Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1869-09-29

Where arc their ports? Where are their
tribunals Of justice and where are their
Prize Courts To put these questions is to
answer them How then Is the " fact Of
bclligerenco2
There is another question in their case,
which is with me final. Even IL they come
within the prerequisites Of international law,
! am unwilling to make any recognition Of
them, so long as they continue to hold hui
man beings as slaves. 4 decree in May last,
purporting to be signed by Cespedes, abolish
ed slavery but | am not sure of this decree.
especially ia view Of another IN July, pur.
porting to como from the same authority,
maintaining slavery. Until this is settled
we must wait
On the recognition Of beliigerence there is
much latitude Of opinion--some asserting
that nation may take this step whenever it
plcasos; but tais pretension excludes the idea
that belligcrencc is always a question of fact
on the evidence Undoubtedly an independ-
ont Nation may do anything in its power
whenever II peases but subject always 10
just Accountability, if another suffers from
what it does. This may be illustrated in the
three different cases Of war, independence
and bclligerence. In each case the declara-
ton is au exercise Of high prerogative, in-
hcrent in every nation and kindred to that of
eminent domain but nation declaring war
without Just cause becomes a wrong-doer
nation recognizing independence wherc it
does not exist in fact, becomes a wrong-doer
and so nation, recognizing belligercnce where
it docs not exist IN fact, becomes wrong
doer also. On the latter point there is q want
Of preccdents sufficiently clear and authori-
tative but with me there is one rule in such
q case, which | cannot disobcy In the alb
sencc Of any precise injunction, DO not hes
[ itate to adopt that Interpretation of Interna-
( tonal law which places war and all that make
for war under the strongest restrctions-bc-
lieving that in this way | shall best promote
civilizt ttion and obtain new security for In
ternational Peace
From the case Of Spain pass to the case
of England. There for the present | content
myself with brief explanation. On this
subject ! have never broken silence except
with pain, aud hope not to say anything
now which shall augment difficulties, al
though, when | consider how British anger
was aroused by an effort in another place,
judged by all who heard It most pacific in
character, do not know that even these few
words may not be misinterpreted.
There can be no doubt that we received from
England ncalculable wrong-greqter, have
often said than was ever before received by
one civilized Power from another, short of
unjust war. | do not say this in bitterness,
but in sadness. There can be no doubt that,
through English completely, our carrying
trade was transfgrcd to English bottoms
our foreign commetce sacrificed while Eng
land gained what we lost; bur blockade rem
dered more expensive and generally that our
war, with an its fearful cost of blood and
treasure, was prolonged indefinitely, This
I terrible completely began with wrongful
recognition Of rebel belligerence, under the
shelter Of which pirate ships were built and
supplies were sent forth All this was at the
very moment of our mortal agony, in the
midst Of n struggle for national life, and it
was done in support of rcbcls whose single
declared object of separate existence as a
nation was slavery, being in this respect clear
ly distinguishable from power where slave
ry is tolerated without being made the corner
stone, Such is the case. Who shall fix the
measure Of this great accountability? For
the present it is enough to expose it. make
no dcmand--not a dollar of money--not
word Of apology. | show simply what Eng
land has done to US, 1t will be for her to
determine what reparation to offer. 1t will
be Tor the American people to determine what
rcparation to require. On this head / con-
tent myself with the aspiration that out of it
may come some enduring safeguard for the
future, some Landmark OF humanity But
have little hope Of any adequate settlement
until our ease in its full extent has been
heard. In all controversies the first stage of
justice Is TO understand the case, and, sooner
or later, England must understand ours
The English arguments, so far as argument
can be found in the recent heats have not
in any respect Impaired the justice of our
complaint. Loudly is it said that there can
be no sentimental damages or damages for
wounded feelings, and then our case is dis
missed as having nothing but this foundation.
Now, without undertaking to say that there
is no remedy in the case supposed, wish it
understood thar our complaint is for damages
is unprecedented so also is the wrong The
scale Of damages is naturally in proportion
to tho scale Of operations. Who among us
doubts that these damages were received
The records show how our commerce suffered,
and witnesses without number testify how the
war was prolonged. Ask any of our great
Generals sherman, Sheridan, Thomas,
Nleade-ask Grant. In view of this great
wrong it is dispaagemcnt of International
Law to say that there is no remedy. An
eminent English Judge once pronounced from
the bench that the law is astute to find
remedy but no astutenoss is required in
this case-nothing bat simple justice.
Then, it is said, why not consider our good
friends in England, and especially those no.
bic working men, who stood By US SO bravely
We do consider them always and give them
gratitude for their generous alliance But
they are not England We trace no DANA
ges to them, nor to any class, high or low,
but to England-eorporate England--through
whose government we suffered
Theu again, it is said, why not exhibit an
account against France For the good rea-
sou that while France erred with England
in recognition Of rebel beIligerenee, no pirate
ships or blockade runners were built under
shelter Of this recognition to prey upon
4 our commerce. The two cases are wide as
sunder, and they are distinguished BY two diff
ferent phrases of the common law. The rec
oguiton Of rebel belligerenee in France was
0dHi'HW dbS1Ne UBWfai or wrong without
injury, but the same recognition in England
was damnam cum iajuria or wrong with iu-
jury, and it is of this unquestionable injury
that we complain
Fellow citizens; II cannot be doubted that
the pendency Of this great question will be al
ways a cloud upon the relations Of two Pow
els, when there should be sunshine Good
mon on both sides should desire its settlement
in such way as most to promote good will
and 10 make the best precedent fer eiyiliza-
ton. But there can be no good will without
Justice, nor can any "snap judgment" make
friends or establish any rule for the Ieture.
Sometimes there are whispers OF territorial
compensation, aud Canada is named as the
consideration Bat he knows England little,
and also little OF that great English liberty
from Magma Charta to the Somerset case, who
- Il 4 !