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

they are to become non-combatants, and they are
to end their relations to the war. There are IA
Europe
What is the doctrine OF the law OF nations in re-
gard 70 asylum or refuge or hospitality re,er
eauivaient Of reiacSe jorSss equally describes
reeognass the rsnt Of asylum and refugee
not in the sense OF shipwIeck. agree,
but In the sense in which the chromosomes s nos
for the purposes OF the voyage ana tne mamie
nance of the cruise render the resort OF vessels TO
navigation, under actual and bona Ede circum-
stances requiring refuge and asylum
,nsTs ~ tonic Which s 10 be
to before ! apply the argument; l mean the dis
tinction between commercial dealiDgin the uncom
uncomblned materials OF war. in the service or
belligerent, In making up military and naval ope-
Of neutral territory as the s Sass
commercial transactions In c0ntraband OF
war are allowed by the ,Rp practice seno,, Of
and not understood to be prescribed, as hostile
acts by the law of nations, and It is agreed be-
tween the two countries that the second rule Is not
to be extended to embrace by any argeness OF con-
struction mere commercial transactions In contra
band OF war.
Sir ALEXANDER COcKBuRN-Then understand
you to cOncede that the private subject may deal
commercially in what is contraband OF war;
Mr.. EvARTs-I will even go further than that and
prescribed by the law of nations as violations OF neu-
trail territory because they are In contraband war;
Therefore do not need to seek any aid in my pres
ent purpose OF exhibiting the transactions under
the second rule by these cruisers, as using Great
Britain as the base for these naval operations, nom
any construction of that rule which would pro-
scribe a mere commercial dealing In what is under
stood to be cOntraband OF war. such Is not the
true sense OF the article, nor does the law OF ma
tions prescribe this commercial dealing as hostile
act But whenever the neutral ports, places and
markets are really used as the bases OF naval ope-
rations, when the circumstances show That resort
and that relation and that direct and efficient con-
tributi0n and that completely, and that origin and
authorship, which exhibit the belligerent himself
drawing military supplies for the purpose of his
naval operations from neutral ports, that Is
a use by belligerent OF neutral ports
and waters as base Of his naval operations, and is
prohibited by the second rule OF the treaty. I'm
the inculpatlon OF neutral for permit
ting this use turns upon the question whether due
diligence has been used to prevent 1t.
The argument upon the other side ia, that the
MEANING OF 1.-THE BASE OF OPERATIONS
as 1t has been understood in authorities relied upon
by both nations does not permit the resort to such
neutral ports and waters for the purpose of specific
hostile acts, but proceeds no further. The ilustra
tive instances given by Lord StOwe or by Chancei-
lor Kent in support the rule are adduced as being
the measure OF the rule These examples Of this
nature:- vessel cannot make an ambush for itself
in neutral waters, cannot lie at the mouth of neu
trail river to sally out to seize its prey; cannot lie
within neutral waters and send It's boats to make
@ ara ve A
OF fragrant but OF incidental and limited use. They
are the cases that the commentators cite to show
that even casual, temporary and limited expert
ments OF this kind are not allowed, and that they
are followed by all the definite consequences OF an
otrenceto neutrality and Of dlspleasure, to neu-
trail, t0-wit the resort by such neutral Power to
the necessary methods to punish and redress these
violations OF neutral territory.
trast the asylum or hospitality III matter OF coal or
similar contributions in aid Of navigable capacity.
with the use OF neutral ports as base of naval
operations.
QUESTIONS OF FACT.
will not trespass upon o discussion Of questions
N e
ment. But take the coaling Of the Nashville.
The Nashville left Charleston under circum-
ing whether Great Britain is or is not responsible
in reference to that ship in any other matter than
that Of coaling which Will immediately introduce
The her project 81 a,s OF
the cous Of Whcn she To-
originally to carry out Mason ana slidell
sailing as exposing these commissioners to I'M
favorable hazard from the bl0ckadlng squadron
This was the project of her voyage, those the naval
operations which she proposed to herself How
did she prepare within her own territory to exc
cute that project OF naval warfare? She relied
substantially upon steam and in order to be sure
of going over the bar under circumstances which
might give the best chance OF eluding the vigilance
ofthc blockadsrs, she took only two days supply
of coal, which would carry her to Bermuda. The
coal was exhausted when she got there; she there
took In Coz tons.
that the figure six afterwards came down to five.
Mr. EyARTs-For the purpose Of my present ar
gument it is quite immaterial.
Mr. WAITE.-"It was subsequently proved to be
$50 tons.
HOW SHE WAS CoALED.
Mr.. EvARTs. Very well. She had no coal and she
TO execute the naval operations which she pro-
jected when she LETT Charleston and did not take
ty,n rNlil lint nU
them in neutral port to enable her to pursue
her cruise Now, the doctrine Of retdche forcee or
of refuge OF asylum or OF hospitality, has moth
ing to do with transaction OF that kind. The ves-
sci comes out OF port of safety, at home, with .
supply from the resources OF the beligerents that
Will only carry It to neutral port, to take in
there the means of accomplishing its projected
naval operations. And no system Of relief
in distress, or OF allowing supply Of the means of
exhaustion OF the resources originally provided,
have anything to do with case OF this kind. 1t
was meditated and concluded upon, to use the
nsnS port Sg q naval on wnc
THE ABUSE OF NEUTRAL TERRITORY.
Now, We say that II this tribunal, upon the facts
Of that case snail find that this neutral port of Bcr-
uda was planned and used as the base Of the naval
operations projected at the start OF the vessel from
Charleston, That that Is the use of neutral port as
it not Is 1t true that the distance ofthe projected
naval operation, or its continuance, makes differ
ence In principle, as TO the resort TO establish Il
base In neutral territory or to obtain supplies from
such a oase? Why, certainly not. Why, that
would be to prescribe the slight and comparatively
harmless abuses OF neutral territory and to permit
the bold impudent and permanent application OF
neutral territory to belligerent operations. will
not delay any further upon this Illustration.
THE CASE OF THE SHENANDOAH.
Let MS take next the case OF the Shenandoah
separating it from any inquiries as to cupable
erpool. The project OF the STEAMBOATS, voyage
Is known. 1t was formed within the Con-
federate territory. 1t was that the vessel
should be armed and supplied that she should
make circuit, passing round Cape Horn
or the Cape of Good Hope; that she should put
herself on reaching the proper longitude, in posi-
tion to pursue her cruise to the ARCTIC Ocean, there
to make prey OF the whaling fleet Of the United
States. To break up these whaling operations and
destroy the fleet was planned under motives and
for advantages which seemed to that belligerent to
justify the expense and risk and perils OF the
dcrtaking: That Is the naval operation and all
that was done inside the bcgerent territory was
to form the project OF the naval operation and 10
communicate authority to execute 1t to the officers