The Express. — 1866-05-18 (London, England)

DENMAN. It is on record that Commodore ROO ERN was ordered by his Government to observe a strict neutrality; but he states in his letter that he was ready to sink the Spanish flag-ship in order to prevent the bombardment of Valparaiso, if Admiral DENMAN would cooperate with him. We may safely presume he would not have done so without the consent of General Kurirsicx, the United States Minister to Chili, who, however, does not seem to have contemplated taking any part beyond protesting against the bombardment. Admiral Daxst.sx, in hie official report, negatives the assertion that he declined the co-operation of Commodore ROGERS, and, with all respect to the latter officer, we prefer to rely on the accuracy of our own countryman. But there is no reason why Commodore Reuss should not draw his own portrait, and here it is :  In offering to go beyond the letter of my instructions to observe a strict neutrality I acted upon the supposition that neutrality among the nations did not preclude all well directed efforts to keep the peace among them ; that as a peaceable citizen is not obliged to standby inert while another is suffering from the unlawful violence of a third person, but may justly interfere with force to prevent an infraction of the laws—a murder, for example—so a nation, witnessing the like disturbance among her sister nations, need not rest absolutely impassive, but with sincere neutrality might interfere with force if necessary to keep the operation of belligerents at least within the law for the protection of neutral persons and neutral property. I considered that Spain had lost her colonies under a stringent colonial policy and religious intolerance. In the course of time, encouraged by the more liberal laws of a state of freedom, foreigner's had been induced to settle in the country, and to embark their capital in commerce and other industrial pursuits. Towns bad sprung up along the coast, railroads had been built, and other material interests developed. Ideas as well as manufactures had been introduced, the wealth and intel. ligence meanwhile remaining with the foreigners. At last Chili had reached the goal in human progress, marked by the establishment of religious toleration, and now Spain, on a point of etiquette rather than from any great political end as I believe, proposes to burn the property and destroy the towns along the sea-coast as far as she sees At. Is it right that she should thus exercise her power of destruction, unrestrained, along the shores of this continent ? The mode of warfare which Spain proposes is terrible, but it seems to me such as will provoke private animosity rather than coerce national will, and, therefore, that it is not directed to its legitimate end, and, moss quently, that such warfare might be resisted. It is reported that when TALLEYRAND was Ambassador at this Court a lady having asked him the  meaning of non-interventionrhe rliffislis4`MactaultS " non-intervention eat un mot diplomatique et enig" matique, qui signifie a peu pres la meme chose " qu'intervention ;" and Commodore Roozas appears to have been of the Frenchman's opinion. Neutrality in his view was consistent with deciding that one of the belligerents was in the wrong, and thereupon attacking him. If a nation professing neutrality may interfere by force, and sink, burn, and destroy the ships of one of the parties to a war—what more remains to be done after a declaration of hostilities ? These political admirals and generals—who know better than the PRESIDENT, or the Secretary of State, or the Senate what the country ought to do, and are ready to do it, trusting to the people to " endorse" their action—have in times past been one of the greatest curses of the United States, and we must protest against any attempt to set them up as examples for our officers.  For the sake of justice it should be clearly understood that in no case can the inactivity of the British fleet, when outrages such as the bornbardment of Valparaiso are perpetrated, in the least degree lessen the responsibility of the perpetrators. It is not to be supposed that Great Britain sanctions every wrongful act which she could, but does not, prevent. Independent nations must answer for their own deeds and take all their consequences. The whole and undivided infamy of this business rests upon the Government of Spain. At the same time we believe that the English public is getting to think that something ought to be done by the combined action of the great maritime Powers to put an end to these repeated and unwarrantable Spanish expeditions, which are becoming a general nuisance.