New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-01-08

tered.
The second proposition is rot correct
corollary from the first, for the first con-
cedes the vital question upon the decision
of which the second depends. We admit
no such postulate. for how is it to be as
certained by vessel Of one power that @
vessel carrying the colors Of anothefi is not
entitled to do SO? Only by an investiga-
ton, that can alone be properly made by
an appointed judicature. This decision
Mr. Cushing assumes to have been law
fully made by the boarding officer Who
invades the ship bearing the questionable
flag. It is only in violation of the sane
tity of this American soil at sea that the
officer of foreign power can ascertain
the fact. He then ascertains and acts on
question which is alike beyond his pro-
fession and his jurisdiction. For, sup
pose this invading officer board ship
under the American flag, pronounce her
a SLAYER, or a pirate. order the crew and
passengers to be shot, and the ship To be
scuttled2 What evidence will remain to
determine the legal status of this ship2
We are triumphantly told by the attor-
neys of Spain that the vessel whose status
is controverted must be in court to au-
thorize On adjudication on her value and
character. But, putting aside Che paltry
ship, what will indemnify the dead should
it be determined by the courts that they
possessed the right to existence? The
doctrine of the common law. that per-
sonal rights perish with the person, seems
TO debar the dead from vindication, be.
cause they can not possibly be compen-
stated for the personal injury inflicted
upon them. The doctrine OF Mr. Cush-
ing would put it in the power Of an officer,
hasty to destroy an enemy, to execute the
men and leave the review of the merits Of
their execution to other and higher pow.
ers. In the German religious war OF
thirty years subordinate officer reported
to the commander che capture of q lot Of
Protestants OF Catholics, We do not re.
member which. ''Let them be shot,"
was the sententious order. But there
are, mixed up among them, some Of our
own religion ''Shoot them all" seiter-
ated the commander. ''Shoot them all.
The Lord 1piu knos HIS o,on:" This
post mortuary sindication would
be about as consolatory, in Che case Of
the men seized and shot under the AmeS-
lean flag, as it was, two and half centu-
ries ago, in the Palatinate. So that Mr..
Cushings subsequent vindieatisn of the
right of search, that otherwise "the uask"
might ':protect the malefactor." is not
well founded. The question whether the
flag does mask che malefactof is precisely
question which the government Of the
United States has reserved exclusively TO
itself to decide Mr. Gushing comedies
this decision to q souslieutenam on n for.
eign ship of war. The REPUBLICAN. early
in the Virginius question, cited che stand
ard case of the British ship leopard
boarding the American ship Chesapeake
on claim that there were detained on
the latter certain pen who owed service
to the British flag. In this case the cape
tain of the Leopard determined the status
of those men and the right of the Amer
lean flag to protect them The men were
taken from under the American flag under
the ruling of this amphibious doctor Fl
laws, tried by court-lnaqtial ana sentenced
to be hanged.
Here was a case on which this doctor of
laws was MORALLY mistaken. Ills own
government disavowed his act, and the
United States went into q long and Fri
umphant war 10 iberate six thousand
American citizens enslaved on board of
British prison and war ships, each one Of
whom ever after held the tenure of his
liberty upon the doctrine that q foreign
ship captain has no jurisdiction on the
high seas, or anywhere else, TO determine
the status of vessel carrying the Amer
lean flag. If he has no such jurisdictio
he can not, from stronger reasons, have
any right to invade the territory of the
United States afoat to inquire into and |
the status of that territory or of |
any one occupying it. For suppose, as a
means of testing this, we allow Next
can army officer to cross the Rio Grande |
for the purpose of inquiring into the right
of person standing on American soil
and claiming a right to hold certain
cattle Of controverted title. Suppose this
Mexican officer decides these cattle to
have been stolen, and having SO
decided the legal status of the
property, proceeds to impose
he Mexican penalty for such offense, it
nay be by stripes, which are an indelible
stain upon American honor, or the ball
md chain with hard labor on the public
highways, accompanied of course with
,onfscation of the controverted cattle as
for the expedition. This is a
'ase of invaded territory. Would the gov
rnment of the United States say that its
citizens had been properly scourged or
hained, because the fact might be subse-
luently found as the Mexican army Off
er had decided? Have we reached that
,oint at which We allow other nations to
ntrude upon our soil, to decide upon the
cts of those who are upon that soil? It
would be strange abrogation of duty TO
ppeal to Spain to adjudicate and execute
ur laws when she has shown such an IN