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

guese Minister oil state, adds:-
ment Majesty greatly desires information,
and which the note OF Your Exceency and the papers
what laws rules, or what other means at the dis
srrtory acts which would be in violation to the laws
s Wss a 1a aSn IN the Is
me
And M. Cazal Ribeiro replies as follows:-
M s sp an tiny rn Hs S s matter ais cs
were contained in my note OF the 18th inst or mentioned
Ola violation neutrality criminal procedures The
o. OF other Calculated the par
ticular circumstances OF the case .,,uo :, r,,,
The counsel is in error when he maintained that
the. United States do not understand these laws
commented upon clearly by the writer's cited
and applied by their tribunals, judges at least as
wisely as the corresponding laws OF England.
THE EXAMPLE OF SWITZERLAND.
In regard TO Switzerland we have drawn together
IN our Unsatisfactory papers some precious doc ,
which this republic brings TO the support OF Its neu
traity in the midst OF great European wars:
cite also the explanation OF the laws OF Swtzer
land, given by the Federal Council in the Concn
case TO show that the counsel OF Great Britain Is
mistaken altogether In his appreciation Of those 81,
laws. as well as In his appreciation OF those OF
Italy and Brazil. tDroit Public Suisse" TOM l.. p.
459)
Now, appeal to the honorable arbitrator that
they Judge and decide who is right III regard to
these aws-Great Britain baslnG its case on an
United States basing its case on the very text OF
the laws and the commentaries of The best urls-
consults OF France, Italy, spain, Portugal ana
Brazil
appeal further to the honorable arbtrators to
say whether the institutions OF England are truly
more constitutional than those Of Italy, OF Brazil
and of Switzerland. According to the opinion OF
the counsel for Great Britain, those countries do
not possess any neutrality laws But they observe
the duties OF neutrality, and they observe them
without attracting suspicion to their constitution
who then, Is in error in this natter Is it England?
or is il America
THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES.
The counsel for Great Britain devotes much space
to the discussion of the laws OF the United States.
argument.
The counsel endeavors to prove that the law OF
the United States, SO far as this question is con-
cerned, is limited TO the case of a war vessel.
In support Of that he cites the expressions of the
penalties every person who within the frontiers
Of the United States, equips and arms for war, or
attempts to equip and arm for war, wilfuly takes
part in the provisioning, equipment or armament
Tor war Of any boat or vessel with the purpose OF
employing that boat or vessel in the service of O
foreign belligerent Power.
Resting upon these expressions of the law, he
a IN tha to TINS
for war or that some one should have attempted to
THE REAL MEANING OF THE STATUTE.
But in jurisprudence this Interpretation Of the
law is perfectly erroneous. 1t is established in the
United States that it is not the character of the
preparations which constitutes the crime, but the
intention which dominates the act. This doctrine
IL thus exhibited by Dana:-
voE sr n st Of 1 e the @ ion @
' at a. ID %sS
without regard to hGs s a s p p he
s 9s Jp nn hs y not ar nEs
any way advanced the completion OF those preparations
Of object sS as
hN seS d %gs be used o n an snes This
armed or was up to certain point up to matter
o q acts Sf OF a Sos f act IN con
We have not raised points relative to the reunion of
hostility, but which taken together, constitute insirS
nnd ri M e qT e Of cnp II
s SSsr h sns eS ass aGs
part Of plan in consequence Of which ship may be
cruiser 1rsuent the Tnted stases pp Is
A DECISION FONT
These extracts from Dana are authoritative in
the matter. The true Interpretation OF the law has
Court OF the United States. The Court has de,
termined that 1t is not necessary that the vessel
be armed, or In condition that permits it 10 COM
init hostities at the moment OF its departure from
Peters, Reports, vol. vi, p 445. Vide Opinions, vol.
5, PIP. 73S-741.)
ANOTHER TELLING POINT.
Such Is the law as 1t is understood and practised
IN America. Both counsel OF the United States,
Mr.. Evarts and myself, have administered justice,
and we have knowledge OF this law SO personal
that also able to speak of 1t authoritatvely.
affirm that the Interpretation of this law, as given
probation received in the United States.
call attention to the expressions OF the tempo
rary law OF lsss reported by myself to the Con
seizure "of every vessel or vehicle, armed or I'M
armed, when there are any circumstances which
lead to the opinion that this vessel or vehicle" is
destined for military operations against foreign
State. United States Statutes, vol ", p. 2l3)
That law had been framed according to the in
depreciation OF the permanent law.
THE PREvENTIvE POWER OF THE PRESIDENT.
1t follows that all the scalioding OF criticism
~ nnt POI TN Inn
preventive power OF the President OF the United
States tumbles TO the ground. He supposes that
this power Is limited to the case OF vessel armed
for war; because he supposes that the penal clauses
have only that extent lie is in error on each point.
The preventive power OF the President applies to
every case OF the law, to 'a the prohibitions and
penalties of the laws And the law does require
that the vessel be arme for war; IL is enough that
its owner has the intention OF employing il in acts
OF hostility against State friendly to the United
States.
The case OF Gelston VS.. Hoyt, cited by the
counsel touches only the manner of exercising the
preventive powers OF the law, and it in no way
effects those powers themselves.
In the justiiicatory documents annexed TO the
counter case OF the United states may be found
numerous examples OF the exercise of this proven
tive power by the President. The fact or being
armed or not is only one circumstance which
weighs more or less heavily upon the real qies-
tion-the question OF the intention OF the owner OF
the vessel
The counsel cnuincratcs cases of various dates
where adventures have been sustained BY the
American law.
We have protested ia our argument and per
sist In protesting against the opportuneness of
such arguments England is before the tribunal
accused Of having failed TO use due diligence in OBJ
serving the conventional rules OF the Treaty OF
Washington. II America has failed not in It's
duties OF neutrality according 10 the common law
Is not the question submitted 10 the tribunal.
America replies ut proper time and place for her
acts 10 those whom such acts may have injured.
TIE counsel has cited some extracts from the cor
respondence OF officials of tie United states having
regard TO legal questions which arise from time 10
Time IN the Application Of the law. These questions
are, without doubt analogous TO questions which
present themselves In England. Unfortunately the
American law, although anterior TO the English
law, comes from school OF legislation common 10
the two countries, which adds greatly TO the abors
OF jurisconsults and tribunals.
We have discussed these questions in our argn
ment. But we are not able 10 discuss IN detail ell
these cases laborously drawn together nv the
counsel without longer preparation than we
desire TO ask from the tribunal