The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-08-26

ton which maintains that power just in ITSELF II
position and fraud upon the offender, because no
denial OF hospitality has been previously an
nounced, is an objection which leaves the rayages
OF such a cruiser entirely at the responsibility or
the neutral which has failed to intercept 1t.
:. DIRECT CONTROL SHOULD BE EXERCISED
counsel that no authority can be found for
this exercise OF direct sovereignty on the
cruiser of either recognized or an unrecog-
MED sovereignty. But this, after all, comes
only 20 .ns tta sSch an exercise Of direct control
without notice. Is not according to the common
course OF hospitality for public vessels whether OF
a recognized sovereign or OF recognized bellger-
ent. As TO the right to exercise direct authority
ont; on the part Of the dspeased neutral to secure
cruiser that has once offended It's neutrality there
Is no doubt.
The argument that this direct control NAV be ex
ercised by the dspeased neutral without the inter
vention Of notice, when
THE GRAVITY AND NATURE OF THE OFFENCE
against neutrality on the part of the beligerent
justify this measure OF resentment and resist
support. In its nature IL IL question wholly de-
pendent upon circumstances.
THE VIOLATED NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN.
Our proposition Is that all or these cruisers drew
their origin out OF the violated neutrality of Great
Britain, exposing that nation to accountability to
the United States for their hOstties. Now, to say
that nation thus situated is required by any prin
cipes OF comfy TO extend a notice before exercs-
Ing control oyer the Offenders brought S within It's
gravest responsibilities, yield to mere ceremonial
pOliteness.
To meet. however, this claim on our part, 1t is
insisted, in this special argument, that the equip
ment and outfit Of cruiser In neutral
Capable sSns an of oe
sive or defensive war by the mere addition
OF an armament may be an Illegal act as an offence
against municipal law, but Is not violation or
neutrality in the sense OF being hostile act, and
does not place the onending cruiser In the position
renee to the subtle doctrine that the obligations OF
Great Britain IN respect to the first rule OF the
international obligations for the observance or
which she is responsible under the law OF nations,
Bile, as having allowed, in the sense of the law Of
nations, hostile act to be perpetrated on her ter
This distinction between
MERELY ILLEGAL ACT AND A HOSTILE ACT.
which is violation OF neutrality, ia made, OF
course, and depends wholly upon the distinction OF
the evasion of an unarmed ship OF war being pro-
hlbited only by municipal law and not by the law
OF nations while the evasion OF an armed ship is
prohibited by the law of nations. This is a renewal
of the debate between the two nations to what
But this debate was finally closed by the treaty.
And, confessedly, ON every principle OF reason, the
moment you stamp an act as violation OF neu-
traty you include 1t IN the list OF acts which by
the law Of nations are deemed hostile acts. There
is no act that the law OF nations prohibits within
the neutral jurisdiction that Is not in the nature
OF hostile act, that Is not in the nature OF
of war, that is not In the nature of application
tory to the purposes Of his war against the other
belligerent The law OF nations prohibits It, the law
Of nations pnnIshes IT. the Law OF nations exacts
Now, suppose 1t were debatable before the trlbu-
nal whether the emission OF
WAR SHIP WITHOUT THE ADDITION OF HER ARMA-
MENT
was violation OF the low OF nations, on the same
reason, and only that reason 1t would be debata-
tile act 1t was violation OF the law OF nations; II
1t were not violation OF the law Of nations 1t
not only 1t n was rns mot the
treaty settle that debate in favor Of the
construction claimed by the United states In Its
that such an act IS violation OF the law OF nations
they determine that 1t is hostile act. There is no
escape nom the general proposition that the law OF
nations condemns nothing done In a neutral terri
tory unless 1t Is done IN the nature OF hostile act.
en ae within OF p nc
forbidden by the law OF nations, you debate the
question whether 1t is hostile act or not.
ton of an armament Ia not hostile act under the
law OF nations antecedent to this treaty That is
immatcrial within the premises OF the controversy
CHIEF JUSTICE coCKBuRN AGAIN.
1t is a hostile act against Great Britain which
Sir ALEXANDER CoCKBuRN-Do I understand
you Mr. Evarts, to say that such an act is hostile
Mr.. EvARTs-Yes, q hostile violation Of the neu-
traty Of Great Britain, which, II not repeed with
1t as hostile act within its territory against tho
This argument OF the eminent counsel comedies
the neutral territory it is a hostile act within
that territory; it is hostile expedition set
. violation OF the law OF nations and.
diligence to prevent IL be or be not used, It is
offence against the neutral nation by the beliger-
ent which has contaminated the act.
HOW GREAT BRITAIN sINNED.
neutral nation, against the rights OF which such
lifting out war ship without armament condemaed
by the law OF nations as settled by this treaty. is
under no obligation whatever OF courtesy comfy
to that cruiser. IT, under such circumstances Great
Britain prefers courtesy and comfy to the Ofend
ing cruiser and its sponsors rather than justice
and duty to the United states, she does 1t upon
motives which satisfy her to continue her RESPONSE
bllity for that cruiser rather than terminate 1t.
ana courtesy to these cruisers at the exDenss,
of the offended beigerent, the United
States. whatever her motives may be. Undoubt-
edy the authorities conducting the rebellion
would not have looked with equal favor upon
Great Britain If she had terminated the career or
from her ports. That is a question between Great
Britain and the belligerent that has violated her
the question Of courtesy IN giving notice was to be-
determined at the cost OF Great Britain and not
at the expense Of the United States But 1t ceases
to be question OF courtesy when the notice has
been given at all, and when the choice has thus
been made that these cruisers shall be permitted
continue their career unchecked
Now on this question, whether the building Of a
vessel OF this kind without the addition OF arma-
ment IL prescribed by the law Of nations aud pro
scribel as hostile act and as a violation or neu-
trail territory Outside or the rules OF the treaty.
which is so much debated in this special argument
ask attention to a few citations, most Of which
have been already referred to In the American
case.
Hautefeuille, as cited upon page 10, says
lie fat de construre un batiment de guerre pour 10
compile dun beligerant de Farmer dams les etats
neutres est violation du tcrritoire II peut
egaenent recamer lc Disarmament du batimcnt egale
.men arme territore ct meme lie detenir sill
dams quelque lieu soumis souvcranete jusqua quill
ait etc desarmc
Ortolan as quoted on page 1872 OF the same case,
passes upon this situation, which we are now dis
cussing, as foll0ws:-
Nous rattacherons pour resoudre dro gems
les difficulties que presente cettc nouvelle situation
principe nniversellemen eabli aui tormue peu
de mots fnvioabite du erroirc neutre.n Get invio-
abe est droit pctat neutre don't lie terrtore
doit pas ere attent par les fats de guerrc, mas
ellie impose nussi ce meme etat neutre etroite
obligation, cee de ne pas perncttre cclle dempecher
Achievement au besoln lempOi de territoire par