The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-10-10

trade of France, she found England unwil-
ing to take even this step. England, in short
supports the theory that merchants are not to
be impeded from putting anything they like
in ships, and sending them to any port they
choose, taking themselves all risk of capture,
loss, or damage, if the port they select is
subject to these vicissitudes of war.
Count Won Bernstorff, the complainant on
behalf of Germany, quotes the case of Eng
land in the Crimean war, when she COM
planned that Russia dBew supplies from Prus-
sia, and through her from other countries
beyond her borders. He thinks that if the
complaints of England we're right then, his
own ought to hold good now, and draws
very good picture of the difference between
war of four powers against one, as then,
and one of two equally numerous peoples
against each other, as now. But Earl Gran
vile has the better of him here, for Prussia
did not stop either the sale of arms by her
subjects or their transport across her terri
tory, though she pretended to do the latter
by issuing DEGREES prohibiting the transit of
arms and other material The manufacture
and sale of such supplies by her own sub
jects were never interfered with, and were not
only suffered to go on with great activity, but
to the remonstrances of England the ans ger
was returned that Prussia could not interfere
with the course of trade.
The Queens proclamation of neutrality
carefully claimed the right of her subjects to
deal with either beligerent in articles for use
in war. President Grant took similar pains
in his proclamation. These principles have
long been recognized. England herself was
a sufferer by them during the Crimean war,
and had to acknowledge that she had no re-
dress. When it was found that Prussia
would do nothing to stop the supply of arms
to Russia, the law officers of the crown were
consulted, to know whether she would be
justified in making representations founded
on her rights as belligerents.
'.The answer, says Earl Granville was clear-that
her Majesty's Government would be en- tiled to re-
monstate only in the event of violation of Prussian
law and II will be found on reference to the cor
respondence, that though the large direct experta
tons from the States OF the Zollevereln cerlainly
formed occasionally the subject Of representations
and discussions, the strong remonstrances to which
made on the subject OF the continuous violation of
the lnjuncons Of the DEGREES forbidding the transit
'It must be remembered that obligations upon
neutrals have become more strict with the progress
Of civilization; but the present question is one
OF Paris OF 1856; and the royal commission, cOm-
posed OF some Of the most eminent jurisconsults in
this country, who inquired into the neutrality laws
in 1861 decided that TO prohibit the export NUM-
tions Of war was impracticable and impolitic"
The English leaders after having had a
brush on this subject with most nations
which have been at war within the last quar-
Ter Ol century, huOW poIIecJly N9li lue part
they are to play in correspondence of this
kind, and it is amusing to see how quickly
they Xreach the ''You let me alone now stage
of the quarrel. Earl Granville says:
'Her Majesty's government fear that no means
could be devised for securing, at this moment, a
calm discussion of the subject. They by no means
desire to claim exceptional rights for this country.
They would be prepared to enter into consultation
with other nations as to tae possibility of adopting in
common stricter rule although their expectations
of practical result In the sense Indicated by the
| North German government are not sangune. We
took the course which appeared to be according to
the dictates Of practice aId precedent, at a time
when 1t was impossible to know how the future OF
| the war would turn"
The German champion brings up one point
which certainly has force. 1t is, that nations
having inherent and ineradicsble differences
of opportunities and resources, it is mockery
to talk of making fixed laws that shall treat
unequal cases alike. He considers as scarcely
| serious the idea that the Germans are at
! liberty to bring each case before their own
prize courts; for this is only ''to taunt Ger
many with not being mistress of the seas.
! In the present condition of international law,
each nation at war is buraened with the ne
cessity of seeing that her rival receives no
arms from abroad. But in what war is this
an equal charge Germany crushes France
to-day in fair struggle, and France has no
hope left but to hold on until she can drill
armies which are to fight with foreign wea-
pons. Is that a fair fight where the biggest
bystanders rush in and help the beaten pu-
gilist? 1t is not to be wondered at that the
conquerer complains of unfair play, and the
reply that he ought to have better navy is
entirely outside of the question.
And yet what other answer is there to
make the all-powerful Teuton? We are
sending arms to France by every steamer
not concealing them nor weakly excusing
the act. Our Government points to the re-
cognized rules of law, and if Germany is dis
satisfied let her call congress for the def
mite settlement of the requirements of inter
national law. Such settlement is certainly
much needed.