startled by the news
that the British Government had Inter
Vened by proclamation, which Accord
ed belligerent rights to the rebels. AT
the early date when this was done, the
rebels were, as they remained to the
close, without ships on the ocean, with
out Prize Courts or other tribunals for
the administration of justice on the
ocean, without any of those conditions
hIph the a1lpntiql nFprpuuiEltPS to
such concession; and yet the conces-
sion was general, being applicable to
the ocean and the land, so that by Bril-
fish fiat they became ocean belligerents
as we'll as land belligerents. d1n the
swiftnesS of this bestowal there was
very little consideration for friendly
Power; nor does it appear that there
was any inquiry into those conditions,
precedent on which it must depend
Ocean belligerenCy being "fact," and
not "principle," can be recognized
only on evidence showing its actual
existence, according to the rule first
stated by Mr.. Canning and afterward
recognized by Earl Russell. But no
such evidence was adduced; for it did
not exist and never has existed. Too
much stress cannot be laid upon the
rule, that belligerency is "fact" and
most important contribution to this dis
cussion, and its original statement, on
the occasion of the Greek revolution,
does honor to its author, unquest1ona-
bly, the brightest genius ever directed
to this subject. According to this rule,
belligerency must be proved 10 exist;
it must be shown. 1t can not be i'm
agined or OWNED or invented; 1t must
exist as a "fact" within the knowledge
of the world, or at least as "fact" sus~
ceptible OF proof. Nor can 1t be infer
red on the ocean merely from its exist
ence on the land. From the beginning,
when God called tho dry land earth.
and the gathering of the waters called
He seas, the two have been separate,
and the power over one has not neces-
sarily implied power over the other'
There is a dominion of the land ana
dominion OF the ocean. But, whatever
power the rebels possessed on the land,
they were always without power on the
ocean. Admitting that they were bel
ligerents on the land, they were never
belligerents on the ocean:
1.-THE oak Ieviethans, whose huge ribs make
Their clay creator the vain title take
or lord OF thee, an drCter Of f06tr"-
these they never possessed. Such was
the "fact," that must govern the pres
ent question. The rule, so simple, plain
and Ineligible, as stated by Mr.. Can
ming. is "a decisive tombstone OF the
British concession, which, when
brought to it, is found to be without
support. Unfriendly In tho preclpl-
fancy with which it was Launched, TINS
concession was more unfriendly in sub
stance. 1t was the first stage in the
depredatiOns on our commerce. Had 1t
not been made, no rebel ship could
have been built in England: Every
step in her building would have been
piracy. Nor could any munitions of
war have been furnished. The direct
consequence of this concession was to
place the rebels on an equality with
ourselves in all British markets, wheth-
er OF ships or munitions OF war. AS
these were open TO the National Gov
eminent, so were they open to the rebels.
The asserted neutrality between the
two began by this tremendous conces-
sion when rebels, at one stroke, were
transformed not only into belligerents,
but into customers. In attrlbutlng to
that bad proclamation this peculiar in
luence, L follow the authority OF
the law lords of England, who,
according to authentic report, an
nounced that without it the 1T
ting out of ship in England to cruise
against the United States would have
been an act of piracy. This conclusion
was clearly stated by Lord Chelmsford,
ex. Chancellor, speaking for himselt
and others, when he said: "1f the South
ern Confederacy had not been recog.
nized as a belligerent power, he agreed
with his noble and learned friend,
(Lord Brougham.) that, under these
circumstance, if any Englishman were
to tit out a privateer for the purpose OF
assisting the Southern States against
the Northern States, he would be gull
~ OF piracy," This conclusion is only