The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-09-30

reason to believe, that they have in their
possession evidence, in Mr.. Stanton's own
handwriting, which shows that he was pro-
Tossing friend and admirer of President
Buchanan to the last, that he thought most
disparagiDgly of the sainted Lincoln, and
that he despised the whole crew of the radi-
cal leaders, including Seward himself. The
truth in this matter, also, will some day see
the light. -
EARL RUSSELL AND INTERNATIONAL
From the N Y. Times.
Our special correspondent in London tele-
graphed us few days since that Earl Russell
had been communicating his views to the
public on the questions of international law
now arising between Prussia aud Great Bri-
tain. The venerable statesman is reported
as affirming the position, on these grave sub
jects, which was originally taken by Washing
ton, undoubtedly under the especial influence
of Hamilton, expounded in our Neutrality
act of 1894, and subsequently confirmed and
amplified in the amended act of 1918. These
views of international obligations
formed the basis also of the British
legislation on this important matter.
In fact, before 1919, there were no
acts of Parliament to preserve British neu-
trality. The legislation of Washington aud
Hamilton, adopted by Congress was copied,
in most of its fea -ures, by the. British ad-
ministration, and appears in the famous
Foreign Enlistment act of 1919, of which
we had such unfortunate experience during
the rebellion. The very articles in our own
acts which were omitted in the British-no
doubt with design--would have saved all the
trouble which we had from British interfer-
ence in our civil war. Had "the legislation
of Washington, of which Earl Russell speaks
now SO admiringly, been exactly followed in
the British acts, or even the spirit of it imi-
tated by Earl Russells own administration,
no Alexandra or Alabama would have escaped
from British ports. .......
The Prussian claims, if they are correctly
reported, of which, probably, Earl Russell is
satisfied, would not be sustained by any por-
tion of our legislation. The Prussian Gov
ernment is reported as being indignant that,
while Great Britain is professedly neutral,
she permits arms and contrabaud of war to
be sent over to the French and sold to them;
SO that, in fact, neutral is supporting or
arming one belligerent against another. 1t
might perhaps be desirable improvement
in international law if neutrals were forbid.
den to sell any material of war to either bel
Hgerent, and the act were considered yio-
lation of ne utrality. Common sense, which
is the basis of international law, teaches
that war ought not to be supported by the
aid of neutrals Nor would it be enough,
from this point of view, to say that the
merchandise is sent forth as private ven-
capture it if she is able. The belligerent
may be situated as Prussia is now, and not
able to command the seas, so that a war
might be protracted by the assistance of
party. at peace with both combatants.
Moreover, our code teaches that a nation is
bound by its own supreme authority to
execute international justice and law,
whether it has municipal legislation or not.
Were it the custom of nations to forbid the
export of arms as private merchandise from
neutral port to a belligerent, and were this
international law, Great Britain would be
obliged to executeit towards Prussia, whether
her enlistment acts sanctioned it or not.
But, unfortunately for the Prussan demands,
it is not All ''the legislation of Washing
ton"-the acts of 1894 and 1918, and the
British act of 1S19-expressly allow arms
and contraband of war to be exported by
private individuals at their own risk and
venture. They are liable, of course, to
seizure and confiscation by the injured bel
ligerent, but that is ALL The sending them
or permitting them to be sent, by neutral,
| is not itself an act of war, nor an infraction
of neutrality. -t
The preparing of hostile expeditions in a
neutral territory is, of course, such an in
fraction; as is also the arming or increasing
the armament of belligerent cruisers, or any
purchase of arms for either of these pur-
poses. But the purely mercantile or private
sale of arms or material of war by the traders
| of neutral or the individual subjects of a
belligerent has never been forbidden. In
deed, according to international usage, any
English merchant might now build and
arm a vessel, and offer her for sale
in Liverpool to the French. He might send
her out as a commercial venture, with regu.
lar papers, to Havre, filled with rifles and
cannon, and sell her there, without violating
any neutrality legislation or any previous
custom existing between nations. The dis
tinction, indeed would be delicate one, in
such a case, between 'hostile expedition
and a commercial enterprise, and the bellige
rent might reasonably object; but if ''eom
mercial intent" were proved, no British OF
American court would condemn or detair
the vessel Still more clearly is the private
export of arms, with the risk of seizure, per
mitted.
But all international law must be formed
by reasonable precedents. The Prussian
have reformed the art of war. They ma,
also change the code of peace and they ma,
reasonably claim that such private protract
ing of war by neutral shall in future cease
and pledge themselves to q like obligation
when they in turn are in the position of neu
trails. They may demand in the name of JUS
tice and common sense that power at peac
should not equip and arm power at war, an
thus lengthen the struggle. Such deman
could not be deemed unreasonable by any O
the powers which may be engaged in futur
conflicts.
THE PRUSSIAN SOLDIERY.
Fr0m the NJ Y. Tribune.