The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-01-21


the English orator nor the American Minister
have any meaning except that numerous
English vessels succeeded in running the
blockade Lord Clarendon calmly shows that
no neutral government is bound TO assist
belligerent in blockading the ports of his
enemy. AS he remarks with considerable
point, blockade would be wholly super1uous
if trade with one of two belligerents could
of itself be treated by the other as viola
ton of neutrality. American disputants have
indeed uniformly assumed that a blockaded
port is not port at all; yet the Government
Of the United States has properly abstalned
from interfering with the constant traffic OF
American vessels with the blockaded ports OF
Cuba.
In the despatch of the, Secretary of State,
as in the passage which he probably contr1-
buted to the Presidents Message, scarcely an
attempt is made to answer the cogent argu-
ments by which the pretensions OF the United
States have already been met; but Mr.. Fish
devotes few sentences to an imaginary dis
tinction between the conduct of England and
that Of the other European States which re-
cognized Confederate belligerency. France
and Spain, he says, committed an isolated
error in proclaiming their neutrality; but they
never afterwards proceeded to in jure or molest
the United States. 1t has been demonstrated
again and again, that the recognition of bel
ligerency was an act complete in itself, nor
would even Mr.. Fish pretend that there was
not a state of war at the time when the Ala
bama was launched 1t is necessary for his
purpose to assert that the conduct of France
and Spain was wrongful, although it may not
have been necessary to resent it; yet Mr.. Lin
coin, who had the sole right to represent the
opinion of theFederal Government, formally
thanked the Spanish Minister for the very
proclamation which is now described as an
oFanoa Ha alco ctotad in q rub1ic doounant N
that the conduct of all nations had been
friendly, although, with England at their
head, they had just proclaimed their neu-
trality between the belligerents. Lord Cla-
rendon explains for the twentieth time that
the announcement by Lord John Russell of
the forthcoming proclamation was subsequent
in time to the arrival in England of the news
of the blockade which assumed the existence
of a state of war; The formal notification of
the blockade by the American Minister was
made some days before the proclamation was
issued. Even if the dates of the telegraphic
message and of the diplomatic communication
had been less conclusive, there would still be
no ground of complaint. As the President
lately said, belligerency is question of fact;
and if the neutral is actually in the right, it is
wholly immaterial whether he has derived his
information from official or non-oficial
sources. A competent American court two
months afterwards retrospectively affirmed,
in Judgment which has never been ques-
toned, that the proclamation of blockade was
official evidence of q state of war; nor is it
disputed that the blockade was established
before the English recognition of the fact
which it proved. At that time no man in
England or in America required demonstra-
tion of visible truth. AS Lord Clarendon
reminds Mr.. Fish, the Confederate army was
threatening Washington at the time when it
| is pretended that the conduct of the English
Government converted an inchoate rebellion
trality were to be interpreted by
subsequent measures, Mr.. Fish well
knows that tie Emperor of the
French proposed to the English Government
| Joint mediation which would have involved
recognition of Confederate independence.
France and every other State afforded hospi-
tality to the Confederate cruisers, and the
Alabama sailed from Cherbourg on the very
day on which she was sunk. Mr.. Fish asserts,
without shadow of foundation, that the
English proclamation of neutrality conferred
| the character of man n-of-war on vesse
which would otherwise have been pirate
| yet it is evident that the act of the English
Government, even if it had in any way af
fected the character of the vessel, could pos
sess only municipal validity. The French Gov
eminent, therefore, either received pirate
into its ports, or repeated the English process
of converting the Alabama into Legitimate
cruiser.
In it's overbearing tone, and in its disregard
to international law, Mr.. Fisb's despatch re
sembles the state papers by which Napoleon
was in the habit of prefasing his invasions
and more especially the extravagant series O
dispatches which were addressed to the Pope
The Emperor threatened to dethrone Piu
VII for not taking active measures agains
excommunicated English heretics in the sam,
spirit in which Mr.. Fish resents English wan
of sympathy with an anti-slavery polio,
which, at the time in question, had beer
solemnly and repeatedly disclaimed by tn
American Government The piety of Napo
leon and the philanthropy of Genera
Grant, are entitled to equal respect. 1t is a
Improbable as it is painful to argue agains
accusations which are not intended to be just
again the unanswered refutation O
the charges which are preferred witt
continually increasing virulence by Off
cial personages and by volunteers. Mr
Bemis, who has taken an active part in tn
controversy since it first commenced, ha
lately published a pamphlet, not so muc
against England as in depreciation and cen
sure of Mr.. Reverdy Johnson. With care
lessness unworthy Of a lawyer, Mr.. Bemis
throughout his essay, confounds the instruc
tions given to Minister with his full powers
and accordingly, when it is recited in tn
common form that the Plenipotentiarie
found their respective powers good, he infer
that the English Minister must have know
that Mr. Reverdy johnson, who had of cours
not communicated his confidential instruC
tions, was exceeding his authority. 1t is un
necessary for Mr.. Bemis to prove that tn
| Senate has a constitutional right to confirm q