The New York herald. [volume] (New York, N.Y.) 1920-1924, 1922-10-11
Is America to Disregard the Law
of Nations?

European comments on the Daugh-
erty opinion denying the right of for
eign vessels to carry liquor, even
under seal, in American waters indi-
cate amazement and resentment. In
France the Government is repotted to
be preparing protest to be sent to
Washington at once. In England
the shipping interests are aroused
and the prospects are that test will
be made for the purpose Of discover
ing whether the almost unbelievable
Daugherty, opinion is to be carried
out in fact by the Government of the
United States.
Some of the London newspapers
take businesslike view of the case
and suggest that the diversion OF
American passenger traffic to the
Canadian ports will solve the prob
lem to the satisfaction of European
travellers and Americans alike.
The business side of the matter,
however. appears to THE New YORK
HERALD to be of minor Importance
as compared with the gravity of the
violation of international law that
is proposed as a result of Attorney
General DAUGHERTY's opinion. Wash
ington stands in the position of hold
ing purely domestic law, law fun
damentally intended to apply only to
this country and its people, higher
than the ancient law of the nations
and the seas.
Has the United States an iota Of
ground on which to base its ukase
that the volstead act supersedes in
ternational law ip its application to
liquor which enters American waters
as ship stores or cargo but which is
not intended to be brought into this
country? Is there anything in the
history OF international relations
which justifies this Government in
attempting to nullify the old and gen.
orally accepted law of the seas? Tho
answer to both these questions is No.
More than that, our own diplomatic
history supplies complete refutation
of the Daugherty opinion.
The American brig Creole sailed
from Hampton Roads, Virginia. in
October, 1S41, bound for New Orleans
with cargo of slaves. After mutiny
and murder the Creole made the port
OF Nassau in the Bahamas, British
possession. The slaves that were not
concerned in the mutiny or the muir
der were set free by the British au-
thorities, on the ground that the laws
of Great Britain forbade slavery,
Parliament having adopted an act of
abolition in 1898.
planned to Washington that their
property had been confiscated from
an American vessel in foreign port.
The matter was submitted by the
Governments of the United States
and Great Britain to an umpire, Mr..
BATES. From his decision, which is
one of the many precedents in inter-
national law. let us quote the para
graph which is germane to the issue
of to-day:
II need not refer to authorities to
show that slavery. however odious
and contrary 20 the principles of
Justice and humanity. may be estab-
lished by law in any country; and
having been so established in many
countries. II cannot be contrary to
the law OF nations. The Creole was
on voyage sanctioned and protected
by the laws of the United states and
BY the law OF nations
In the same decision the umpire
declared specifically to England what
she could not do
-The municipal law OF England
cannot authorize a magistrate to vio-
late the law OF nations by invading
with an armed force the vessel of a
friendly nation that has committed no
ofrense"
The outcome Of the Creole case
was the payment of $110,330 by the
British Governments to the owners
OF the liberated slaves.
The law Of nations thus protected
IN American slave ship aga Inst the
abolition laws of Great Br tain be-
cause slavery still existed in the
world and particularly in tn nation
whose flag the Creole flew.
II international law coul, not be
set aside to strike at slavery in the
last days Of that curse WHO mag
ines that international la 4 can be