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

Florida or the Shenandoah--ta either case She
You contend, II understasd your argument, that
she ought to be seized. But suppose the author
of the circumstances under which the vessel orig.
nally lett the shores OF Great Britain Is there an
obligation to seize that vessely'
Mr.. EvARTs-That, like everything else, is left as
The CHIEF JusrIcE-But suppose the people at
the place are perfectly unaware from whence this
vessel
Mr.. EvARrs-I understand the question. We are
not calling In Judgment the authorities at this or
that place. We calling into Judgment the British
nation and If the ignorance and want OF knowledge
In the subordinate officials at such port can DE
brought to the fault Of the home government in not
advising or keeping them informed that Is exactly
It is question OF due diiigence'' or not OF the
nation in all its conduct in providing or not pro-
vlding Tor the situation, and IN preparing or NOT
preparing its officials to act upon suitable knowl-
We find nothing Of any limitation of this second
clause OF the first rule that prevents our consider
| Ing Its proper application to the case OF vessel
which, for the purpose OF the present argument,
and detained in port II the commission" does not
! interp0se an obstacle.
| We have laid down at pages from 1871 to 1888 in
our argument what we consider the rules OF law
IN regard to the effect OF commission" Of a SOW
ereign nation, or OF u belligerent not recognized
as a sovereign, in the circumstances involved in
TINS inquiry: they are very simple. l find nothing
as Il q na hess es ans
rules OF law. The public ship OF nation received
into the waters or ports OF another nation is. by
the practice OF nations, as concession TO the sove
relgns dignity, exempt from the jurisdiction OF the
courts and ali judicial process of the nation whose
waters 1t visits. This Is
| CONCESSION, MUTUAL, RECIPROCAL,
between nations having tins kind Of inter,
suress prncpies Sf nernaonal 0e' Comfy a"
| But there is no concession OF extra terri
visited is predominated over by the sovereign re-
ceiving hospitality to its public vessels. The prln-
cpie simply Is that the treatment OF the vessel
sovereign and in their Political capacities as matter
to be dealt with directly between them, under re-
and under the duty Of preserving relations Of
peace and good will II you please, but nevertheless,
TO be controlled by reasons OF State.
| THE LIABILITY OF NATIONS.
Any construction OF the rule that would allow
the visiting vessel to impose its own sovereignty
upon the sovereign visited, would be to
push the rule to an extreme that would
ity Of sovereians that requires sl' that s'i the
process and the jurisdiction OF courts should not be
But all other qualifications as to how the sove-
reign visited shall deal with public vessels rest in
the discretion OF the sovereign II offence Is com
mtted b y such vessels, or any duty arises in
respect to them. he, at his discretion and under
International responsibility makes it the subject
ment, makes 1t the subject Of reprsa, or makes 1t
the subject OF an immediate exercise of force If the
| circumstances seem to exact 1t.
What, then, is the tenor OF the authorities in
respect to q public vessel not OF sovereign,
as sovereign The courts Of the country country,
| when the question arises as judicial
ask Sow that has 'ae Che question S
the public character Of such vessels; and II that
question (Which is political one) has been deter
mined In recognition Of the belligerency, then the
vessel Of the bellgerent is treated as exempt from
judicial process and from the Jurisdiction Of the
CONTROL subject to the dominion OF the sovereign
whose ports 1t has visited, and it remains there
not in.the public character Of representative OF
recognized sovereignty.
q
ity; they are the motives Of fair play;
milton Of the actual features of the strife OF violence
that is in progress. But it is In vain to
you are going to attract one by one oil the traits
| ofsoveregnty, In the relation with Power merely
recognized as belligerent and to whom sovereignty
now coNrRABAND VESSELS SHOULD BE DEALT WITH.
What is the difference of predcamenta Why, the
neutral nation, whenit has occasion to take offence
exercise Its rights with reference to beliger-
ent vessel not representing q sovereign, finds no
peal, to which 1t can demonstrate, by which
through diplomacy, by which through reprisals,
felt, it's dominion respected and its author
ity obeyed. 1t then deals with these belli-
Injustice ev and caprice are wrong toward whomso
ever they are exercised; but, nevertheless, upon
conduct, and that the vessel and its conduct are
the only EXISTING power and force to which it can
apprehend that there is no authority from any
book that disturbs in the least this proposition, or
carries the respect to bepigerent vessels beyond
judicial process. The rule OF law being OF this
nature the question, then, of how neutral shall
deal with one OF these cruisers that owes its
existence
TO VIOLATION OF IT'S NEUTRAL RIGHTS,
port Of the neutral, is question for the
neutral to determine according to its duty to itself
the sovereign bellgerent who will lay to its charge
the consequences and the responsibility for this
THE POWER OF SOVEREIGN
Now, find In the propositions Of the eminent
counsel a clear recognition of these principles Of
power on the part OF the sovereign, and Of right
power should be exercised suitably and under cir
question, therefore as to the dealing Of the sove.
plies no absolute rule. it then becomes "a
question for the tribunal whether under
oa er to commit t these @
juries, to their violation OF neutrality, Great
Britain is responsible to the injured sovereign, the
United States, for this breach OF neutrality, for this
unlawful birth, for this unlawful support Of these
offending cruisers. As to what the duty Of neu-
relations, when the offending cruiser il again
placed within its power, find really no objection
except that Selling such vessel, without previous
notice, would be impolite, would be violation OF
comfy would be a violation of the decorOus prac
tice OF nations and would be so far wrong.
THE REAL QUESTION
Well let us not discuss these questions in the alb
tual conduct OF Great Britain In the actual circum
stances Of the career Of these cruisers. If Great
Britain claimed exemption from liability to the
| United States by saying that, when these cruisers
had confessedy in fact escaped in violation OF neu
tralitv and confessedly were on the propagat-
ing those enormous injuries to the property and
commerce of friendly nation, it had promptly
given notice that no one OF them should ever after
enter It's ports and that II it did enter its ports 1t
would be seized and detained then this charge that
the conduct OF Great Britain towards these cruisers
in their subsequent visits to Its ports such
to make 1t responsible for their original escape or
| for their subsequent career would be met by
this palliation or this defence But no such
arises upon the proofs. You have then, on the
one hand, clear duty towards thu. offended bel
| lgerent, and on the other only the supposed obi
| ofc 0r itu fha me- in0