The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1869-04-18

only on et'fdeuce showing its actual ssisteace.
according tosthe rule; frat stated by Mr.
Canning. an1 afterward recognized By Earl
Russell. But no such evidence WIS ad
duoed; for it did not exist and never ~has
existed. - - -.
Had not the concession of belligerenoy
been made, no rebel ship could have been
built in England. Every step in her build
ing 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, whether of ships or
munitions Of war. As these were open to
the national government, so were they open
to the rebels. The asserted neutrality be-
tween 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 I have heard
for this extraordinary concession is that
blockade of the rebel ports. By the use of
this word blockade" the concession is vim
dicated. Had President Lincoln proclaimed
closing Of the rebel ports, there could have
been no such concession. This is mere
technicality.
But we must look at the substance and find
n reason in nothing short of overruling ne
cessity. War cannot be justified merely on
q technicality; nor can the concession of
ocean belligerancy to rebels without port
or prize court. Such a concession, like was
itself. must be at the peril of the nation
making it.
Tho British assumption, besides being
offensive from mere technically, is inconsist-
ent with the proclamation of the President,
taken as a whole, which, while appointing
blockade, is careful to reserve the rights of
sovereignty, thus putting foreign powers on
their guard against any premature conces-
sion.
Mr.. Sumner considers this branch of the
subject at length The matter of repara-
tion - and the " extent of our losses are
entered into minutely also.
THE RULE DAMAGES.
Perhaps I.ought to anticipate an objection
from the other side to the effect that these
national losses, whether from the destruc-
ton of our commerce or the prolongation of
the war, are indirect and remote, so as not
to be a just cause of claim.
This is expressed at tho common law by
the rule that damages must be for the
natural and proximate consequences Of an
Act" y Greenleaf Ev., p. 210.) To this
excuse the answer is explicit The damages
suffered by the United States are twofold,
individual and national, being in each case
direct and proximate, although in the one
caSe lnuiFiuuaiS suffered, ana III the Otner
case the nation.
| 1t is easy to see that there may be occa-
sions where, oyertopping oil individual da-
IMAGES, are damages suffered by the nation,
so that reparation to individuals would be
sufficient; nor can the claim of the nation be
questioned simply because it is large, or be-
cause the evidence with regard to it is diff
ferent from that in the case of an individual
In each case the damage must be proved
by the best possible evidence, and this is all
that law or reason can require. In the case
of the nation the evidence is historic, and
this is enough. Impartial history will re-
cord the national losses from British inter
vention, and it is only reasonable that the
evidence of these losses should not be ex-
cluded from judgment. Because the case is
without precedent, because no nation ever
before received such injury from q friendly
power, this can be no reason why the case
should not be considered on the evidence
lnllo -, L. r. IL.