New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1885-05-04
AMERICAN COMMERCE IN CASE OF WAR'

AMERICAN COMMERCE. IN CASE oi "N
aome enthusiastic advocates OF free ships are
calling loudly for legislation which VIII enapie
Tho Un;ted States to seize the opportunity OIL
fered by a probable war between Engianu
and Russia to further our shipping interests
and reoain at least part of the carrying traue
which is now monopolized by England. ANY
Ieoslation which will infuse fresh lie ln'o
American shipyards will be welcomed anu
sunported by all parties, but these tree-traders'
beside fundamentally misapprehending the
means by which this can be DONE seem a1So ~
misunderstood the present SITUATION anu W
forget some important historical facts. iney
talk rather loosely about the protection which
the neutral flag Of the United states
wonld afford English goods against nus
sian cruisers. Some writer's even contem-
plate the possibility that Russia may issue
letters of marque to privateers. In the same
way they appear to think Russian trade under 7
orr flag could pursue its course without fear OF
LET or hindrance from British men-oi-
war. All these hopes are built up
without reference to the fact that al
though both England and Russia are
parties to the treaty of 1856, by which enemies
goods are exempted from capture under the
flag of neutral vessel, the United states re-
fused to enter into that convention anu cam
therefore. claim none of the advantages when
il comedies to neutrals The same treaty ue-
clares that privateering Is ana remains
abolished. Those, therefore, who make capi'al
out of the fancied protection which our nag
would afford to the goods of either Delilgereht
against the enemys cruisers reckon WITHOUT
tbo;r host Russia cannot issue letters OF
maroue without violating treaty oDugatiohs'
and the English navy Is powerful enough to
nrotect Englands carrying trade against any
regular maritime force that Russia can muster.
As this country has no rights as neutra
upder the treaty of 1856, our relations with
the belligerents III the event OF war must De
determined by the somewhat unsettled princl-
niles of international law upon The question oil
neutral commerce. Until the Crimean war
England held tenaciously to the principle
that neutral flag did not protect
an enemy's goods, and If she should enforce
the rule against American vessels, we could not
complain, for so high an authority as Chlh-
cellor Kent distinctly sustains 1t as having
"been explicitly incorporated In the Juiis'
" prudence of the United States and de-
clared by the Supreme Court 10
abe founded on the law of nations"
Whether or not Russia would insist upon en-
forcing her full rights against our ships Is more
doubtful, for the Empress Catherine, as the
head of the armed neutrality of 1850, was tho
first sovereign to proclaim the principle that
free ships make free goods, and since her time
Russia has been inclined to recognize this
maxim as binding.
Those therefore who are clamoring for an
extra session of Congress in order that we may
grasp the opportunities that are supposed TO DC
within our reach, would do well to consider
that England is quite capable Of protecting
her own commerce against Russia's regular
navy, and that in the event OF war Russia
would choose to give her carrying trade to some
nation which, being party to the Treaty oil
Paris, could give her goods the complete pro-
lection of a neutral flag.