The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-08-22

listment act and that the Obligations 81 the British
that act Of Parliament Thirdly n ustcation OF
extenuati0n OF its own impute d delinquences, the
British aSaucss
slderations aerVea pom me history and ,urispru
me counsel Of the United States then
70 n Tribunal s%s So9Ry Of
tinent pools, and argue that the documents
annexee. to the case and counter case concusiveiy
establish the main fact OF the violation by the
BRITISH government OF the rules OF duty stipulated
| by the Treaty of Washington.
| The counsel maintain and undertake to prove
that, even II the provisions Of the Foreign Enlist
ment act the limit OF the international duties
Of the British government IN the premises stdli on
OF Great Britain. The British government DID not
| do by way Of prevention or repression or punish
| ment all which that act permitted and required.
| But the international duties Of Great Britain are
wholly Independent Of her own municipal law, and
DO not rise to the height Of the requirements either
OF the law Of nations or Of the rules Of the Treaty
IT, as question Of local administration,
International duty Of Great Britain TO pass
the REQUISITE powers NJ constitutional obstacle
existed to prevent the enactment Of such new act
obstacle would Be to deny to Great Britain the
capacity and right to subsist In the family Of ma
tiOns as coeoual State.
these question: as questions Of neutrality.
The American counsel deny that they are
pose as .professed neutral between her
treaty ally and the rebels The counsel further
tat tne neutrality o. as
tional not municipal resort. Its legal relations are
involved In the question OF the rights Of peace and
To depend upon punitive municipal laws for
maintenance Of international neutrality is Itself
neglect Of neutral duty which duty. demands pre-
ventive interpostion on the part Of the executive
Great Britain, therefore, on the narrow and mad
daQnca
responsible to the United States for the OF the
cruisers In question. In vndicatlon OF the sugges
lions In this behalf counsel submit 10 the cOnsdera
ton ofthe tribunal appropriate extracts from the
great work on international Law" by Sir Robert
from his emlnence as a Judge and as statesman,
ne Is act.e prtnceps among the authorities Of this
Sir Robert Phllmorc AYERS that, so far az foreign
States are concerned, the will Of the subject is
bound up in that Of his sovereign.
and armed the cruisers Of the Confederates in
question were liege subjects OF Great Britain.
earth the whole fabric c" Of the G British case and
counter-case, in declaring that no government has
right to set up the deficiency Of its own municipal
law as excuse for the nonperformance OF inter-
national obligations towards a foreign State
He lays down the rule that government may by
permission become responsible for the acts Of sub
jects, Including cOmmorant or transient aliens,
to foreign State. This proposition serves to con.
strue, the e'due diligence" Of the Treaty Of
Finally, he anirms that If government, pro-
Tossing neutrality, permits fraudulent unworthy
Or unnecessary violation Of its Jurisdiction such
Se 20
The counsel then proceeded to develop the nature
and basis o. the legal theory Of the United States
that true neutrality between bel.igerents consists
in holding absolutely alOof from the war, in fact
nea m ana as @ IS
The pretended neutral who, as government, ex-
pedites vessels, or with culpable negligence per-
cruise against one Of the belligerents, becomes
thereby beligerent In fact and responsible as such
sponsibe II he permits or knowingly suffers his
subjects Or c2mwT9rant aliens TO psrpetrate injury
constitutional difficulties In such an emergency, to
do which implies surrender Of the rights as well as
at either in E
rope or america, encountered with constitutional
incapacity In this respect
argue that the sole instrument possessed by the
British government to enforce the performance of
in question Was particular act OF the British Par
Every government in Europe or America, except
Great Britain asserts and exercises authority to
aliens, from doing acts which tend to involve IL in
war with any other government.
But the British government maintains that the
sovereign state OF Great Britain and Ireland, the
Imperial mistress OF TIE InuleS, the prOudeSt IN
fame, the richest IN resources, and the most popu-
lous OF the great States of Europe, does not pos
sess constitutional power to prevent mercenary
law.breakers among her own subjects or bands Of
desperate foreign rebels, commorant on her soil,
from dragging her into acts Of fragrant violation OF
Ouch is the defence Of Great Britain in answer to
the reclamations OF the United States.
But Great Britain Is not IN that condition Of con
The British Ministers do not scrupe to suspend
the privileges of the writ Of habeas corpus, whether
wit nQrlia nforv nttfh <,r,xn
occasion OF petty acts In case OF domestic war:
.tortioff they should and may arrest and prevent
subjects or commorant foreigners engaged in the
commission of acts OF foreign war to the prejudice
Of another government
do tes 70 ae1y Se hat Sn M might
Italy, Brazil and the United States in like circum
stances3
Has the Queen OF England less executive power
than the President Of the United States land II
she have less, could not the deficient power be
President Of the United States by their Congress
Alluson is made to the celebrated affair socalled
Terceira Expedition, and 1t Is proved that what
was done then was done simply ia virtue Of the
prerogative power of the Crown.
Ministers to call this prerogative power into
action for the sole purpose Of eevating the rebels
and thus Converting piraticaI cruisers into erit
mate crusers-and the negative resolutions OF the
British Ministers, in refusing to call into play the
prerogative Of the Crown, In order to give
effect to their own profession of neutrality
these two resolutions rendered 1t possible,
1t would not otherwise have been, for
the Confederates to fit out cruisers In
British ports, whereupon ensues responsibility of
Great Britain for acts Of the Confederates.
Part Four treats Of miscellaneous considerations,
and states that the British case and counter.case
are largely occupied with matter, secondary, not to
say totally irrelevant, In the Judgment of the coun
sci OF the United States but which, being seriously
presented by the British government, seem to re-
qu!re attention.
In reference to the British Foreign Enlistment
act and OF It's value relatively to the similar acts OF
the United States, counsel say there Is much that
would seem foreign TO the subject and beneath dig
nifty, when 1t Is considered that however they NAV
he locally convenient, yet laws or this nature do
not serve to determine the duties Of neutrality in
international relations.
With q sacrifice OF the principal to the incident
and OF the large to the minute the British govern.
ment insists that the British act Of 1919 Is equal in