The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1897-10-25

COntThCt Nhi'h H'me Americans have made for the
purchase OF 10000 guus, is TIA ,ed ON true principles.
one cannot require from a state Inn, II sh,n,a NOT sell
the produce OF its industry; the trcAtlrs which have
distinguished between prohibited merchandise and
merchandise the circulation OF which should not be
Intercepted by war, have never Obliged tho contract.
ing parties not to sell arms or other munitions of
war. II Is for those having an Interest that they
should not roach their enemy TO take stems 10 inter.
cept them on their way.
Early in It's, after the capture of BurGoyne
at Saratoga had clearly demonstrated the ability
Of tho Americans TO maintain their indie
pcndence, France recognized the United states
as free and Independent States. This WINS i'm
mediatcly followed by the recall OF tho British
Minister, and open hostilitics soon ensucd. In
l11o the French Court issued a manifesto to the
Courts OF Europe explaining and justifying its
course, in which occurs the following statement:
His Majesty plainly informed the King OF England
that he did not pretend to 10 the Judge OF his quarrel
with his former colonies. and that It was not for him
10 avcnge 1t; that consequently no obligation was I'm.
posed upon him to treat tho Americans Hs rebels. or
TO exclude them from hs ports, aud least ~ all TO pro.
hibit hs subject, from all commerce and every kind
OF Intercourse with them.
In reply to this manifesto tho British Court
issued the "Mcmoiro Justifcatif." It. was
written by the historian Gihbon, and was a
scathing arraignment OF the conduct Of France.
1t was answered by Gerard dc Iiuynoval, Do
Fergcnnes's secretary, on behalf Of tho French
Government, In "A paper entitled Observation
sur lc MGmoirc Justilcatif do la Cour do Lon.
drcs." in which he discusses extensively and
In detail the British grievances. Mr.. Robinson
OF the library of the Department OF State has
called my attention TO a translation Of this
paper, published in Philadelphia in 1881. 1t
was presented by Justice A. ID. Hagncr OF tho
supreme Court of tho District of Columbia to
the state Department, together with n letter
from Ca eb Gushing OF July z, 1881, in which
Mr.. Cushing says OF it:
II is really a very valuable document. Icannot
ind any other copy here In Washington. The memoirs
which 1t contains are of tho highest possible his
torical and Juridical value. The English memoir was
written by Edward Gibbon. The several memoirs
constitute the first example and precedent of regular
discussion Of the srrat question, Under what cir
cunistances may a neutral Government recognize the
independence OF the rebels or seceders of another and
a friendly Government? '
This testimony Is the moro valuable because
Mr.. Gushing, in his capacity OF counsel for the
United States under the Treaty Of Washington,
had thoroughly examined the authorities on this
same subject.
The following extract from these "Observa-
lions sets forth the rights Of neutral nations.
and their relations to belligcrents; and yindi-
Gates the policy Of the French Government in
maintaining a free commerce with the Amcri-
cans. upon principles now generally recognized,
and which arc as applicable to-day to the Cuban
revolution as they were then to our OWN:
In time Of war. commerce may be divided into two
branches: the first comprehends innocent merchan.
discs. the second has for its object merchandise
known under the name OF military contraband.
Nations which embrace the part OF neutrality con.
tinue with entire liberty the first species of commerce
win the beiiiGerent parties; but the second Is prohib-
lied; the merchandise may be intercepted and con.
nscated, according to the regulations prescribed.
either by usage or by treaties. In Considering both
the one and the other, 1t will be found. not tina, a
commerce In articles denominated contraband breaks
the neutrality, but that the individuals W no venture
upon II expose themselves to simple cou6scnt,on
such Is the law which has existed on this subject be.
tween France and England; it Is stated In the nine
teenth article Of the Treaty OF Utrecht, From the
stipulations OF this treaty, It results that the King was
not obliged to prohibit to his subjects. in reference to
America either the commerce OF innocent Inerchnn.
discs. or that OF contraband. and that the only obll.
CATION they imposed upon him was not to protect this
latter species of commerce,
To place this truth in its full light the United ststes
are to be considered under two different points or
view. to wit: As subjects of Great Britain and AS an
independent people. On the Erst supposit.on they
owe obedience TO the prohibitory laws OF the parent
state; they are forbidden all direct commerce with
any other country except England. But does this
prohibition which is purely municipal. extend to for.
elsncrsF las England the privilege OF prescribing
laws TO other nations Has she a right to prohibit a
Frenchman. a Dutchman. &C, to make shipments
FOR America II she has this right. she would
also have that of performing acts Of SOW.
ereignty over other nations. The prohlbitory
laws OF England cannot be I'm force but
within the limits of her sovereignty, and. II she
extends them further. she violates the public
security the liberty OF the seas. the Independence Of
Aa'ions' she does an injury TO all sovereigns. This 10
the way In which the Court OF London itself ex.
planned this matter. during the disputes which she
had with the Court OF Madrid. and which led to the
treaty OF Pardo. Thus. according to England herself
the prohibitory laws relating to America can have no
operation except within the vicinity Of the American
COASTS which. agreeable to received principles, is
deemed to make a part OF that continent. The result
Is that Great Britain has no right to stop at open sea,
and stiil less to conhscate, foreign vessels hound for
America, whatever lie their cargoes; and that she
cannot exercise this double right but In cases when
such vessels are so near the American coasts as to he
deemed within the territory OF Great Britain.
H. on the other hand. the Americans DO viewed in
the 'isht OF an independent nation. or II II be thought
better. as a nation with which England Is at war; in
that case neutral nations have no obligations to fulbl
but those imposed on them by usage or by treaties
THOSE which France ia bound to acknowledge are de.
fined In the nineteenth and twentieth articles ~ tbe
VI lHt
Treaty OF Utrecht. The regulations contained I'm these
articles authorize tho commerce OF innocent mer.
chahdisc. and they do not oblige the King To prohibit
his subjects to carry arms and warlike stores to the
enemies OF Great Britain. They simply declare that
In cases where vessels laden with this species OF
merchandise shall be met with. even at omen sea
they may be seized and a~djudged lawful prizes. So
that contraband cargocs 40 not affect the King; he IA
not Obliged 10 hinder them. and the only right granted
in this respect to England is that of connscation.
From these details It results, that in whatever
point OF view the Americans be regarded. England
cannot with justice require OF the King that he
should prohibit his subjects to trade with them. and
stu less that he should punish them for having dared
to do II.
IL spain persists In refusing to accept the in
prevention of tho United States to secure peace
to her and freedom to Cuba, we shall be called
on to decide whether we will follow the exam
pleof France in our Revolution, and O. ognize
the Cubans as belligerents, invite their com.
merce, and eventually acknowledge their indie
pondcnce, or adopt the policy of Portugal, and
denounce them as rebels and exclude them from
-a G-I MT