612

AUTHORITIES: CLAIMS TO BE MET, NOT EVADED;

Cabinet, may cease to sympathize with the shelved exSecretary; meet the question of the times, fairly and squarely; being disposed and determined voluntarily to right the wrong, reaffirm their sovereign's good faith, disabuse the nation of any imputation of perfidy, by seeking to repair the injury done to a neutral and friendly state, with which England was and long had been at peace.

Other English authorities may be cited: as, The Haabat, 2 Ch. Rob. 174; The Twee Gebroeders, Alberts, 3 ibid. 162; The Twee Gebroeders, Northolt, ibid. 336; The Madonna del Burso, 4 ibid. 169; The Narcissus, ibid. 17; The Bremen Flugge, ibid. 90; The Rendsborg, ibid. 121; The Vrow Anna Catharina, 5 ibid. 15; The Anna, ibid. 373; and The John Patrick, ibid. n. 381; The Resolution, 6 ibid. 21; The Purissima Conception, ibid. 45; The Huntress, ibid. 104; Edw. 184, The Speculation; 1 Dods. 104, The Drummond; ibid. 245, The Eliza Ann; ibid. 413, The Diligentia; 2 Dods. 451, The Prins Frederick; 3 Hagg. 289, The King v. 49 Casks of Brandy.

Other American cases also may be cited: The William, 1 Pet. Adm. 12; Moxon et al. v. The Fanny, 2 ibid. 309; Darby v. Easton, 2 Dall. 34; The Experiment, ibid. 42; United States v. Peters, 3 ibid. 121; Talbot v. Janson, ibid. 133; M'Donough v. Danery, ibid. 188; Moodie v. The Phoebe Ann, ibid. 319; Talbot v. Seeman, 1 Cr. 1; Murray v. The Charming Sally, 2 ibid. 64; Jennings v. Carson, 4 ibid. 2; The Venus, 8 ibid. 253; The Brig Alerta and Cargo v. Moran, 9 ibid. 359; The Nereide, ibid. 388; The Liverpool Packet, 1 Gall. 513; The Commercen, 2 ibid. 261; The San Jose Indiana, ibid. 268; Maissonaire v. Keating, ibid. 325; The Arabella,

ADJUSTMENT, IF WELL HANDLED, A QUESTION OF TIME. 613

ibid. 368; The Flying Fish, ibid. 374; The Betsey, ibid. 377; The Antonia Johanna, 1 Wheat. 159; The Invincible, ibid. 238; The Commercen, ibid. 382; The George, ibid. 408; Dos Hermanos, 2 ibid. 76; The Friendschaft, 3 ibid. 14; The Atalanta, ibid. 409; The Anne, ibid. 435; Olivera v. Union Ins. Co., 4 ibid. 193; The Estrella, ibid. 298; La Amistad de Rues, 5 ibid. 385; The Bello Corunes, 6 ibid. 152; La Conception, ibid. 235; The Santissima Trinidad, 7 ibid. 283; and The Santissima Trinidad, 1 Brockenb. 478.

Now, having cited the authorities, presented the legal doctrines, and examined also the political views, which, at the present time, seem to be applicable in discussing either a general neutrality, or, under a declared neutrality, any alleged violation of neutral rights of a particular friendly nation, it is difficult to refrain from expressing both a sincere wish for a complete and final settlement of these national differences, and likewise a confidence that such a result is feasible. Having given the subject some thought and no little study, from a neutral point of view, the writer is persuaded, that there is no insuperable obstacle in the way of a seasonable and amicable adjustment. To accomplish so desirable an end, it would not, indeed, be wise to confide its negotiation and management to another Lord Russell. On the part of England, the more masterly method, and so her most sagacious movement, would be, to commission John Bright to proceed to Washington as ambassador, with plenary powers to arrange and adjust the Alabama and similar claims: or, in case any personal or political considerations specially forbid that particular selection, then, in the interest of peace, to substitute and depute some similar legate, with like

614

LORD RUSSELL STARTLES THE NEUTRAL WORLD.

powers, in behalf of Great Britain, to close the business. That done, the work, at the start, would be more than half accomplished; and ultimate adjustment, though a thing assured, would thereafter remain only a question of time. And, not to overlook the manly and independent bearing of Lords Stanley and Clarendon, this first official step, taken openly, would go far to disarm prejudice, and extract from the national heart of America that thorn so perversely implanted, through Mr. Adams, by Lord Russell. Hæret lateri lethalis arundo.

The wound caused to the Queen by the early removal of the Prince Consort during Palmerston's Premiership, could not have been deeper than was that inflicted upon the United States by the Foreign Secretary, Russell; a minister of modern times who, not having kept pace with the advanced amelioration of public law, has shocked the moral sense of the neutral world, no less by his puerile, yet defiant and sulky duplicity toward the United States, than by his clandestine and surreptitious perfidy toward his sovereign and bereaved Queen.

Public men should not forget that royal families may have strong affections, filial, conjugal and paternal, which will not permit them or any of their members to forgive an act of treachery or deceit. If the Queen's chosen seclusion be inexplicable, so are other matters. Wherefore the sovereign's early distrust of her minister's fidelity; or her awakened suspicions at Albert's death; or why was the Premier's presence in the same room so unendurable to his Queen; whence the gushing gratitude of members of the royal family for the few kind words of John Bright; why Bright is, and Russell is not now a Cabinet minister; why do the Tories taunt

NO DECLARATION OF NEUTRALITY POSITIVELY NEEDED. 615

Gladstone with belonging to the Bright Cabinet; why, after Albert's decease, did secession influence become dominant in Downing Street, and Rebel cruisers escape from English docks and harbors, without molestation or restraint? All these, and other unsolved queries are indeed, at present, historical enigmas. Solve them now, or let any student of history rise up and remove, if possible, the mystery from the Man in the Iron Mask, then may the secret of the Queen's seclusion, and the wrongs of the United States, be fully revealed.

While the minister's personal motive or inducement for duplicity of conduct concerns not the claimants; yet the animus betrayed by him officially in acts of omission, or implied by overt acts of commission, contribute essentially to constitute the gist of the national offense and injury complained of.

Neutrality then, as has been seen, may be general or natural, as contradistinguished from a particular or declared neutrality. A declaration of neutrality, unless for special reasons, is a wholly superfluous act; and had better be omitted. The true neutral is and remains neuter, without making any declaration; while, by making it, specific duties may be thereby imposed or are voluntarily assumed, the non-observance of which might subject the declaring state to the suspicion, and possibly to the just imputation of bad faith.

In matters of prize, the legal effect of a condition of war should be thoroughly comprehended. The relations of neutrals and belligerents should be familiar to those who appear in prize courts. in prize courts. In England, this is pecu

616

CONCLUSION OF PRIZE.

liarly true, as the doctors of the civil law make that business a specialty. He, therefore, who in the United States proposes to practice in prize courts professionally, should make himself complete master of the great principles of international law, if he desire to render his practice profitable to himself or useful to the court or his clients.

First. He should accurately understand, how persons or property are affected generally by a state of war, during the existence or continuance of hostile relations :

Second. Also the national character of neutrals and belligerents, in order the better to define their precise duties and rights, in reference to persons and property, as affected by an assumed condition of neutrality:

Third. To what extent, by a just exercise of the war rights of visitation, search, and detention, belligerents may seize and confiscate persons and property, during

war:

Fourth. When and how far, by instituting a blockade, belligerents may prevent neutrals from interfering in a war, either for individual gain, or with intent to aid and comfort a belligerent enemy:

Fifth. What may be deemed contraband of war; and where the right to seize articles, things, or persons, as contraband, may be lawfully exercised:

Sixth. When belligerent rights may be so waived, as to grant and issue licenses lawfully;

Seventh. Or so relaxed as to ransom and redeem persons or property:

Eighth. When recapture is effected under such peculiar circumstances, as to entitle the captor to salvage; and,

Ninth. How and upon what principles of statute,