Year: 1861

ment has been dsallowel The world gener-


ally has refused to see in this disruption and


rcconstitutinn of the North American Republic
a NOR. rebellion. We have recognized both


Republics belligcrent States We declare
neutrality between them as between two war


ring Powers. We mcte ont a precise degree Of
equal consideration for the ships Of war Of each.


In everything but our diplomacy we bear our
selves exactly equal between them. Whenever
the Southern States shall have given proof of
such stability as may make it sure that they
can sustain their independence we shall doubt


less recognize them automatically as we already
90 de facto. This is the test applied 10y all


writers on international Law. TO support
claim to enter into the comfy of nations the
only proof required Of any people is that they
are able to make their independence respected


Kings and Emperors, and even Dukes and Elcc-
tors, have sometimes refused to recognize the
Government for the time being of England or


France or Italy, but only to their own ultimate
rldlcule. We have already recognized these
Confederate States as belligerent power, and


we shall, when the time comes recognize their


Government. Therefore we have imposed upon
ourselves all the duties and Inconvenience Of il
power neutral between two belligerents.


Unwecome as the truth may be, it is never
theless truth, that we have ourselves establish
ed system of International Law which now
tells against us. In high handed and almost
despotic manner, we have in former days claim
eel privileges over nentrals which have, at differ
ent times, banded all the maritime powers of
the world against us. We have insisted even
upon stopping the ships of war of neutral ma
tlons and taking British subjects out of them
an instance is given by jefferson in his "Me-
molrs IN which two nephews of Washington
were impressed by our cruisers as they were
returning from Europe, and placed as common
seamen under the discipline of ships of war
We have always been the strenuous asserters Of
the rights Of begerents over neutrals, and the
decisions of our courts of law, as they must now
be cited by our law officers, have been in con-
hrmatlon of these unreasonable claims, which
have called into being considerations and armed
neutralltles against US. and which have always
been modified in practice when we were not
supreme IN our dominion at sea. Owing to
these facts. the authorities which may be cited
on this question are too numerous and too uni
form as to the right of search by belligerent
ships of war over neutral merchant vessels to be
disputed.


"Ihe only security that nothing is to be found
inconsistent with amty and the law of nations,
known to the law of nations, said Lord Stowell,
In the celebrated case of the Maria sis the right
of personal visitation and search to be exercised


by those who have an interest in making it,"


Again, Lord Stowell, in the same judgment,


which is the storehouse Of all the English law
on this subject, says: "Be the ships, the car
goes, and the destination what they may, tha


right of visit and search are the incontestbe


right of the cruisers Of a befligerent nation Till


they are visited and searched it does not appear


what the ships or the destination are and it is
for the purpose of ascertaining these points that
the necessity of this right of visitation and search
exists. This right is so clear in principle that
no man can deny it who admits the right of
maritime capture; because, if you are not at
liberty to ascertain by sufficient inquiry where
there is property that can be legally captured,
it is impossible to capture. The many European
treaties which refer to this right refer to it as
pre-exsting, and merely regulate the exercise of
it. All writer's upon the law of nations unani-
mously acknowledge it." The great American
authority, Kent, treating upon the same subject
in bis Commentaries, says: THE duty of self
preservation gives to belligerent nations this
ri ghts. h6 doctrine OF the English Admiralty
on the limitation of the right, has been recog-
nized in its fullest extent by the Courts of JUS
tice in this country" So far as the authorities
go the testimony of International Law writer's
is all one way, that beligerent war-cruiser has
the right to stop and visit and search any mer-
chant ship upon the high seas.


We quote these authorities because it is essen
tial that, upon matter so important as that
now before us, the public mind should be we'll
But it must be remembered that
those decisions were given under circumstances
very different from those which now occur.-
Steamers in those days did not exist, and mail
vessels carrying letters wherein all the nations
Of the world have immediate interest were un-
known. We were fighting for existence, and
we did in those days what we should neither do
nor allow others to do, nor expect ourselves TO-
be allowed to do in these days. Moreover, II
we gave full scope to all this antiquated law It
remains still to be asked whether the men who
have been taken from beneath the protection of
our flag were liable to seizure. They were not
officers of the army or of the navy Of the Con-
federate States. They were diplomatic ENJOYS,
wanting only in some formalities to be Ambas-
sadors to England and France. We do not say
that there is any provision in the law of nations
which will entitle us to maintain that their per-
sons were sacred by reason of their mission;
but, on the other hand, we are not aware of any
authority which will show that these ENJOYS
were contraband of war. If we had recognized
the Confederate States we apprehend that we
should have been perfectly justified in taking
these Ambassadors on board our own vessels of
war and bringing them to England without any
way forfeiting our character as neutrals. But,
even if it were necessary to admit that these
gentlemen were in belligerent or contraband
character on board the English vessel, it is, we
believe, the opinion of every eminent jurist that
this was not question to be adjudicated on by
a naval officer and four boats crews. The legal
course would have been to take the ship itself
into port and to ask for the condemnation of the
passengers, in Court of Admiralty. The result
might, no doubt, have been the same, but if the
proceeding was irregular we have surely right
to demand that these prisoners shall be restored.


When such tremendous interests are at stake
we feel deeply the responsibility of discussing
question like this Our first duty is to calm
certainly not to inhame-the general indigna-
ton which will be felt in these islands as the
news is told. We cannot yet believe, although
the evidence is strong, that it is the fixed deter
mination of the Government Of the Northern
States to force a quarrel upon the Powers Of
klok Ia