Year: 1869

bllcu III lLC lCSdl pOorSoSiOh VI


bondholders;n and the same authority


adds: "These claims will be brought


indifferently with Others, before th'
designed joint commission wheneYel
it shall sit" From another quarter


learn that these bondhOlders are "very
sanguine of success under the treaty a


it is wOrded, and certain it is that the


loan went up from nothing to ten a:


soon as il was ascertained that the


treaty was signed" / doubt if the


American people are ready just now


to provide for any such claims. Thai


they have risen in the market is an


argument against the treaty.


Passing from the treaty, 1cOmenOW


to consider briefly, but with proper


precision, the true ground of com.


plaint; and here again we shall see


the constant inadequacy of the RENE
DIV now applied. tits with reluctance


that enter upon this statement, anC


1 do it only in the discharge of duty


which cannot be postponed ClosC


upon the outbreak of our troubles, just


one month after the bOmbardment o.


Fort Sumpter, when tine rebellion was


still undeveloped, when the national


government was beginning those gi'


gantic efforts which ended so trum'


phantly, the country was startled by


the news that the British government


had intervened by a proclamation


which accorded belligerent rights tC


the rebels. At the early date when


this was done, the rebels were, as


they remained to the close, without


ships on the ocean, without prize


courts or other tribunals for the ad-


ministratiOn of Justice on the ocean,


without any of those conditions which


are the essential prerequisites to such


a concession; and yet the concession


was general, being applicable TO the


ocean and the land, so that by British


fiat they became ocean belligerents as


well as land belligerents. In the


swiftness of this bestOwal there was


very little consideration for friendly


power; nor does it appear that there


was any inquiry into those conditions


precedent on which it must depend.


Ocean belligerency being "fact, u and


not a principle, can be recognized


only on evidence showing its actual


existence, according to the rule first
stated by Mr.. Canningand afterwards


recognized by Earl Russell. But no
such evidence was adduced, for it did


not exist and never has existed. Too
much stress cannot be laid upon the
rule that belligrency is a "fact" and
not principle" 1t is, perhaps, the
most important contribution to this
discussion, and its original statement,
on the occasion of the Greek revolu-
ton, does honor to its author, unques-
tiOnably the brightest genius ever di-
rected to this subject. According TO
this rule belligerency must be proved
to eXist-it must be shown. 1t can
not be imagined or OWNED or invent
ed; it must exist rs a "fact" within
the knowledge of the world, or at least
as ''fact' susceptible of proof Nor
can it be inferred on the ocean merely
from its existence on the land. From
the beginning, when God called the
dry land earth and the gathering of
the waters called He seas, the two
have been separate and the powerover
one has not necessarily implied power
over the other. There is a dominion
of the land and a dominion of the
ocean. But whatever power the reb-
DOccCcSCN Oll lllC LllCN NGIt
always without power on the ocean.
Admitting that they were belligerents
on the land, they were never bellig-
erents on the ocean.


The oak Ieviathans. whose huge ribs make
OF lord OF thee and arbiter OF war;


these they never possessed. Such
was the "fact" that must govern the
present question. Therule, so simple,
plain and Ineligible, as stated by
Mr.. Canning, is decisive touchstone
of the British concession, which,
when brought to it, is found TO be
without support. Unfriendly in the
p'ecipitaney with which it was
launched, this concession was more
in substance. 1t was the
first step in the depredations ON our
Had il not been made no
rebel ship could have been built in
Every step in her building
would have been piracy. Nor could
any munitions of war have been
The direct consequence
of this concession was to place the
rebels on an equality with ourselves
in all British markets, whether Of
ships or munitions of war. AS these
were open to the national govern
ment, so were they open to the
rebels. The asserted neutrality be-
tween the two began by this tremen-
dous concession, when rebels, at one
stroke, were transformed not only
into belligerents but into customers.


The only justification that l have
heard for this extraordinary conces-
sion, which unleashed upon our
country the furies of foreign war to
with the furies of rebell-
ion at home, is that President Lincoln
to proclaim a blockade of
the rebel ports. By the use of this
word blockade the concession is
Had President Lincoln
proclaimed a closing of the rebel
ports, there could have been no such
This is a mere techin-
cality. Lawyers might call it an dper
iuris; and Yet on this sharp point
England b3gs her defense. 1t is
sufficient that in great case like the
present, where the cOrrelative duties
Of a friendly power are in question,
an act fraught with such portentOus
evil cannot be vindicated on a techn-
icality. In this debate there is no
room for technicality on either side.
We must look at the substance and
find a reason in nothing short of
Over-rulling necessity. War cannot
be justified merely on technicality
nor can the concession of ocean bel
ligerency to rebels without port or
prize court. Such a concession, like
war itself, must be at the peril of the
nation making il.


may add that there is one other
word often invoked for apology. 1t
Is neutrality which, is said, was
proclaimed between two belligerents.
Nothing could be fairer, always pro-
vided that the neutrality" proclaim
ed did not begin with concession to
one party, without which this party
would be pOwerless. Between two
nations, both independ-
ent, as between Russia and France,
there may be neutrality; for the two
are already equal in rights, and the
proclamation would be precisely equal
in its operation. But where one
party is an established nation and the
other is nothing but an Odious COM
bination of rebels, the proclamation
is most unequal in operation; for it
begins by a solemn investiture of
rebels with all the rights of war,
saying to them, as was once said TO
the youthful knight, "Rise here is a
sword use it." To call such an in
a proclamation of neutrality
Is a misnomer. 1t was a proclama-
ton of equality between the national
government on the one side and rebels
on the other, and no plausible word
can obscure this distinctive character.


1900 Az H,,flls