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

tators.
Our view Of the matter is, that as this treaty is
alton between the two nations and 1t Ii applied
to settle the doubts and disputes which existed be-
ance Of obligations, these considerations furnish
the resort, II any Is needed, whereby this tribunal
should seek to determine what the true meaning Of
the high contracting parties il.
THE OFFENDING CRUISERS
Now, as bearing upon all these three topics
cruisers in their subsequent visits to BRUSH
ports, and OF their supply, as nom a
base OF operations. with the means Of con-
tinuing the war, these rules are to be treated In
reference to the controversy had arisen and as
It was in progress between the two nations when
nation prosecuting war against portion OF its
population ana territory In revolt. Against the
SOVEREIGN so,. thus prosecuting his war there was
thus prosecuting this maritime warfare against It's
sovereign coniessedly had no ports and no waters
1t had no ship yards. 1t had fOundres, 1t had no
means or resources by which 1t could MAINTAIN or
Keep on foot tn, that war project and purpose Of
territory, and the pecunary resources by which 1t
could derive its supply from neutral nations was
Now, that war having In fact been kept on foot
and having resulted In great injuries to the SOW
erelgn beliigerent, gave occasion to controversy
between that sovereign and the neutral nation OF
Great Britain as to whether these actual supplies,
these actual bases OF maritime war from and In
neutral jurisdiction, were
COMFORTABLE TO THE LAW OF NATIONS
or In violation OF its principles. OF course the
mere fact that this war had thus been kept on foot
did not OF itself, carry the neutral responsibility
But IL did bring Into controversy the opposing pO-
sitons OF the TWO nations. Great Britain coutefided
during the coarss Of the and
that, however much to be regretted, these trans
actions did not place any responsibility upon the
such communication OF the resources OF the people
OF Great Britain as under international law was
innocent and protected; that commercial con-
munlCatiOn and the AgVum hoapitAity
in the ports was the entire measure, comprehen
sion and character OF all that had occurred within
the neutral Jurisdiction OF Great Britain, The
United States contended to the contrary.
THE LAW OF NATIONS.
What then was the solution of the matter which
settles amicably this great dispute Why, first,
that the principles OF the law OF nations should be
settled BY convention, as they have been, and that
they should furnish the guide and the control OF
your decision; second. that all the facts Of the
transactions as they occurred should be submitted
to your final and satisfactory determination; and,
third, that the application OF these principles OF
law settled by convention between the parties to
these facts as ascertained by yourselves should oe
made by yourselves, and Should In the end. close
both parties.
casion to go Into any very considerable discussion
to the meaning OF these rules, unless in the very
subordinate sense of the explanation OF phrase,
such as 'base OF operations" or military sup
plies" or recruitment OF men," or some similar
matter
sion which relates to the effect Of commission"
which, though made the subject OF the second topic
named by the tribunal, and taken in that order by
1t Is said that the claims OF the United States In
this behalf, as made in their argument, rest upon
Of he @ ru this non 'e rs to
that the construction which put upon that clause
is not exaggerated; and, in the second place, that
these claims In regard to the duty Of Great Britain in
respect to commissioned cruisers that have had their
origin In en- illegal outfit In violation OF the law Of
nations p settled In the first rule, do not rest
n IN fret nil
They, undoubtedly, in one construction of that
clause ind an adequate support In its proposition;
but II that construction Should fall, nevertheless,
the duty Of Great Britain in dealing with these Of
Tending cruisers In their subsequent resort to Its
ports and waters, would rest upon principles quite
Independent OF this construction Of the second
clause. SIS
The second clause of that rule is ;-"And also
to use like diligence to prevent the departure from
Its jurisdiction OF any vessel intended
TO CRUISE OR CARRY ON WAR
as above, such vessel having been specially adapted
in whole or in part within such jurisdiction to war
1t Is said that this second clause OF the first rule
manifesty applies only to the original departure OF
such vessel from the British Jurisdiction while its
purposes Of unlawful hostility still remain in inten-
ton merely, and have not been evidenced by exc
cuti0n.
NEUTRAL's RESPONSIBILITY.
II this means that vessel that had made It's first
evasion from Q British port. under circumstances
arrest her. and then had come within British ports
second Time and the evidence, as then developed,
and would have that nation for failure SO
to do, Is not within the operation OF this rule, 1
am At loss to understand upon what prtnci-
meaning il that this second clause only. ap-
plies 10 such offending vessels while they
quired the protection Of commission" that pre-
tension is begging Of the question under cOnsd-
Grafton, to wit, what the effect of commission"
Is under the circumstances proposed.
l do not understand exactly whether these two
cases are meant to be covered by this criticism Of
the learned counsel But let US look at 1t. Suppos
ing that
THE ESCAPE OF THE FLORIDA
from Liverpool In the first instance, was not under
circumstances which made 1t an injurious violation
OF neutrality for which Great Britain was respOn-
sibe to the United States; that is to say, that
there was no such fault from inattention
of action, as made Great Britain responsible for her
escape; and supposng when she entered Liverpool
again. rs the matter then stood in the knowledge
OF the government, the evidence was clear and the
duty clear, II 1t original case; Is Il to
be said that the duty is not strong that 1t is not
as clear, and that failure to perform 1t is not as
clear for nculpatiOn II in the original out
set the same circumstances Of failure and OF fault
had been apparents Certainly the proposition can
not mean this. Certainly the conduct Of Great
Britain in regard to
THE VESSEL AT NASSAU
British port into which she went after her escape
from Liverpool does not conform to this sugge stiOn.
But, If the proposition does not to this then it
comes back to the pretensiOn that the commission
intervening terminates the obligation, defeats the
duty and exposes the suffering begerent to all the
consequence of this naval war; illegal In its origin
Illegal in Its character, and on the part OF the Of
Tending belligerent, an outrage upon the neutral
that has suffered it.
THE QUESTION TO RE DETERMINED.
Now that Is the very question to be determined.
PROFESSIONALLY, we submit that while the first
clause OF the first rule is by its terms limited to an
original equipment or outfit OF offending vessel,
the second clause was intended to lay down the
obligation OF OBTAINING in port and OF preventing
the departure OF every such vessel whenever IL
should come within British jurisdiction. / omit
from this present statement of course, the element
of he effect OF the commission" that being the
immediate point in dispute.
start In the debate OF that question with this
view OF the scope and efficacy Of the rule itself.
IL Is said, however, that the second clause of the
first rule Is to be qualified in its apparent signidca-
ton and application by the supplying phrase used
in the first clause, which, IL is said must be cOnmu-
nicated to the second. That qualifying phrase Ia
''any vessel which 1t has reasonable ground to be-
lieve is Intended" &c.
Now, this qualification is in the first clause and 1t
Is not in the second. OF course, this element of
having reasonable ground to believe" that the
offence which a neutral nation Ia n uf