The Fremont weekly journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County, Ohio) 1867-1877, 1869-04-30
FREMONT SANDUSKY COUNTY OHIO; FRIDAY APRIL 30 1862

- - " =
are very sanguine of success under the
treaty as it is orded, and certain il is thai
the loan went up from nothing to ten as sOOr
as it was sseeriaiDed that the treaty was
Isigred." doubt if the American people
are ready just now to provide for any such
claims. That they have risen in the market
is an argument against the treaty.
Passing from the treaty, l come now to
lconsider briefly, but with precision, the true
ground of complaint; and here again we shall
see the constant inadequacy Of the remedy
now applied. 1t is with reluctance that
enter upon this statement, and do it only
in the discharge of my duty, which cannot
be postponed. Close upon the outbreak Oi
our troubles, just one month after the bonn
bardment of Fort Sumter, when the rebel
lion w9s still undeveloPed, when the nation
al government was beginning those gigantic
efforts which ended so triumphentlY the
country was startled by the news that the
British government had intervened by q
proclamation, which accorded belligerent
rights to tie rebels. st the early date
when this was done, the rebels we're, as they
remained to the close, without ships on the
ocean, without prize courts or other tribu-
4 mails for the administration of justice on the
ocean, without any of those conditions which
are the essential prerequisites to such a con-
ces sion; and yet the concession was general
being applicable to the ocean and the land
so that by British fat they became ocean
belligerents as we'll as land belligerents. In
! the sWiftness of this bestOWai there was very
| little consideration for friendly power; nor
does it appear that there was and inquiry
into those conditions precedent on which il
must depend. Ocean belligeraney being a
fact, and not 'priRciple, can be reeog-
nized 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
sdduced, for it did not exist and never has
existed. Too much stress cannot be laid
upon the rule that belligerency is fact
aud not principle 1t is, perhaps, the
most important contribution to this discus
sion, and its original statement on the oc-
casion of the Greek revolution, does honor
to its author, unquestionably the brightest
genius ever directed to this subject. Ae-
cording TO this rule belligerency must be
proved 10 exist-it must be shown. 1t can
not be imagined or divined or invented: It
must exist as a fact within the knowledge
of the world, or at least as a fact suscepti-
bic of proof. Nor can it be inferred on the
ocean merely from IFS existence on the land.
From the beginning, when God called the
dry land earth aud the gathering of the
waters called He seas, the two have been
separate and the power over one has not
necessarily implied power over the other
There is a dominion of the land and a do
miniOn of the ocean. But whatever power
the rebels possessed on the land, they were
always without power on the ocean. Ad-
hitting that they were belligerents on the
land, they were never belligereuts on the
ocean;
The oak leviathan, whose huge ribs make
Their clay creator the vain title take
Oflord Of thee and arbiter Of war;
these they never possessed. Such was the
''fact" that must Govern the present ques-
tion. The rule, so simple. plain and intel
igible, as stated by Mr.. Canning, is a de-
cisive tOuchstone Of the British concession
which, when brought TO it is found to be
without support Unfriendly in the pre-
cipitancy with which it was launched, this
concession was more unfIiendly in substance.
1t was the first step in the depredations on
our commerce. Had it 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 conse-
Quence Of this concession was TO place the
rebels on an equality with ourselves in all
British markets, whether Of ships or NUM-
tions Of war. As these were open to the ma
tional government, so were they open to the
rebels. The asserted neutrality between
the two began by this tremendous concession,
when rebels, at one stroke, were transformed
not only into belligerents but into customers
The only justification that have heard
for this extraordinary concession, which un-
leashed upon our country the fuFies of
foreign war to commiDgle with the furies of
at home, is that President Lincoln
undertook to proclaim q blockade ofthe rebel
ports. By the use Of this word " "blockadeP
the concession is Vindicated. Hsd President
Lincoln pToclsimed a closing of the rebel
ports, there could have been no such conces- |
sion. This is mere technicality. Lawy ers
might call it an dpeT jlITis; aud yet on this !
sharp point England hangs her defense It !
is sufficient that in a great case Ike the
present, where the cOrrelatiVe duties of |
friendly power are in question, an act |
fraught with such pOrteutous evil cannot be |
indicated on technieality. In this debate /
here is no room for tsehnicality on either
lide. We must look at the substance and |
ind a reason in nothing short Of over
'uling necessity. War cannot be justified |,
merely on technicality; nor can the cOnces-
ion of ocean belligerency to rebels without Il
port or prize court. Such a concession, ID
ike war itself, must be at the peril of the
lation making it.
may add that there is one other word
ften invoked for apology. 1t s"neutralfty, - (
which, it is said, was proclaimed between
wO belligerents. Nothing could be fairer,
lWays provided that the neutrality" Il
reclaimed did not begin with a concession
D ooe party without which this party would h
e powerless. Between two established ns {
ions, both independents as between Russia II
nd France. there may be neutrality; for the I
wo are already equal in rights, and the h
would be precisely equal in its d
peratiOn. But where one party is an es-
lblished nation and the other is nothing ,
ut an OdiOus combination of rebels, the | :
is most unequal in operation;
r it begins by a solemn inYestiture of reb-
s with all the rights Of war, saying to
lem, as was once said to the youthful =
night, "Rise, here is q sword; use is
0 call such an investiture proclamation q
neutrality is misuom1r, 1t was 4
of equality between the nation ,
government on the one side and rebels on =
e other and no plausible word can obscure u
lis disti1etiYe character. HEsgasf8
Then cana the building of the pirate ships, =
le after another. While the Alabama was :
i'll in the ship-yard il became apparent :,
at she was intended for the rebels. Our =
mister at London and our consul at Liver y
'ol exerted themselves for her arrest and d
tention, They We're put off from day to J,
y. On the 9th of July, 1862, Mr.. Adams :,
Ompleted his evidence" accompanied by *,
opinion from the eminent barrister, Mr..
,llier, sfterward solicitor general, declaring
e plain duty Of the British government to
1p her. Instead of acting promptly by Of
e telegraph, five days we're allowed to run pE
t, when at last too tsrdily the necessary u
der was dispatched. Meanwhile the pirate ce
ip escaped from the port of Liverpool by ca
'tratagem, and her voyage began with mu- II
and frOlie. Here beyond all question Sc
IS negligence, or according to the language Of
Lord BrOugham on another occasion, gross "a
gligeEcs," making EDgland Justly re- tn
Ousible for all that ensued. The pirate %
ip found refuge in an obscure harbOr Of IN
ales, known as Maelfray Bay, where she on
7 in British waters from 6a!fgass ssUe1s 10
lOek p N, July %, to about three O'cloele a. d
July 81 being upward of thirty six hours, ei'
during this time she was supplied with te'
n from the British steamtug Hercules all
lich followed her from Liverpool. These tr'
hours were allowed to elapse without any 70
empt to stop her. Here was another stage m
gross negligence" Thus was there neg thi
ence in allowing the building to proceed, on
yligence in allowing the escape from Liv- pil
'ool, and negligence in allowing the escape ist
m the British coass. Lord Russell, while TOT
ing to vindicate bis government and re- Al
ling the complaints of the United States, H.
re than once admitted that the escspe of an