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

ereyn. W In trnth such treatment accorded to such
cruisers all the irresponsbility OF pirates and all
the sanctty of public ships or recognized soy.
ereignty. II accorded the irresponsbility OF
pirates because they were exempted from all con-
troll and there was government behind them to
he made responsible for them TO be resorted to for
their correction or restraint and to meet the re-
sentiments OF the offended neutrals In the shape OF
non-intercourse, OF reprlsals, or OF war.
row BELLIGERENT FRANCE WOULD HAVE ACTED.
The action OF Great Britain under this doctrine of
comfy and notice applied to the cruisers of this
belligerency, really exempted them, from the be-
from ali responsibility whatever How long could
such conduct toward Great Britain in violation of
her neutrality AS was practised by this belligerent,
how long could such violations OF the neutrality OF
Great Britain have been exercised by belligerent
France without remonstrance, and II that remon-
STRANGE were unheeded, without reprisals, followed
nnally by war Why was not such recourse taken
IN respect to these cruisers, to the power behind
themY Tnere was no power behind them.
AN HISTORICAL PRECEDENT.
ASK Also In this connection attention to Phil
lmore, pages 300 to 4o4, and especially to passage
extracted from the case OF the Santissma Trini-
dad, commenting upon the OF the EK-
change, which last case is citcd, at considerable
length In the argument or the eminent
counsel Now the Exchange settles moth
ing, except that when the political autho-
rity OF government has recognized Delllgerency,
the Courts will not exercise Jurisdiction over the
vessels although sovereignty has not been conceded
The only case In the history Of our country In
which the political authority was called upon to
deal with cruiser that had derived its origin IN
violation OF our neutrality was the case Of public
ship of France. the Cassus, originally Les Jumeaux
TIe legal report or this case Is copied In
full IN the appendix of the British case. 1t never
came to any other determination than that France
the recognized government OF France, was the
sponsor Tor the Cassus, and 1t was on the respect
shown to sovereign as well as a public belligerent
that the disposition Of the case, exempting the
vessel nom Judicial process, was made.
A fILT BETWEEN COUNSEL.
Sir ROuNDELL PALMER-The vessel was restored
Mr.. EvARTs-But it was only after nor character
as n war vessel had ceased.
Sir RoUNDELL PALMER--It was the government Of
the United States, by Its executive power that d.
n he
Mr. EvARTs-A detailed history of this case, legal
and political VIII be found IN volume VI OF tne
American Appendix, pages Is to 20, In MI. Danas
valuable note.
IL will there he seen that the occasion for our
government TO determine its political or executive
action never until after the determination of
the Judicial proceedings and until after The vessel
abandoned her to the United States government,
nor until after she was q worthless hulk
Sir R0UNDELL PALAEH--Am not right in saying
that the President of the executive government OF
the United states gave notice to the French Minis
ter that the ship was at his disposal?
1t had ceased to be cruiser capable of hostlties,
and after the opportunity for Its further hostlties
Lord TENTERDEN-But the war still continued.
Mr.. EvARrs-But l mean after the hostillties of
that vessel came to an end.
And permit me to say that this condition OF
things between the United States md France; dur
ing the administration OF the first President Adams,
came substantially to war between the two
countries.
TIE GEORGIA AND SHENANDOAH
Now 1t is said That the application OF this second
clause OF the first rule Of the treaty and this de-
mand that detention or exclusion shall be exercised
In respect TO cruisers on their subsequent visits to
ports do not apply either to the Georgia or Shenan
doah, because neither the Georgia nor the Shenan-
dOah received their original outfit by violation
of the territory of Great Britain not even In the
view OF what would he such violation taken by
the United States understand that 10 be the
position. i Will not discuss the facts OF the
Georgia and Shenandoah any more than of any
Georgia in the conclusions that you shall arrive at
upon the facts concerning their outfit, shall be pro-
nounced In their original evasion not to involve
cupability on the part OF Great Britain and not to
involve violation OF Great Britain's territory the
part of either OF these cruisers
Sir ALEXANDER CoCKBURN-Supp0se, Mr.. Eyarts,
that the departure was OF such nature as not to
involve Great Britain in any culpabity for want OF
territory.
Mr.. EvARrs-That is the point was coming to,
and OF that entertain no doubt.
You must find upon the facts that there was no
evasion from the ports OF Great Britain by either of
those vessels under circumstances amounting to a
violation OF the neutrality OF Great Britain ION the
part OF the vessels and on the part OF those who set
them iorth), before YOU bring them into the stua-
ton where the resentment for violation OF neu-
ralty, winch l nave insisted upon, was not re-
quired to be exhibited.
am not, however, here to discuss the questions
OF fact
NAVAL OPERATIONS AND MILITARY SUPPLIES.
Will take up what is made the subject of the
third chapter OF the special argument, which has
reference to coaling and "the base OF naval opera
tons and military supplies" as prohibited by
the second rule OF the treaty.
The question OF ''coalingi is one question con-
sldered simply under the law OF hospitality or
asylum TO beigerent vessels In neutral ports, and
quite another considered, under given facts and
circumstances, as an element in the prescribed
oil neutral ports as "a base of naval operations"
At the outset OF the discussion Of this subject ii
is said that the British government dealt fairly
and imparlially in this matter OF coaling with
the vessels of the two belligerents, aud
that the real complaint on the part Of the
Britain had chosen to assume for such impartial
dealing between the two belhgerents. II that
were our complaint it is certainly out of place
duct OF Great Britain the situation produced by
the Queens proclamation, and there is here no room
for discussion of any grievance on the part OF the
United States from the public act Of Great Britain In
issuing that proclamation. But nothing in the con-
duct OF the argument on our part ustifes this sug-
gestlOn OF the eminent counsel.
THE QUESTION or CoALrNG.
On the subject OF 'cOaling,n II Ia said that 1t is
not OF ITSELF q supply OF contraband of war or OF
military aid. Not OF ITSELF The grounds ana occa-
the question Of aet whether s0a has beea
iary dealt out as between the beligerents
head by the eminent counseD topic OF discussion
OF which coaling Is merely branch, that is to say,
the use OF neutral ports and waters for coalng,
victualling, repairs, supplies OF sails, recruitment
Of men Tor navigation, &c. These may or may not
be obnoxious to censure under the law OF nations
according as they have relation not with facts
and acts which, collectively, make up the use OF the
neutral ports and waters as 'the bases of naval
operations by behgerents. Accordingly the argr-
ment OF the eminent counsel does not stop with so
easy disposition OF the subject OF coaling but pro;
operations-what it means what 1t does not mean.
the inconvenience OF loose extension of its mean
ing-tne habit OF the United States In dealing with
the question both IN acts ogovernmcEt and the prac-
tce OF It's cruisers-the understanding OF other
TONS giving the instances arising on the corrc-
spondence with Brazil on the subject Of the Sumter
ana produces as result OF this inquiry the conclli-
sion that II was not the intention OF the second rule
OF the treaty to limit The right OF asylum.
THB RIGHT OF ASYLUM.
In regard to the special treatment of this subject
OF coaling provided by the regulations established
by the British government in 1862, IL Is urged that
they were voluntary regulations, that the essence
OF them was that they should be fairly administered
between the parties, and that the rights OF asylum
or hospitality in this regard should not be exceeded
Now, this brings up the whole question the of
neutral ports or waters as q "basc OF naval opera
usns which Is prescribed by the second rule OF the