New-York tribune., 1869-06-10

latiOn, Hamilton may again be quoted. Speak. !
ing Of the joint commission for ascertanin0 J
the extent Of such injuries, he Observed:
1t is here that we find the reparati0n Of IN.
national wrong which we have suffered In admit
ting the principle of compensation by the govern
ment itself, in agreeing to extraordinary tribunal
in the constitution of which the parties have an
equal voice, to lqudate that compensation, Great
Britain has virtually and eflectually acknowledge
the injury which has been done TO our neutral rghts
and has consented tC make satisfaction for it, TIs
apology, in fact, however it may be in form
AS IL regards our honor this IS an adequate and ha
only species usual in similar between natons
Pecuniary compensation is the true reparation m
such cases Governments are not apt to 90 their
knees to other governments. Great Britain In Ina
recent dispute with Spain about NOotka Sound, was
glad to accept of like reparation.
Is situation such 10 authorize rs TO pretend h
impose huniliating conditions Oh Othernationsp
1t has been remarked, that it is the part Of
wisdom and of duty, with view to prevent
recurrence of wrongs, not only to require and
to insist upon repaTation for the past but to
provide, if possible, precautions as to the
future. How are such precautions to DO Sc
curedg BY new pacts, thereby inducing the
eventual incorporation of additional national
safeguards into the code of nations. That
code is a code Of necessity, chiefly manifested
in establishing the jurisdiction of Courts Of
Admiralty super attum mare both over tOrts
contracts entered into from necessity. 1t is
seen that the necessities Of the world, in Obe-
dience to its increasing relations and TO the
advances of civilization, therefrom resulting in
great measure, have induced progressive
changes in that code, thereby to specify the
admitted causes of hostilities, to define the
rights and duties of neutrals, protecting those
rights and imposing those duties-the great
~. aud
shorten the duration of wars, and while en-
largng the sphere of peace to diminish its in
terruptiOns and to facilitate its restoration.
Most unhappily recent events have shown that
the international code is as yet incomplete;
and that almost despairing of its requisite Ell
cacy, the most enlightened minds have looked
as the only remedy to the inteTposltion OF
combined force-"a vast association OF an
EARNED neutrality" The failure of previous
associations of this kind to accomplish their
intended objects confirms the belief that such
expedients cannot be the ground of we'll
founded reliance.
What remains to be dOnef What can DO
| donel The only answer must be to provide
remedies suggested by past wrongs and an
ticpatory Of future probabilities, so far as may
be. The great wrong for which the United
States demand redress, and against the recur-
renee whereof this great Republic seeks TO
protect ITSELF is that Great Britain, during our
recent internal convulsiOn, was the Rebel base
of hostilities furnishing the instruments of such
hostilities, and neglecting though repeatedly
required, to interpOse in preventing or in
terminating the suffered wrongs. Tie remedy
for this great, aggravated mischief is to carry
into effect by treaty what has been claimed
though not established, as a rule of Inter
national Law-.frst, the territoriGtiy of neutral
vessels, or of the space of ocean occupied by
each Of them; and, second, to preclude their
transfer TO belligerent during the existence
of war. Thus in dealing with Great Britain,
we ought to require on her part stipulation,
also TO be entered into by us, that neutral
vessels on the high seas shall be deemed the
territOyu of the neutral country to which they
originally belonged, and that such vessels shall
! not be transferred to a belligerent an trdRSitu
on the high ocean; and further that in the
event of such transfer, or of seizure upon the
high ocean, it shall be the duty of the neutral
State Of which the vessel is, to capture her
with all possible expedition, or to use due dill
gence in arresting her upon the ocean OF in
her ports or colonies; and that the same rigid
|
served upon the deck of q neutraps vessel, as
the law of nations requires to be observed on
neutral soil and that, on failure of such cap
ture, or exertion of due diligence in arresting,
the neutral nation shall make full reparatiOu
to the injured belligeTent for the direct con-
sequences.
As to the first proposition--the territoridlity-
Hubner and Hautefeuile contend for it f; Jen'
kinson, Azuni and Lampredie controvert it, as
a rule of International law. 1t, therefore, is
necessary that it should be matter Of express
treaty stipulation. AS to the proposed prohi'
bition of transfer. it is only carrying into
effect the doctrine of British Prize Courts:
THAT a ship cannot change her character in irdE
siip and that transfer, to neutral, nOtwith-
standing the bona fdes OF the transaction, VIII no'
| exempt her from capture or condemnation"
The reason and the motive of this rule, or
stipulation, are obvious. Without such rule
among nations, or stipulation by treaty, there
can be no assured neutrality. A vessel can be-
come hostile at the will of the owner, or of any
person who is possessed of paper he may call a
commission (of which Jefferson Davis scattered
contest; and the same vessel, by second
transfer. to avoid capture, can be recOnyerted
upon the high seas into n neutral. The Ight
to make such transfers cannot be recognized
rs the basis of settling past differences, or OIL
establishing principle Of future action. The
case of the Georgia. recently decided by the
Sunreme Court of the United States, Is in point
The principle there aGirmeG - 'ha' 'H' i'S''
"of purchase 10y neutrals extends only to mer-
"chant ships of enemies for the purchase o,
81 ships or war belonging to enemies is menu