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

asylum.
Here recess was taken and Mr. Evarts con-
Guided for the day.
The Second Days Argument.
THE FOREIGN ENLISTMENT ACT.
was upon the point OF the doctrine OF the British
government, and its action under that doctrine as
bearing upon the outfit OF the contributory pro-
visions Of armament, munitions, and men. set forth
In such vessels as the Bahama, the Aar
and the Laurel. The correspondence Is full Of
evidence That was correct In my statement OF the
doctrine OF the British government, ana OF It's
action from beginning to end being controlled by
that doctrine; and ALL the remonstrances OF the
OF nations the Foreign Enlistment act the duty OF
neutrality, had nothing whatever to do with that
war; the hs yew Of an ID
Its immense influence In producing the present con-
troversy between the two nations, are obvious The
whole mischief was wrought by the cooperating
force OF the two legal propOsitioDs:-Q) That the
unarmed cruiser was not itself a weapon OF war;
an instrument OF war, and, therefore, was not to
be intercepted as committing violation OF the
law OF nations; and ~ that the contributory pro-
vision by means OF her supply ships, of her arma-
ment. munitions, and men, TO make her complete
instrument OF naval h0stties, was also not a VIC
lation of the law of nations, but simply CONNER
cial dealing In cOntraband. 1t was only under those
combined doctrines that the cruiser ever came to
be In the position Of an instrument OF offensive and
mission" prepared for her, and which was thence
forth to protect her from interference Oh the doc
trlne OF comfy to sovereignty.
so, too, 1t Will be found, when we come to con-
slider the observations OF the eminent counsel on
the subject Of due diligence to which shall have
occasion soon to reply. that the question whether
HOSTILE ACTIONS UNDER THE LAW OF NATIONS
was the turning point In the doctrine OF the gov
eminent OF Great Brirain, and OF its action as to
whether 1t would intercept these enterprises by
the exercise OF executive power, as neutral gov
a hostile act under the law Of nations. The doc
trine was that these were not hostile acts sepa-
rately and that no hostile act arose unless these
separate contributions were combined in the
ports OF Great Britain; that there was no footing
otherwise for the obligation OF the law OF nations to
establish itself upon; that there was no remssness
OF duty on the part Of the neutral in respect Of
them; and finally that these operations were not
violations of the Foreign Enlistment act. All this
is shown by the whole correspondence and by the
decisions of the municipal Courts OF England, in
regard to the only question passed upon at ALL that
OF unarmed vessels so far as they ever passed even
upon that question.
1t has seemed to be intimated by observations
which the learned counsel has done me the honor
to make during my present consideration of this
topic, that my argument has transcribed the
proper limit of reply to the special argument which
the eminent counsel himself has made on the same
topic. A reference to the text of that argument
will, think, set this question ut rest.
In the fifteenth section OF
THE FIRST CHAPTER OF HIS ARGUMENT
he does us the honor to quote certain observations
IN our prlncpa argument, to which m he proposes to
follows follow; =: 80 lu''''' p's' = - NO 0A'' "'
i; The next great failure Of Great Britain ito due
ne matters 4; rs within the nrls..on Of the tribunal i
ossS IN Re sdt to %
tercept the preparations and outfits OF the offend,
armament munitions and men, which were
%' &C. fnGss ss eotSs knsas%
serious contention but that such powers pertain to the
lions and are exercised such BY other Powers
sRsqE a 4 s Rsa Sn AND Rs
maritime hostlities which they maintained
The comment of the learned counsel upon this
passage is found on the same page az OF his argu-
ment, as fOllows-
Observed that it not Only impates as want Of due
supply sSpRGs;sd dssgsnsy issa
sxpcrStiSn from 6sf territory Of what i describe
sday AIDS q wsrEe and s npe
though such elements of armament were uncom
Within British Jurisdiction but We're eSpor.sd rom
of articles contraband Of war For such pretenson no
ps % on s II II any %
three rules contained in the sixth article OF The Treaty of
respectfully submit, therefore, that in the obser-
vations | have had the honor to make upon this
due limits Of an argument in reply. |
fail to find in what the eminent counsel
nee advances in Ss Of his
THE WHOLE COURSE OF THE WAR,
period when he as solicitor General or as Attorney
the government, the action Of Great Britain was
governed by the doctrine which have stated
stood by the rebel agents, by the interests involved
in these maritime hostities, by the United States
Minister, by the officials OF the British government,
by everybody who had to act ask for action in
the premises.
THE ALABAMA.
The first instance arising was OF the vessel that
carried out the armament and munitions for the
Alabama, and the answer was as read from the
report OF the Commissioners Of Customs to the
Board of Trade. This official paper stated that the
Commissioners found nothing in that affair that
touched the obligations OF Great Britain. This was
ANN nntn 0fnd IN md
forth, was the doctrine and action of the govern
ment of Great Britain
VIEWS or AN EMINENT FRENCH PuELrcIsr.
The view OF an eminent publicist on this point,
as question OF international law, may be seen
from an extract found at page III of the case Of the
United States M. Rolin.J acquemyns says:-.
II nous semee que adoption dune payejM Proposition
HH al seasias ifGfs sa9a
en- sas dS Ss s sHtFg s sem @ 4 ss RssG
oe ne p So Lei " @ ds eax e
pusahce neu.re aui les aisses paru L. neutrsi sera
internationale nest nj reasonable nj equitable.
1t will be, then, for the tribunal to decide what
the law OF. nations Is on this subject: II the
tribunal shall assent to the principles which have
insisted upon, and shall find them to be embraced
within the provisions OF the three rules of this
treaty, and that the facts in the require the
application of these principles it stands admitted
that Great Britain has not used and has refused to
use any means whatever for the interruption of
these contributory provisions of armament and
munitions to the offending cruisers.
GREAT BRITAIN TAXING SHELTER IN MUNICIPAL
LAW.
1t is not for me to dispute the ruling of
upon their Foreign Enlistment act but,
for the life OF me, cannot see
why the Altar and the Bahama and the
Laurel, when they sailed from the ports OF Eng
land with no cargo whatever except the armament
and munitions of war OF one of these cruisers, and
with no GRAND and no employment except that OF
the rebel government, through its agents, to
transport these ornaments and munitions to the
cruisers which awaited them, were not "trans-
ports' in the service OF one OF the beigerents
within the meaning Of the Foreign Enlistment act
Of Great Britain. That, however, Is question Of
municipal law.
1T is WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW THAT WE ARE
DEALING NOW AND HERE
The whole argument to escape the consequences
Which international law visits upon the neutral for
It's infractions has been that whatever was blame
worthy was so only as an infracton OF the NUM-
Cipal law Of Great Britain. And when you come to