The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1878-05-13

after the close of the civil war, the House of
Representatives passed, without a dissent
ing vote, comprehensive neutrality bill
intended to supersede and repeal the famous
statute Of 1918. Unfortunately the new bill
was passed by the House only two days be-
fore the close of the session, too late for
action upon it by the Senate. Had it been
brought up in the Senate at an earlier
period of the session it would prob
ably have passed that body, though
not, perhaps, with the same absolute
lack Of negative votes which was so marked
a feature of its passage by the House. Before
Congress met again Mr.. Seward was prose-
cutting the Alabama claims negotiations,
which resulted in tho abortive Johnson
Clarendon treaty, and it was deemed mex
pedient to discard the existing neutrality
law while that controversy was in progress.
For the immediate purpose of exacting dam
ages from Great Britain the law of 1878 was
an excellent card to play both in the abor-
tive negotiation Of Mr.. Seward and tho
successful negotiation Of Mr.. Fish. That
statute defined the American ideas OF neu-
trality and pitched them in SO high
key that a repeal of it wonld
have damaged our pretensions. Be-
fore the Geneva award was rendered the
subject of improving the law OF 1918 had
sunk out of public notice. Until the
arrival of the Cimbria nothing has occurred
to recall attention to it.
Whether the well-known 'three rules"
which were adopted in the treaty Of 1871
for the. guidance Of the Geneva Court OF
Arbitration, were not cheaply consented
to by Great Britain ut the expense OF the
fifteen millions of awarded damages, is
question on which the generations that are
to come after us will be better qualified to
form an opinion than we are. 1t is possible
that England will be benefited by the three
rules to double the amount of the award
in her FIRST important war; To be sure, the
three rules impose upon the United States
no obligation which we had not voluntarily
assumed by the statute which SO narrowly
escaped repeal in 1866. Indeed, the three
rules bind us to less than our own statute
does, but then we can repeal the law Of
1918 ut our pleasure, whereas we cannot
abrogate the treaty, especially after having
recovered heavy damages in pursuance Of
the rules embodied in it by the demand of
our government. The treaty. however, is
only an engagement between the two par
ties to it, no other nation having accepted
the three rules. We are as free to revise
our neutrality law as we we're before, but if
We should lower it beyond the line marked
by the treaty England will be entitled to
special exemption.
The Neutrality bill which passed the
House without dissenting vote in 1865
contemplated several deviations from the
act Of 1873. We single ont the most impor.
tant Of them as o specimen -
SECTION lO.-And DO Il furtncr enacted, That moth.
Ing In this any other existing law shall DO
construed to prohibit citizens Of the United Statos
from selling vessels, ships or steamers built within
the limits thereof or materials or munitions OF war;
tho growth product OF the same 70 i0habtants OF
oher countries or TO governments not ~ war with the
United States PROVIDED that the operation OF this
section or this shall BIO suspended by tbs Presi-
don't with regard 10 any oasscs OF purchasers wncn-
ever or wherever the maintenance OF friendly rela-
tions with any foreign may 10 his Judgment
Quire u
This great innovation and the other less
important though considerable innovations
on the act of 1918, which were proposed by
that bill, were justified in vigorous speech
by the chairman of the Committee on For
eign Relations, who had the bill in charge.
ssThe purpose and object Of this bill, he
said, sis to modify our statutes to CORE
spond with those Of Great Britain to place
them upon level with those Of other gov
A. n,k
MS far as possible, oil the privileges
necessary to the full development
and prosperity and power of the country,
and which may not conflict with the rights
of other governments" There was minor
ity report of the Committee on Foreign
Relations, signed by Mr.. Raymond and Mr..
Patterson, but neither Of these gentlemen
voted against the bill, Mr.. Patterson vot-
ing for it and Mr.. Raymond abstaining from
voting All That the minority report ad-
vocated was more delay for more mature &C
ton, the necessity for q thorough re-
vision of the law of 1918 being
fully conceded by them Mr.. Raymond
proposed joint committee Of both
houses ITO report what legislation is neces-
sary to secure to the people of the United
States the rights enjoyed by other nations !:
to secure the largest liberty Of intercourse
and trade consistent with permanent peace,
and to harmonic the statutes of the United
States upon this subject with those Of other
nations and with the progressive spirit Of
the age" This language conceded that the
law of 1918 is unjust to our people and
their commerce and behind the spirit Of
the ago. That restrictive statute was unani-
mously condemned by the House of Repre-
sentatives, and the bill for superseding it
would doubtless have passed the Senate had
time enough remained to oct upon it ct that
session.
Mr.. Orth, in arguing against Mr.. Ray
monds proposal Of joint committee,
said:--"Whenco the necessity of referring