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


or the port OF Liverpool be less violation OF the
law OF nations which prohibited the auglnen-
taton of the force OF lighting vessei OF any
beigerent from the contributions OF the ports OF
the neutralr
The
FOURTH CHAPTER OF THIS SPECIAL ARGUMENT
is occupied, as have already suggested, with the
consideration OF the true Interpretation OF the
rules OF the treaty under general canons ofcriticism,
and under the light which should be thrown upon
their Interpretation by the doctrines and pratceso OF
nations. respectfully submit, however, that the
only really useful instruction that should be sought.
or can be applied In aid of your Interpretation OF
these rules if their Interpretation needs any aid Is
to be orawn from the situation OF the parties and
the clements OF the controversy between them, for
the settlement and composition OF which these
rules were framed, and this tribunal was created
to investigate the facts and to apply the rules to
THE MEANING OF THE TREATY.
The whole ground OF this controversy Is ex.
pressed in the ERNEST and most distinct manner
by the statesmen on both sides who had charge or
the negotiations between the two countries, and
who could not misunderstood what were the situa-
ton and field OF debate for application to which
And what were theyf Why, primarily it was this
very question o. the various forms OF contrbut0ry
M BY ne Navy Sd
made, by which 1t was armed by which
as svppsd by which oa was KIP
the beligerent territory 1t maintained maritime
war.
GLADSTONE AND EARL RUSSELL
Anterior to the negotiation which produced the
treaty. there is this public declaration made by Mr.
United Sales.--future Is no doubt that Jefferson
Davis and other leaders OF the South have made an
There Is the speech Of Lord Russell on the 2eth OF
April, 1864 also cited on the same page:-''lt has
been usual for Power CARRYING on war upon the
seas to possess ports OF its own In which vessels
built. equipped and fitted and from which they
| issue, to which they bring their prizes, and in
are either condemned or restored. But it so
happens that in this conflict the Confed;
the Mersey aud of the Clyde, from which
they ut out ships to cruise against the federals;
they are obliged to burn them the high seas"
There is, furthermore, the declaration OF Mr.. Fish,
Of the S 1882 in whcS
he distinctly proposes to the British government.
in regard to the claim of the United States in this
controversy, that the rebel counsels have made
Great Britain 'the arsenal, the navy yard and the
treasury oil the insnrgent Conlederates."
That was the controversy between the two cOun-
tries, for the solution OF which the rules OF this
treaty and the deliberations OF this tribunal, were
to be called into action; and they are Intended to
cover and do cover, all the forms In which this use
OF Great Britain for the means and the Opportunt
ties OF keeping on foot these
|, MARITIME HOSTILlTIES WAS PRACTISED.
The first rule covers all questions of the outfit o.
the cruisers themselves the second rule covers all
the means by which the neutral ports and waters
or Great Britain were used us bases for the rebel
maritime operations Of these cruisers, and for
the provision, the renewal or the augmentation OF
their force OF armament munitions and men, Both
nations so agreed. The eminent counsel for the
which am now replying. also agrees that the sec
ond rule under which the present discussion arises,
is conformed to the pre-existlng law of nations.
RETROACTIVE EFFECT OF THESE RULES
We find however, in this chapter Of the speclM
argument another introduction of the retroactive
their Interpretation should be different from what
might otherwise be insisted upon. This Is but re-
vice in the argument, viz that these rules, in re-
spect to the very subject for which they were
framed, do not mean the same thing as they are to
mean hereafter when new situations arise Tor their
application. Special methods OF criticism artificial
limits of application are resorted 10, to dsparage or
dstort them, binding and authoritative rules, IN
: re THE PAST CONDUCT OF GREAT BRITAIN.
Why, you might as well tear the treaty in pieces,
as to introduce and insist upon any proposition,
whether of Interpretation or OF application, which
results in the demand that the very controversy for
which they were framed is not really to be gov
erned by the rules Of the treaty.
The concluding observations Of this chapter that
the invitation to other Powers to adopt these rules
as binding upon them, contained in the treaty,
should discourage forced and exaggerated con-
fSe motive suggested, as upon the principle that
forced and exaggerated construction should not be
resorted to upon either side, upon any motive
A COMPLIMENT TO THE OTHER SIDE.
now come to the more general chapter in the
argument OF the learned counsel the first chapter,
extensive and very comprehensive, and, certainly, u
very able criticism upon the main argument OF the
United States upon 'due diligence" and upon the
duties in regard to which due diligence was required
and in regard to the means for the performance Of
possessed by Great Britain. Certainly these form
n xeS states and that ms have SAID
has been subjected to very extensive criticism.
Referring the tribunal to our argument itself al
furnishing at least, what We suppose to be clear
and intelgible view Of propositions of the
grounds upon which they rest, OF the reasoning
tain them, OF their applicability ana of the result
which they lead to-the inculpation OF Great
shall yet think it right to pass under review few
of the general topics which are considered In this
| discussion of "due diligence.n
SIR ROUNDED PALMER DIssECTED.
| The sections from seven to sixteen (the earlier
sections having been already considered are occu-
| pied with discussion of what are supposed to be
| the views of the American argument on the subject
of prerogative or executive power, as distinguished
through the fundamentally OF courts OF Justice
ana their procedure. Although we may not pre-.
upe to Tie nation Of Great Bran
e hcRR ssatpiory u regulations gu S and her
THE EMINENT COUNSEL OF HER DRIrANNio MAJESTY.
yet think it viii be found that the criticisms upon
means, sound. It is, OF course, matter Of the
! least possible consequence to u.s. IN any position
which we occnpy either as nation before this
tribunal or as lawyers IN our argument, whether or
not the sum of the obligations OF Great Britain in
this BEHALF under the law of nations, was referred
for its execution to this or that authority under
its constitution to this or that official action I'M
der Its administration. One object OF our argu
ment has been to show that If the OF these
obligations was not performed, it q matter OF
but little importance to us or to this tribunal
where in the distribution OF administrative duty,
or where, in the constitutional disposition of
authority, the defect either OF power or In
the due exercise OF power was found to
be the guilty cause Of the result. Yet strangely
enough, when, in certain section OF our
argument, that is laid down AZ one proposition, We
accused by the learned counsel OF petty Drfn-
cipfi, of begging the question: that the sum of her
obligations was not performed by Great Britain
THE LIMIT OF PREROGATIvE.
With regard to prerogative the learned counsel
seems to think that the existence OF the supposed
executive powers under the British constitution,
and which our argument has assigned to the
prerogative of the Crown savors OF arbitrary or
despotic power We have no occasion to go
into the history OF the prerogave OF the
British Crown or TO consider through what
notifications it has reached Its present
condition. When free nation ike Great Britain
r4air flanct n executed hy fhn