The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1871-02-13
sPxRxx or Tzn PRESS.
Editorial Opinions OF the Leading Journals
upon Current Topics Compiled Every
DaY for the Evening Telegraph.
PROFESSOR MoNTAGU BERNARD.

The member of the British portion of the
commission who is said to have been selected
ON account of his conspicuous familiarity
with the questions of international law likely
to come up for consideration in Washington,
has written book, which has been recently
published in London, under the title "The
international History of the American War.
A. Historical Account of the Neutrality of
Crest Britain During the American Civil
War" Therein he has given the result OF his
labors in this interesting department. OF
jurisprudence For many years Professor
Bernard has filled, with credit to himself and
pupils, the chair of International Law at
Oxford. His volume is able and interesting;
it sets forth with skill the international ques-
tions growing out of the Rebellion, and dis
ousses them fairly, although somewhat mar
rowly' and with too much regard to British
precedents, which have always been insular,
His work is legal rather than philosophical.
What he says of the deep-seated causes
which brought on the great catastrophe of
our civil war is to be regarded as the opinion
of an intelligent bystander not protesting to
have special information of the inner working
of the political and moral forces of this nation
years before the ultimate schism occurred
Whether it be true or not that the republic
was rent asunder morally, by its two hostile
types of labor, long before material breach
occurred, the premise is favorable to one who
vindicates the eenlsproclamatio of neutra-
lity which gave to both combatants belligerent
rights. Mr.. Bernard insists that the British
assertion of q neutral status, May 13, 1861
and all that flowed therefrom, were not only
in accordance with international law, but the
inevitable result of what had already hap
pened. One would naturally be assisted in
coming to this conclusion by prepossession
that the history of the internal forces in this
countryside mutual iealousies and dissen-
sions between the North and South-was such
as to satisfy an impartial person that either
the South would achieve independence or
be subdued only by immense military opera
tions.
Professor Bernard urges that British recog-
milton of the South contributed largely in its
results to the ultimate triumph of the Union.
He says
'What the United States lost by it has never been
distinctly stated. But it is easy to see what they
gained. They gained the liberty to exercise against
British ships on the high seas the rights of visiting
and searching, OF capturing contraband and OF
blockade rights, which spring solely from the rela-
ton OF belligerent and neutral, and which the neu
tral acknowledges by recognizing the existence Of
that relation"
There is marked correspondence between
these views and those of Mr.. Caleb Cushing,
expressed in December, 1861, in letter to
Mr.. Fernando Wood respecting the Trent
affair. He said
"Above all, as 1 think, have we been over-prone to
find fault with Great Britain for the attitude which
she has officially assumed OF neutrality in the war
now raging between us and our insurgent States.
II Great Britain stood alone, that fact might imply
the existence Of just cause of umbrage part.
But we should remember that France, Russia Spain,
and other great powers take the view OF their
international duty in this respect that Great
Britain does of hers. IT, in coming to this
conclusion, they contradict our policy, and accord
to the insurgent States belligerent status which
refuse to concede, and so do prejudice to us, it
is to be considered that In so proceeding they do
advantage 70 us also by thus relievlng.us OF all fu
frntnr
insurgent Government, and bestowing on us the
right to hold them as neutral Governments to the
punctual fulhlment OF the obligations OF neutrality
which they profess, and the right to compel its OBJ
servance by their subjects both on sea and lands
That portion of the volume before us which
Professor Bernard devotes to the blockade
and the international questions arising out of
it is well worthy of careful study by the stu
dent of international law. There is evidently
tendency in his mind to hold that, although
we guarded the immense line of sea-coast
with great diligence and maintained there a
formidable naval force, yet, as the regular
arrival and departure of blockade-runners
into and from some of the Confederate ports
attested that the blockade was not effective,
England could, had she been an unfriendly
neutral, have plausibly insisted that the siege
should be raised.
In respect to the affair of the Trent, the
conclusion of international law which he
educes while vindicating the attitude which
Lord Russell took, is that in certain cases a
neutral destination does not necessarily
exempt neutral vessel from capture and her
freight from seizure and detention, if what
she carries be of hostile character. At the
same time he contends that no matter whether
the Confederate ENJOYS were ia the nature of
''contraband of war, they were, while on
board the Trent, not liable in any way to
arrest. His thought evidently is that Lord
Russell laid down the doctrine of neutral
rights in tine case rather too broadly.
The conduct of Great Britain in declaring
that abe would acknowledge the flag of the
Confederacy as we'll as the United States; that
she would not pursue Confederate cruisers as
pirates; that she would admit public armed
ships of either belligerent into her ports on
equal terms, excluding, however, their prizes,
but subjecting both to the rule that twenty
four hours must be given by each enemy's
ship to the other; that she would prohibit the
men-of-war of either belligerent from remain
ing more than one day at a time in her
waters, except in the case of stress of weather,
and would prevent them from supplying
themselves with more Goals than were re-
quired for voyage home-these provisions
Professor Bernard maintains were not only
Just in the sense of international law. but
were entirely in the interest of the North and
extremely onerous to the Confederate States.
However correct these propositions of Mr..
Bernard may be, ii is clear to see that the
kind of neutrality which Great Britain exer-
cised in her colonial ports enabled the eruis
ers, after they had escaped from British
home jurisdiction, to maintain themselves
on the high seas.
In the volume before us the most important
question of international law which will come
before the proposed commission to sit in
Washington, which is that which involves re-
sponsibility for the escape and career of the
cruisers and their immense injury to our