Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

treaty stipulation, and that the parties to the treaty were desirous of having the matter placed upon a different, and, as they deemed it, a better basis. In either view, the treaties furnish no argument whatever against the positions assumed by Captain Wilkes. On the latter supposition, the treaties, so far from furnishing an argument against his proceedings, would, as between the United States and Great Britain, furnish very conclusive evidence in his favor.

So in relation to the intervention of France, and other powers of Europe, by the expression of their hopes that the United States would accede to the demand of Great Britain; and in reference also to M. Thouvenel's suggestion, that the seizure was erroneous, and that the United States would be in the wrong if they insisted upon holding the prisoners. The intervention was valuable as an evidence of courtesy and friendly relations between those powers and the United States, shown by the expression of their desire that we should not enter into a conflict with Great Britain in which they could not sustain our right on their principles. But unless it may be shown that their principles are those upon which Great Britain has acted toward the United States, or at least that they are the principles which at the time were the governing principles as between the United States and Great Britain, those interventions and representations can have no tendency to show the right or the wrong, as between the parties to the matter at issue.

This is made especially apparent by the despatch from M. Thouvenel to M. Mercier, which was read to Mr. Secretary Seward, in which M. Thouvenel argues the question upon the rules of law as they are held by France, and upon the stipulations of the treaties between the United States and France; whereas the principles maintained by France in relation to neutral rights are not acknowledged by Great Britain, and the United States have no treaty with her of the same character, in this respect, as they have with France.

So, again, in relation to the writings of foreign publicists. Although undoubtedly such writings are evidence of the principles of international law, the evidence may be limited to the usages and customs of some nations, and not of others. Such writings cannot avail as evidence in this case, unless they recognize the principles asserted by Great Britain, and assented to or acquiesced in by the United States. This is particularly true of M. Hautefeuille, who has made himself somewhat impertinently busy in reference not so much to the principles which govern the case, as in denunciation and vituperation of the United States. He disagrees with Wheaton, and rejects entirely the authority of Lord Stowell, whose character as å jurist has not only received, as we have seen, very strong commendation in this country, but the most of whose decisions were regarded as authoritative expositions of the rights of belligerents against neutrals long before M. Hautefeuille was even heard of here. It is certainly something more than modest assurance when M. Hautefeuille, ignoring the authority of a judge who has decreed the confiscation of milEons, perhaps, of American property, for violation of neutrality, and to whose decrees and judgments the sufferers and the government sulmitted, if not without a murmur, at least without a resort to arms for that cause,-ignoring also the fact that American publicists Lad lauded his great learning and eminent character, recognized his authority, and promul gated his principles as the governing, if not the best, principles of international law, — presumes to denounce the proceedings of Captain Wilkes, and to censure the United States because they have not conducted in relation to an English vessel according to his standard in regard to neutral rights.

[ocr errors]

It is perhaps not necessary to our present purpose, but we take occasion to say, that, upon any open question, not settled by agreement or consent between the two nations, but upon which each has maintained an opinion adverse to that of the

other, either has the right, at any time, to act upon the principle contended for by the other, and thus to express an assent to it, if there has not previously been something to show a withdrawal. This is the usual mode by which assent is given by implication, and in relation to such subjects it is sufficient if the assent is expressed when the occasion arises for it.

We proceed to inquire into certain principles of international law as held by Great Britain, and as recognized by the United States, their judicial tribunals and jurists, which may apply directly, or by analogy, to the case of the Trent.

The convenience or necessity of a belligerent has sometimes led to the violation of neutral territory, as in the case of the burning of the steamer Caroline within the limits of the State of New York; and the power of the belligerent has occasionally been sufficient to resist a claim for redress. In other words, the party committing the wrong, in the language which the London Times lately applied to Great Britain, has "fought it through," instead of doing justice. But such a course does not settle the principles which are applicable to future cases.

The main difficulties in determining the rights of the belligerent and the neutral have arisen in relation to the vessels of the latter navigating the open sea, which is the highway of all nations. It has been asserted by some, that a vessel on the ocean is to be regarded as a part of the territory of the government to which she belongs; but this position cannot be maintained, either in the nature of the thing, or according to the received rules of law. If there is any similarity between the two, it is only of a limited character. The term territory is sometimes applied to a vessel with the meaning merely that she is under the jurisdiction and laws of the nation to which she belongs, but with no intention to assert an immunity from search and seizure of the ship for violation of neu

So, again, in relation to the writings of foreign publicists. Although undoubtedly such writings are evidence of the principles of international law, the evidence may be limited to the usages and customs of some nations, and not of others. Such writings cannot avail as evidence in this case, unless they recognize the principles asserted by Great Britain, and assented to or acquiesced in by the United States. This is particularly true of M. Hautefeuille, who has made himself somewhat impertinently busy in reference not so much to the principles which govern the case, as in denunciation and vituperation of the United States. He disagrees with Wheaton, and rejects entirely the authority of Lord Stowell, whose character as a jurist has not only received, as we have seen, very strong commendation in this country, but the most of whose decisions were regarded as authoritative expositions of the rights of belligerents against neutrals long before M. Hautefeuille was even heard of here. It is certainly something more than modest assurance when M. Hautefeuille, ignoring the authority of a judge who has decreed the confiscation of millions, perhaps, of American property, for violation of neutrality, and to whose decrees and judgments the sufferers and the government submitted, if not without a murmur, at least without a resort to arms for that cause, -ignoring also the fact that American publicists had lauded his great learning and eminent character, recognized his authority, and promulgated his principles as the governing, if not the best, principles of international law, - presumes to denounce the proceedings of Captain Wilkes, and to censure the United States because they have not conducted in relation to an English vessel according to his standard in regard to neutral rights.

It is perhaps not necessary to our present purpose, but we take occasion to say, that, upon any open question, not settled by agreement or consent between the two nations, but upon which each has maintained an opinion adverse to that of the

other, either has the right, at any time, to act upon the principle contended for by the other, and thus to express an assent to it, if there has not previously been something to show a withdrawal. This is the usual mode by which assent is given by implication, and in relation to such subjects it is sufficient if the assent is expressed when the occasion arises for it.

We proceed to inquire into certain principles of international law as held by Great Britain, and as recognized by the United States, their judicial tribunals and jurists, which may apply directly, or by analogy, to the case of the Trent.

The convenience or necessity of a belligerent has sometimes led to the violation of neutral territory, as in the case of the burning of the steamer Caroline within the limits of the State. of New York; and the power of the belligerent has occasionally been sufficient to resist a claim for redress. In other words, the party committing the wrong, in the language which the London Times lately applied to Great Britain, has "fought it through," instead of doing justice. But such a course does not settle the principles which are applicable to future cases.

The main difficulties in determining the rights of the belligerent and the neutral have arisen in relation to the vessels of the latter navigating the open sea, which is the highway of all nations. It has been asserted by some, that a vessel on the ocean is to be regarded as a part of the territory of the government to which she belongs; but this position cannot be maintained, either in the nature of the thing, or according to the received rules of law. If there is any similarity between the two, it is only of a limited character. The term territory is sometimes applied to a vessel with the meaning merely that she is under the jurisdiction and laws of the nation to which she belongs, but with no intention to assert an immunity from search and seizure of the ship for violation of neu

« AnteriorContinuar »