Concluding obser- "of the Foreign Enlistment Act is to prohibit a breach vations. "of allegiance on the part of the subject against his own sovereign, not to prevent transactions in contra"band with the belligerents." In the teeth of all this, in his letter of September 9, 1863, referring to "the iron-clads supposed to be in 66 course of construction for the Confederate Govern"ment," he says, "Whatever doubt or difficulty there "may be with respect to the animus of the shipbuilder, "there can be none whatever as to that of a belligerent 66 government which effects or intends to effect such a "purchase! On their part, it is indisputably a bellige"rent and not a commercial intent," and he counsels diplomatic action against the prime movers in the affair. What, in the name of common sense, can he mean? What other object can a belligerent be supposed to have than a belligerent in contradistinction to a commercial intent. If that renders the dealings of the neutral void or illegal, is it not fatal to his unequivocally enunciated doctrine that the subject may sell a ship of war, as he may a musket, to either belligerent with impunity? What becomes of his unqualified dictum that the Foreign Enlistment Act does "not limit or control the absolute "freedom of neutral commerce," nor "prevent trans"actions in contraband with the belligerent?" He who manfully insists that the law should be respected, and "that the errors of false teaching are "immediate and most disastrous," after laying down the law with the firmness of a Solon, is the first to set it at nought. He maintains "the absolute legality of all manner of trade within the neutral territory and the "absolute irresponsibility of the neutral government for the 46 *The Times, September 11, 1863. vations. "traffic of its subjects, whether in the sale or transport of Concluding obser"contraband;"* and yet, in the face of this, he fixes a charge upon the Confederate Government, in trading with the neutral, "of deliberately procuring the con"summation of an act which our law has solemnly "forbidden," and counsels interference "and remon"strance with the offending state" in respect of "the "iron-clads supposed" to be for them.† Supposed! How unwary this in comparison with the grave caution of the learned Solicitor-general, who deprecated interference except " on evidence, and not on suspicion." Not satisfied with this, "Historicus" in the same letter imputes to the Confederates, on the suggestive guess of Mr. Dayton, that their "main object is not "so much the direct possession of these formidable 66 weapons of war, as the indirect mischief which their "construction may produce between the Government "of this country and the United States," as if there were no sufficient reason, on the part of the Confederates, whilst engaged in war, to possess an arm of offence in which their enemy abounds, without travelling out of the realms of probability to attribute to the South any other motive than that which, under the circumstances, is most natural-viz., the desire to obtain those essential instruments of war in which they are most deficient. Nor is he more felicitous in his assumption of parallel Inaptitude of assumed parcases to support his novel theory. "If, for instance," allel case. 66 he says, In the first place, this is begging the question; * The Times, December 25, 1862. vations. Concluding obser- because if he were right in his doctrine, that trade between belligerents and neutrals in the neutral territory is not unlawful, no evasion of or fraud upon the law is practised. Secondly, it is the every-day practice for foreign subjects to evade and defraud our revenue laws, but the penalty is confiscation of the contraband articles seized, and fine or imprisonment, on personal prosecution and conviction of the individual smuggler, -not diplomatic or any other action against the government of the offender. Such a thing was never heard of as a remonstrance to the French or any other government because a subject of that government had been guilty of a violation of our revenue laws. Herein consists the only analogy between the two cases, and it tells against his argument, the government of the neutral country not being answerable to the belligerent for the individual acts of the subjects, any more than the government of one foreign country is for evasions by its subjects of the fiscal laws of another. No one has insisted on this more strenuously than " Historicus" himself; and if that which he has so ably contended for in his earlier essays is law, the interference he suggests is in diametrical opposition to that law, and in direct violation of that non-intervention or impartial neutrality which this government has elected to observe. That it is the law is vouched by the abundant authorito evidence. ties which he quotes, whereas not a paragraph in his recent letter is supported by a single reference to a case in point. "6 Historicus" affirms that "evidence very far "short of that which might suffice to convict the ship"builder of a violation of the Foreign Enlistment Act, "would justify our Government in treating the Con"federate authorities as persons procuring, or meditating "to procure, a breach of its spirit and its letter;" but Dangerous sumption as as vations. he is very dreamy as to the application of a legal Concluding obserremedy, though he who counsels more than negation of the laws he has ably maintained before, in order to appease the unjust anger of the Federals, lest it should embroil us in war with them, is less chary as to hostilities with the Confederates, in case his dubious expedient of calling them to account should fail: for, says he, "if asked upon what evidence and in what 66 manner we should proceed, I answer as to the " evidence That the passing of the ironclads into the "hands of the Confederate Government, whether directly or indirectly through some colourable trans66 fers, would be sufficient proof that the whole transac"tion was one originated and instigated by them." Well! it would then be too late to detain them, if liable to detention in the face of his own doctrine that the transaction of sale and purchase of contraband of war by a neutral subject to a belligerent in the neutral state is perfectly lawful. So this questionable mode of proceeding being gone, and the evidence of possession by the Confederate Government obtained, still reticent as to the fact that if the sale and purchase were lawful, the consequent possession must be lawful too, he says, "As to the measures of redress, they would consist in all Doubtful "those acts of reprisal, and if necessary, of hostility by "which an offended government vindicates its violated sovereignty." Strong measures these! Even if the law were, as he has recently sought to make it, doubtful, would he counsel the same course, under similar circumstances, were France and America, or France and Russia, the belligerents? and if he did, would not the Government of this county, professing neutrality between the conflicting parties, hesitate to follow such advice? If so, is it either dignified or politic, assuming แ mea sures of redress. vations. Concluding obser- that it could in this case be done with comparative impunity, to venture upon an expedient which might hereafter be drawn into an inconvenient precedent? Again as to the evidence he deems sufficient-whatbe the fact, the proof is difficult of attainment if the parties are driven to concealment. As necessity is the mother of invention, so distress in war is the parent of the twin sisters strategy and evasion. Difficulty of detection. tory laws. ever may A nation fighting for life and liberty cannot be expected to be overscrupulous as to the means of procuring the indispensable implements of war, nor the less so when a government, under the guise of neutrality, accords to the adversary that which is denied to her. She finds in this additional motives to circumvention, and justifies it from a conviction, right or wrong, which prejudice strengthens, that she is only surmounting difficulties unfairly thrown in her way. It may be asked how she will do this. cus To those who are better acquainted than "Histori" with the wiles and artifices of the smuggler, and the difficulties of detection and punishment, a hundred Evasion the re- methods suggest themselves. Unsay the law which sult of prohibi- « Historicus" has so ably propounded, that such traffic is lawful, and the belligerent government will carefully avoid appearing in the transaction. His purchases, his contracts, will be made by agents, ay, by sympathizing aliens. The vender, eager for the lucrative profits incident to the circumstances of the case, will ask no questions beyond those upon satisfactory answers to which he can make sure of his price. If it be a ship, she will be made to comply with all the conditions of our fiscal laws which are essential to her due clearance from our shores. If a transfer take place after her departure, who will undertake to prove that it is colourable? |