The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1878-05-28

| ships and ornaments in the United States
and man the ships here with her seamen,
| ought not to be confused with the question
| selves in relation to the Alabama and other
cruisers fitted out in British ports for Con-
federate use during our late war.
In the latter case the question was, What
are the duties of neutrals toward bellig-
erents Did England fall short OF her
duty as q neutral nation when she allowed
the Alabama, Shenandoah and other vessels
to be built, fitted, armed, and manned in
her ports, and despatched from them to
operate against the United States, a
friendly nation The question now raised
in relation to our course in selling ships to
Russia, is an entirely different one; and
it is important that the difference should
be understood. 1t is the question, "When
do neutral duties begin p
neutral" according to Webster, is "a
person or nation that takes no part in a
contest between others" The correctness
of this definition is constantly though in
cidentally recognized in the decisions IN
this as well as in other civilized countries
as to the duties of neutrals. In order that
there shall be neutral nation there must
first be two or mere belligerent nations
there must be war. and war between recog-
nized nations, in which the neutral nation
means to take no part. So far there is no
contention, except that arising out OF con-
fusion of neutral duties with those of gov
eminent to prevent the departure from its
ports of ships or forces at the instance
and for the use Of rebellious subjects or of
lawless marauders, to commit hostilities
against nation with which it is at peace.
But this duty to prevent the departure OF
illegal and piratical expeditions is not that
of neutral ut all it is an Office Of friend
ship and Of security between nations AS
between ourselves, for instance, and Spain
and her Cuban insurgents, we had
no neutral duties to perform; there
was no war in the international
sense but If our government had
conceded belligerent rights to the insurgents
in Cuba, which is quasi recognition, then
we should have had 'neutra" duties i'm
posed on us. Until then the acts Of the
insurgents were. SO far as this government
is concerned, illegal; and 80 regarding
injury her insurgents might infict on us;
and we prevented the outfit Of expeditions
by or for the insurgents in our ports, as law
less In similar case the Supreme Court
held in 6 Wheaton, the case of the Nueva
Anna and Liebre, that "the United States
not having acknowledged the existence
of Mexican republic or State at war with
Spain, the Supreme Court does not recog-
nize as legal any acts done under the flag
and commission of such republic or State.
1t follows that, while we are bound at all
times to prevent the departure from our
shores or boundaries of illegal marauding
expeditions designing to commit hostilities
against Great Britain, Russia, or any other
nation with which we are at peace, we are
not called on, while peace between Great
Britain and Russia remains unbroken, to
refuse to sell to either Of these recognized
governments any product ofours which they
desire to buy. If a Russian subject, acting
in his private capacity, should attempt to fit
out q ship or on expedition here with the
purpose of committing hostilities against
British subjects, no doubt the Secretary of
State would stop the sailing Of such ship,
just as he stopped the sailing Of the Estelle
some months ago because marauding, fill
clustering, private war, are always illegal.
But when the Russian government, ut q
time when it is at peace, sends its agents
here to buy Of US ships, arms, or what not,
1 -.
which our government has no right to inter-
fere, and, we venture to say, will not inter-
fere. 1t is probably because the Russian gov
eminent recognized this distinction, and was
careful not to offend ours by violation Of
international good faith, that it sent hither
not private persons, but regularly commits
stoned officers Of its navy and regularly en-
listed scamen, to take possession Of such
ships as it might purchase. We will add
that il our government, under the circum-
stances--no war existing between Russia and
Great Britain, though it is threatened-had
offered to forbid the purchase of ships and
other articles hcre by the Russian govern
ment, they might justly have complained
that our act was not friendly but inimical-
the act not Of an impartial nation, but OF an
ally OF Great Britain.
In short, the building, arming, equip
ping and despatch OF ships in our ports in
time Of peace for recognized government
ore which has the responsibility OF that
character among nations, and cannot, with
out offence, be supposed to intend maraud-
ing or illegal hostilitics-must be Tree and
unobstructed These acts arc operations of
commerce they are under the law OF peace
until war begins. Ii decisions in our courts
10 this effect are not found il is because the
question has not been raised it has been
taken for granted that our people had the
free right to sell the products Of their skill