The New York Herald Newspaper, September 24, 1856, Page 11

NEW YORK HERALD, WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, THE NEW MARITIME CODE. ‘The French View of Mr. Marcy's Franklin vs. Marcy=Threats te United States. {From La Presse, (of Paris) August 20.) answer > * the uame of 4 Cabi- net of Washington, by Becretary of State of the Valted’ States, im reply to the declara- tion of the Congress of Paris, on the subject of maratime law, has excited throug! Eu- rope a which was not shared on our part, for we anticipated such an answer. ft has aleo created a sensation which wil! be mach more sence Congres aba be fely understood. Of the Paris Co al under: 5 this the reader will be convinced, if he will take the trouble to read the following observations: — The answer in question contains at one, aud the same time, an obstacle pointed out, opposed to one of the most essential principles of the declaration of the Paris Congress, and a proposition put forward calculated to introduce a New progress in the general law of maritime warfare. ‘The obstacle stated in this answer, is, the refusal to adhere to the abolition of privateers. Che pro proposed is, the offer to make henceforth private 'y on eea as well a8 on shore secure from the chances of war. The United States deserves thanks for making this proposition a diplomatic question, but all the honor of doing so does not, as the Times supposes, belong to her. This doctrine of establishing an ity and uniformity in the practices and cus- toms used in war, both by sea and by lend, in re- of private property and persons, has been for y years past the State doctrine of France. As to the abolition of privateering, the English Revers have followed our Jead in remarking upoo skill with which a refusal is made to adhere to the declaration of the Congress of Paris of the 16th of April by the American government. The skill, however,-is not great enough to disguise other than in the most imperfect manner the weakness of the arguments on which the refusal is based. The United Stetes accept the second and third princi- ples of the declaration, which proclaim the rights and guarantee the privileges of neutral flags and property. As 4 the last of the four principles, viz: the future regulations to be observed in regard to blockades, quite a secondary importance is at- tached wo it the United States government, who can see’ no inconvenience in the sys- tem followed hitherto. The United States, however, accepts the regulations, but it deplores the fact that have been joined with the article which abolishes the custom of privateering. Also, the United States government fepiges. that the four principles have been made indivisibly—a cir- cumstance which will not (as is said in the answer) be accepted by the United States, nor by any second- ary maritime power, and will prevent a general ad- hesion to the declaration as a general !aw of nation- a) maritime right. In spite, however, of these opposing views of the United States, the declaration of the Congress of Paris of the 16th of April, 1856, will be admitted as the genera! law of Europe. The six Powers who have signed the act of Congress of Paris form ety by baeode ae : the Saaerasce us ir maritime ‘ion, a pretty large majority in its favor, and the adhesions which yet will be made will complete the work of making this acta law of ‘the civilized world. The United States will be left alone, to protest against the new maritime law, a law for which the interests of civilization loudly called. Now it would be easy todemonstrate, as we have already done before, that the United States, standing alone, will never be able bag eg this declaration of the of Paris m_ becoming a general mari- ‘time law to the whole civilized world—alaw stand- img epon the foundation of the. practical concur- rence and union of many States, as well as also upon the dictates of reason and public interest. A glance at the reasons given by the Washington Secretary of State in favor of keeping up the system of privaieering, (or filitustering—Tr.) will show at once the weakness of those reasons, whieh depend exclusively upon the selfish interests of the United States ment. Hitherto the custom of equip- eteers, has been an established custom, re- ized in the action of maritime nations. But dses that give it the support of the law of nations, as it has been progressively developed ever since the progress of modern civilization? Does that render the casto™ compatible with the essential principles which, among modern nations, establish the sove- reign rights of States in those matters which relate war: Can it be true, as Mr. Marcy asserts, that,the right of employing privateers in maritime warfare is as Sncontestible as the right of employing the regular wavy of the State? Is uot the right of making war an attribute to so- vereignty incapable of delegation and transfer? Is it not a privilege which a State cannot transfer from itself to i juals? We have already demonstated these axioms fully. ‘The practice of privateering existed among us until the present day—it was a part of our customs—but ‘we got it as the last remnant of the private wars of the middle ages. It is contrary to the fundamental pnaciples of the rights of war, and in the midst ef our modern civilization it is nothing better than legal- ized filibusterism or brigandage. This being the case, it is opposed to natural justice and law. Castom permitied it, but reason andthe iaterest of nations, —< understood, rejected it. Both philosophy region incessantly cry out against it. ‘The assent to the custom of sending forth os vateers in the wars between maritime nations not been so ananimous as the Secretary of the United States pretends. It is strange, indeed, that he should be the man to forget this fact. He may forget that Russia first set the example of abstaini from the in her war against Turkey in 176 up to 1774. He may forget that the O tutional Aneembly of France ‘imed at a later period the iple of its ition. But does he forget that United States can boast of having condemn- ed the custom, ina celebrated treaty, concluded by one of her greatest statesmen ? While we are on this subject we may be permitted another instance of a similar cnaracter, has made another sacrifice of x8 i. He says: polic w authorising this practice has yunen been called in question, but never any competent authority. How is this? Does he mean to say that Franklin, the author of the treaty of 1743, is not a competent authority for the nt Secretary of State of the United ? . Marcy quotes, in the contrary case, one of our commentators upon the Frenck Marine Ordinance of 1644; he even quotes authors of a modern French treatise upon prizes; it seems to us that none of these oj ing authorities it to have so much weight with him a the single authority of Franklin. Franklin not only negotiated the treaty of 1783, of marque, but he defended his notes tne and an found in Wheaton’s History of the Progress of ater- national Law, p. 233. But, leaving all these considerations, which Mr. Marc with rather too much self satisfac- tion, let us come to the reasons, true for once, but teen poppor of the poly of Keeping” up the ul in suj of ey ing uy e synem of privateering. ‘The chief of on Se Meee} is the interest which the United States have to con- tinue an institution by which they are able to cover in certain cases of weakness the inferiority of their own Pen we Lenn B pd es must aye Mr. Marcy's argumen' not destitute ic nor of foree, bat at the same time itis detective’ in cerity and frankness. The great extent of the mari- time frontier of the United States which has to be defended in the case of a war with England, and hor inferiority in naval power compat with that of England, demonstrates to this extent the need which the United States have of privatee: } @ need which is met in a wonderful manner by adven- durous disposition and habits of her population. The need is the greater, inasmuch as the United States can only oppose seventy-two men of war and 2,120 cannons to a naval force Of 51 men of war and 17,291 cannona. Now, it would douotless be a hard case for the United States to have to give up an institution which saves them the trouble of in- creasing a forces to such a vast extent On this t Mr. Marcy gives some sound reasoning. He bend pw the iad theta look upon exten- rive maritime forces as op to national prosp»- rity and civil liberty. By giving up the practice of employing privateers she would be compeiled in case of war to chenge ber fixed policy and to be- came, like the nations of old Europe, a military nation. Such a inge of policy would be a revolution endangering both the finances and the liberty of the nation. Now, all this may be true, but all this has reference solely to the United States, ‘and touches not the question at issne. None of this renders the custom just and legitimate, nor makes it to be more conformable to the principles of mo- dern civilization. But, more especially, all this is insufficient to prevent the maritime Powers of Ea- rope from putting an end to a practice contrary in itselt to the interests of humanity. It is in vain that the United States attempt to unite to their cause the small maritiine Powers. ‘The long argnment of Mr. Maroy, specially directed to them, is wholly without foundation. He supposes, in fact, a war to exist between the smaller maritime Powers avd the greater ones. Then, on this sup- position, he shows that the former could not com- ne) with the latter, if they were prevented from having recourse to privateering, while the others, having superior forces, would become masters of ali the commerce of their enemies. But what good could privateers do to an inferior maritime Power? In the late war. suoposing uhat Russia, abandoning her principles, had employed them, what advantage would they have been, without support, without yrceto fly to, without any netim 7 , Dwe ay wo Po sb ie be wold Wihivliy * gpade Wy dees Arey Ler, Powers but by coali- Now, thank God, powerfal adhesions to such a coalition would not be wanting, and the aid of privateers would not be necessary. Europe understands, as well as the United States, all the es @ maritime preponderance, aud is no more disposed than she is to suffer any Power in the world to itself of the dominion of the seas. All nations are equally interested in prevent- ing the establishment of such a preponderance, if apy one among them should seek to establish it. We shall endeavor tofshow, at another time, how such a danger is to be prevented, and it wil! be seen that something better can be done than haviog re- course to privateers. Thank God, the independence of nations, and the liberty of the seas, have a better foundation, and sater | pet tban the insti tion of privateers and filibusters, [From the Presse, Aug. 28.) The proposition which the governmen’ of th» United States opposes against the declaration o April 16 is prey viz: that “the proper course to make privateering ineffective, whether aggres- sively or defensively, would pe obtained by placiag private property beyond the interference of bellig- erent powers.” In order to make this proposition perfectly intel- ligible in all its bearings we must revert to certain general principles, and repeat certain facts which we have already laid before our readers. Since the great cenflict which, three years ago, brought up these high questions of maritime law, which have been in great part settled by the acts of the Congress of Paris, we have repeatedly called the pabite attention to the oppositions and contra- dictions derived from ancient customs to the modern law of nations in its application by sea or by land. By virtue ot the progress made since the middle ages in the principles of the laws of war, it is well understood that tke right of war, which is an essen- tial attribute of sovereignty, belongs solely to the State, and can only be exercised by it by means of regular forces, for the benefit of the State itsel’, and only against the forces, sa pone and goods of other States. Itis well known, however, that these prin- ciples of the laws of war have only been practically observed in continental warfare, and that in mar: r.time war the different States have hitherto kept up the ancient custom ot transferring to individuals, for their especial profit, the war rights of the State. thereby subjecting private property and innocent parties to all the dangers and chances of war. It was in vain that public opinion protested against this analomy, which is in opposition to the rules of general law, which admit fundamentally of no such contradictions, and which ought to be applied in ali cases of warfare in the same manner, so as to effect the same operation. This view of the case met with powerful support in the doctrines proclaimed at the commencement of the present century bythe French government. These doctrines were con‘ained in the celebrated decrees of 1506 and 1812, to which we bave often referred. Theold custom, however. con- tinued to prevail in spite of public opinion, Priva- teering was kept up, with all its cruelties, and thus the public forces of the State carried on by sea a war against private property as well as against pri- vate individuals who had no concern iu the war. This was still the prevailing custom of maritime warfare at the time of the breaking out of the Eastern war, three Peg ago,a custom which by its exercise threatened to bring on new maritime wars. Then it was we called attention to precedents and rinciples, and required that the allied Powers, hav- 1g respect to Eastern laws, should come to some agreement in order to solve the problem laid down in 1806 and 1812 by our first Emperor. This orobiem was the following, viz:——“ ace hencefort by sea as well as by land all honed and bona fide com- merce, all private property, and al! innocent indi- viduals, out of the reach of warlike operations.” (See the Presse, of March 29 30, 1854.) The first maritime manifesto, issued March 29, 1854, gave a sort of semi- faction to this demand of ours, Las rages provisionally the abolition of the prevailing maritime custom of pri- vateering. This provisional abolition the Congress ot Paris made final by its declaration of Fad the 16th. But all was not ac:omplished. fore, when afterwards we expressed our appro- bation at ae prone already attained, (vide La Presse, May 13, 1556,) we pointed out at the same time objects which still remained to be reached in order to effect the solution of the problem above mentioned. a solution which would render the appli- cation of the law of war uniform both by sea and land, in Pees | with the progress of civilization and the interests '. Here, then, the United States interpose, and pre- te sent the question in a di shape, making itiectof thelr ndheclon to tue meniferte ot 16th, condi April, that the ci which are, a3 we shown, a sort of State Rocteine with France, shou first be adopted. They recall to mind that these principles have been already recommended and pro. claimed by the United States, in the most uneguivo- “Tegal in the President’s Message of December » 1854. ‘We cannot but applaud this inter2osition of the United States, which will infallibly lead,in a very brief space of time, and, above all, with the concur- rence of France, to the solution of the great pro- blem which France may claim the honor of having been the first to d fifty years ago. The circular ot Mr. be a Secretary of State, supports by the most conclusive arguments the pro- ition of annexing this amendment to the mani- ane be Be oe < Pans. fhe rp seme had which the pro; are futile scpbietries and cakes neneoan. For example, the Morning Post is afraid that tts adop- tiem may produce as a result the perpetuation of maritime war, by setting private interests entirely free from danger in such wars. Now, at this rate, and if this argument ie worth apything, , wo euaet hy a means to re-establish as ‘kly as possible, and in all their extent, the an- cient laws of war, and again make private proper'; and inoffensive persons subject, even in continental! wars, to the most disastrous conditions. Now, the more full and complete the rights of belligeremts are made to be, whether by sea or by land, so much the more cruel are the ings of the people; so that the argument is,in one word, this, viz: that the more dread{ul and ruinous @ war is rendered, #0 mouch the shorter it will be induration. Now, what does this mean, butthat in order to attain a short eee ~. we must aes yee barba- it argument will not good; for the laws of war have been rendered milder on land and this has not led to an increase of its duration. not lasted longer than they formerly did have been less cruel than they former- Let us, then, do the same on the ocean. ify the severity of war; let us civilize it the ocean, and the effect will be the same, Thank God that the good of is not required to be sought for by increasing the amount of evil. e must confess, however, that the reception of ircalar of the American Secretary of State, and of the tion developed therein, has beea such in ‘Geghed ss to_meet with a tolerable amountof approbation. This has been the case to such an extent as to raise the hope that, ata time be received as a rule Bat in- asmuch as this adoption of the pi ition is not yet completed, we must not, in the meanwhile, ‘ive up the great proquase already realized by the Hy of the Keagrels of Paris. Mr. Marcy very justly observes in hie circular that when the Congress of Paris presoribed the course p r to be pursued in maritime warfare, and yet left private peoperty exposed to attack and seizure, it was stopping in the middle of the road. This is true, but we must not deny that if Congress bas thus gone only half-way, yet it has gone over the most rugged ond the most difficult half of the way. Mr. Marcy cannot mean seriously to assimi- Jate the irregular action of privateers, in wars be- tween nations, with the regular maritime forces ‘The ships-of-war of the State, and the regular forees in them, evidently afford guarantees of modera- tion, of discipline and of humanity, such as are not to be met with among privateer vessels. The offi- cers who command af @ guarantee of respect for legal warfare on their part, in many points, such as, for example, the dignity of their position, and their responsibility, and especially the superiority which the sentiment of honor inspires compared with the base and sordid motives of gain by which privateers are animated. Another guarantee of this kiod results to them from the authority they hold over the crew submitted to their orders; whereas the privateer will always be a» greata terior to neutrals as to the enemy; for he scuds along the sea for bis own ye gain, and with no ovher object but to enrich himeelf by plonder. In the midst of the solitary expanse gf tho wide waters, he 1 subject to no control which an restrain bin; his passions bave no other check over them than the vague recollection of a distant and impotent Legis- lnture. It cannot, then, be with serious intent that Mr. Marey cites past experience on this point, and main- taine that a State can always prevent such abuses. Past experience proves, on the contrary, that tue most severe legislative enactments have fallen nse- leas and inoperative aguinet the spint of gain which inapires the privateer. In France, numberless lawa —the ordinance of 1681, the regulations of 1778, the decree of the spring month, anno ll—all tend to prove both the inefficacy of the legislator, and the existence of the excesses which he vainly endeavors to restrain. We contot therefore agree with the asetmflytion to privateers in maritime warfare, and the enrol- ment of volunteer troops still in use in continen‘al wars. What relationship can there be supposed ‘0 subsist between voluotecr corps and rs? Vr lonteer corps enter into tbe ranks of the regalar army of the State; they are subjected to the same discipline, commanded by the same commander in chief, and they fight for the State, and against the public ene- ny of the State. What have they in common with vateers ‘m+n who arm themselves and fight for aig against private persons and private pro- perty. From bence we conclude that the mere abolition of the maritime custom in use hitherto is of itself a ioe progress, Itis a great step onwards to the dom which civilization demands for private per- sons and property trom attack and seizure on the high seas. The rest will follow, and no doubt the piopoeition emanating from the United States will urry on the last step necessary to be taken to put the laws of war on a level with the high degree of modern civilization. In the meantime, let us care- fully maintain what we owe to the manifesto of 1éth April against all attacks, and let us beware of giving up a certain and effectuated progress for the hope of a [ones progress which exists only in futurity. The ‘owers signing the acts of the Congress of Paris, as well as those acceding thereto, will not forget this subject, and if necessary will take the proper mea- sures to prevent the opposition ot the United States from rendering the measures already taken against privateers inoperative or in vain. The Washington Secretary of State demands, in the vame of his government, to make an agreement with him in case his proposition to amend is not ac- cepted, on the action vo be pursued with respect to privateers. He claims for them, in the name of law and of courtesy, the same consideration which was awarded them before the new maritime law, and this he does in Ginn age with international law. We have already shown (vide La Presse June 12, 17,19, 1956) that as to this matter the sovereign Powers who signed, ani those who agreed to the treaty, or shall pereafter agree thereto, are at liberty to do as they think best among themselves in order to secure the irrevocable execution of the abolition which they have pronounced against all and every pores or potentate which might seek to keep up the forbidden custom. In order to effect this object, all that would be necessary would be to make an addi- tiovala ct to the act of April 16, by which they would unanimously engage as one person, no longer to recognize the abcient maritime custom aa an in- stitution conformable to law, and to deny henceforth to privateers the quality and rights of lawfal ene- mies, and on all occasions to meet them and trea’ them as pirates. The consequences of such a de- claration would be, that by taking from the priva- teers of the United States the protection ot the law, and placing them under the ban under which pirates are placed, their entire extinction would be effectua!- ly and intallibly secured. No doubt such an_ act, if done at a time when the United States declares that she cannot do without privateers, would be an act of great gravity, and of immense signification. Yet it would be in accordance with their rights, with their former acts, and with the general interests of civili- zation and humanity. The custom of the United States in granting letters of »narque, has been the subject of warm and incessant complaints. The abolition of the practic? has been several times at- tempted by the solitary efiurts of single States. Kat bow, the abolition of the practice is determined upon and pronounced by almost the whole of Europe, af- ter the most solemn deliberations of one of those Congresses by which the laws of nations are settled. Itisa progress onward, which no separa pposi- tion will be able to drive backwards. The United States complain that they are placed in a situation of comparative inferiority among na- tions whose organization 1s established upon a totally different besis—{ tat is to say, they are monarchical nations, and the United States is republican. —Tr.] Be it so. Then Jet them modity,if they will, their interior constitution, or, rather, let them come to a resolution to remain at peace with other nations. In this day of B artte and universe! discussion no war, manifestly unjust, is possible in the world. The feeling of rizht and justice and law is s) deeo- ly engraved on every heart—the physical interests of nations are so intimately blended together with public interests—that we are evidently making ra- pid strides towards the complete abolition of all war. Is such a time the time to ask. on the grouud of private interests and private sow! pepe for the pre- servation of an institution of warfare, an instituwon which Europe has ribed, and which civiliza- tion and humanity have long ago condemned? (From the Presne, Aug. 29 } Not to omit anything which has reference to the progress of the new maritime law, we will not pass over a secondary proposition put forth by Mr. » and with which he concludes his answar a _ declaration of the Congress of Paris, of Aprii 6th. Besides the proposition of Ing private goods inviolable benceiorth igerents, the United Stutes demand that the i doctrine in relation to contrabands of should either be totally or verymuch modified. The followin; ere the reasons Mr. Marcy gives, in the name of bi , in support of his new demand :— le Says the trade of nations at , ought not to be troubled by the action of r nations wro are at war. It isa violation of all the dictates of pee. to make neutrals suffer; and when they faita- iy abstain from taking any in pe Ty ts tt he a |, nor upon the nature of their mer- Stendics in tear ‘dealings with the belligerents. In this view of the case there may be room for improving the declaration of April 16, by making it an international law, prescribing coutrabands of war. The Unitea States, however, are willing to let the law remain as it is, with respect to places be- sieged or blockaded. Now, in first place, here is a manifest contradiction For, if the principles laid down by Mr. Marcy ave correct, they are so in all places and on all occasions, and are as applicable to trade carried on with blockaded places as with eny other ee. Again, the Us States admit the principles ap- plied to blockaded places, and do not dispace tne right of belligerents t> prevent all commerce with such places. Therefore the exception made as to stich places would be quite unnecessary, and conse- juently this second proposition of the Cabinet of ‘ashington amounts to nothing but the simple sup pression of thg law in relation to contrabands of wor. This may be said to be a very trifling way of treating one of the gieatest questions afecting the interests of humanity. The doctrine of “war con- trabands” is one of the points of maritime law which is the best understood and most fully recog- nized. It is, at the same time, one of those poiuts of marityme Jaw which has caused the greatest difficulties among nations. On a formner occasion we — our regrets tat the allied Pewers did net define the true sense and bearing of the terms in which they proscribed contrabands of war. Now the tact is that endless discussions have ariven as to what are contrabands of war. Many treaties have been entered into between maritune Powers upon this subject without solving the question in a satis. factory manner, and we have not been able, in out examination of the debates which bave arisen on this subject among jurisconsults and governments, to find any other rule of definition than the private treaties and interior laws of the several Stites. Notwithstanding ali this, it does not seem to os that the pi ple which forbids contrabands of war can be contested. There are not absolute rights »mong nations no more than there are among citizens. The rights of one are always more or less afieeted and controlled by the rights of other. shies is a law for all the human family. The restrictions thus rendered necessary ought doubtless to be kept with- in their rigorous limits, but they must have their action, aml such ection is in narmony with the se- verest justice. Ihave ne right to prevent you from having interoourre with my enemy; bat i bave a right 10 prevent you from putting into his hands a dagger with which he would stab me. Here we have the principle by which nations have the right, when they are at war, to prevent other neutral na- tions from supplying their enemies with arms and munitions of war. “The trade of neutrals ought to be free, by nata- ral right, without apy restricuon as to the natare of tbe merchandize;” 90 says Mr. oy merely add- ing the exception, “unless they join in hostilities.” Bot to supply them with arms and munitions of war, to give them the meons of carrying on the war with new vigor—is not that joining in hostili- ties? If governments had not right to seize upon neutrals in the act cf supplying the enemy with arms and munitions of war, irom any otuer principle of law, they would have it from the sim- ple primeiple that the nevtrals seized apon were epgaged in an intervention and meddling in their quarrels. The principle of the law forbidding con- trabands of war is founded both upon mght and upon humanity. Asto the difficulties of definition in respect to what are and what are not objec's which may be called contraband of war, after numerous discus- sions, the consent of all nations, in the present day has come tothe conclusion consecrated by many treaties, that “nothing but arms and munitions of war are contraband merchandize in war.” Such is the law of contraband in war, which the United States, by Mr. Marcy, proposes to abolish. Will their proposition be adm thea? We doubt it, and should stili doubt it even if their other a tox 9 tion were universally admitted, viz.: to place all private property beyond the reach of the chances of wer, We regret that the law of contrabands of war has not been fully settled by the Declaration of A 16. It isa law which would admit of some modifi- cations. In general,as the law now is, when a vessel ie seized having contrabands of war on board, all the rest of the merchandize on board is confiecated. The United States, in a treaty with Priesio, on Sentomber 10, 1783, article 13, lave land merchandize onght not to be confisca‘ed, Vat. detained, to ds, with suitable indemnity. This isa correct principle whenever it so happens that the having on board, articles of cannot be taken to be in eelf a direct and act of hostility. This personal ciple might well be introduced into the generst w. Other improvements might also be made. Be this as it may, everything tends to show the gran- fzapertanes bakcoglag Oo tla, remecs: tothe ‘pro m0) ce to it, in respect to pro- grees which it pone into the maritime law — @ progress which the opposition of the United States cannot but ultimately tend to accelerate. A grand Pe ys has been given to civilization uy all the 1 facta whichthave been accomplish- ed before our eyes, but of all of those none will have @ greater or more beneticial influence upon the fu- ture of the human race thgn this act of the Congress of Paris, by which the evils of war are mollified, and which move than avy other course will help to pro- duce the suppression of a) war. (From Le Siecle, of Paris, of August 27.) The opposition of the American government to the abolition of privateering will not have surprised our readers. Inan article, dated May 14, we laid before them the refusal of General Pierce to consen to the suppression of privateering, as popes by the King of Prussiain 1854. What the resident then gave as reasons for his refusal, and to which be referred in his annual message, are the same whica the Secretary of State now puts forth, though under different circumstances. “The abolition of privateering,” said (iene- ral Fierce, ‘is the special desire of those Powers who possess ® naval force large ax compared with the extent of their commerce. It the system of privateering were abolished, (he adds, a nation baving a naval force, smal! when compared to the extension of its commerce, would be wholly at the mercy of another which might be possesser of a large naval force.” Mr. Marcy takes up this argument, and urges it with caynestness, deducing fromit the same voncli sions as those which the President ani others be- fore bim had arrived at. The Secretary of State comes to the conclusion that the United States vy refusing to consent t» the abolition of privateering are acting not alone i their own interest, but in that of all the smal. maritime Powers. Here we witness the government of ‘ieneral Pierce making itself the defender of the interests of atleast three o: the Powers which sigued th claration of the Congress of Paris, Austria, Prossia and Piedmont. These Powers possess, as is well known, 2 naval force qui weak compared with the extent of their commerce, nor can Los everexpectto become great maritime Powers. There is indeed a great deal of zea' shown by Mr. Marcy for these Powers. But he migh: have remembered that one of tbem, Prussia, who makes the proposal of abolishing “he system, is the head ot the Customs Union, and in tha’ capacity her chief Executive has made known his intention to establist a common fiag of all the united Powers in thas union, and thereby to create u coumerce altogether out of proportion with the naval force engaged to protect it. As to Sardinia and Austria, these two Powers ap parently, when they culled for the abolition, we e net ignorant of the fact that they possess! a naval force greatly disproportionate to their commerce, nor can Mr. Marcy be ignorant that they eigned the article of the treaty of 1856, by which privateering is abolished, with a perfe t Bnowledge of the American argument against i's abolition, made in 1454 to the King of Prussia. Is may be that the United States understand the interests of certain nations better than those nations themselves. Such a thing has been known; and tor our part we shail never be ungrateful for all the great and good examples which the New World hus given tothe Old. But it does not follow that the Americans are free from mistakes on special ques- tions and matters, because it happens that they are psa advanced in the career of liberty than otver eople. For this reason we confess, with all respect, thi: we cannot take sides with the Secre‘ary of State, when he declares that the United States are resolved to keep up the system of corsairs or privateers so long as the Jaw of nations shall not make private property and persons free upon the seas during tims of war, subject only to exception in cases of bi: ades and contrabands of war. Now, in this mode of ‘ing there is an apper- ance of humanity and justice, such as once seduce:l our great Turgot; but we must not forget that the way to arrive at practical progress is no! by de- manding at once immediate and absolute perfecti m. If the Congress of Paris had at once simp'y abolished the customs, the United States would have a right to say, ‘‘ You have not done enough; we will maintain the evil, if necessary, until yor have put an end to the great causes of the evil.” But things have not been done in this way. An enemy’s merchandise (except articles of contraban:! in war) are now neutral the instant they are place! on board a neutral ship. Neutralt merchandise con- tinues neutral, even if on board an enemy's ship, with the exception of articles of contraban:'. Hence, two conditions are required to make neutral! merchandise liable to seizure, which are, first, it mus’ belong to the enemy; and second, it must be found on board the vessel of the enemy. Now, here w+ have a great and decisive modification of the mari- time law, one moreover which renders privateeriny, of no use a8 a means of warfare. Also, by this mv dification of the law, privateering be:omes of very difficult exercise, which, when peace arrived, wou a give rive to a thousand cifficulties and claims of in- demnity. It rarely happens that & privateer is of such di mensions as to cause a ship to lower its flag at the sight of an evidently irresistible force. A privateer, therefore, would often have recourse to violence in cases where a frigate would only have to give iis orders to a ship to heave to and exhibit her paper». Furthermore, captains ot privateers are seldom su h men as can judge of papers end certificates; they would therefore seize uj all the vessels they could catch, and send them all before the prize courts to be decided upon. Now, any one who has the least knowledge of maritime laws knows well boa it happeos when the rivateer bas made a m seizure, what clains it gives rise to for damages and interes), and what disputes it raises, such as oftentimes are e we rolong the war, or to cause it to break out afresh. mething like this bappened between France ant the United States in the affeir of the twenty-five mlhons. Privateering has been of some use, but chiefly because it has led to the acknowledgment of the rights of neutrais by leaal decisions. In fact, the abolition of letters of marque is owing to the p»wer- ful remonstrances of private interests. The object PB bas been attained. Citizen merchants of the enemy who do not wish to run the risk of being captured have only to commit their merchandise t neutrals, and it will be carried safe. Their profits will be somewhat less, it is true, bat they will enjoy perfect security, provided they do nos violate the rules relating to pl under ‘kade or to articles of contraband. Now, the Americans, a¢customed to be carriers of their own merchandise es well as very frequently of that of other ations, would certamly suffer som pecuni: loss, if, being at war, their merchants were obliged to ship their goods on board of neu- trals, and if their naval force was not of sufficient extent to protect all their merchant ships. Bat have not other nations whose naval force is adequate to protect their commerce, much inconvenience to sufier? They have the cost of their maritime forces which the Americans economise. Now, would it be just after ail, that war should be let go on shedding blood at its leisure, without being stop- ped or influenced by the voice of interests which are at peace? The journal which is said to be Lord” Palmerston’s organ answers the above question as we do, in the negative. Finally, as regards the comparison of privateers with volunteers in an army on land, since Mr. Mar- cy insists upon the comparison, without ad incing any fresh reasons for it, we shal! confine ourselves to simply stating that the compa.sison is not ad nis: sible. Voluatecrs oa land receive their commission to fight against armed enemies, and to respect pri- vate property as far as the exigencies ot combat permit it to be done. But privateers, or corsairs, receive thejr commission to attack an unarmed enemy if they can met with bim on the ocean, and to seize upon private property. Mr. Marcy's com- ison, therefore, to which be sticks soobstina‘ely, # destitute of all moral or material similitude. He would have done better to have remembered the old proverb, “comparing is not reasoning.” Let os not say that if individual property belong- ing 1o an enemy were left free upon the seas, there would be an unjust inequality as to vhe same proper ty on land, becanse in wars on land individnal pro- perty in some places always suffers somewhat more or less by necessity To this we would reply by say- ing that what is ngbt and good ought to be done, wherever we can do them, and they ought not to be left undone because we cannot always do them equally in ull places. ‘Our present concern ,as we have already observed, is with the fact that by making private interests free from the dangers and chances of war, war becomes transformed, as it were, into a bloody tcurnament, confined to the parties engaged in the battle, while the spectators remain enbert and free from the danger. It is de- sirable that wars should be re of as short duration as possible. Furthermore, we are apprehen- sive lest the modification proposed by the of Paris should become a mere ‘lead letter, ty the refuedl of the United States to agree to the abolition of privateering. The Congress of Paris will not meet ogain to deliberate re the pr ition of Mr. Morey. I's declaration will be maintained. The laws it lays down are indivisible, and must all of them Le received as law, or none—so that the United States hy their refusal to consent to all the propositions, will find iteelf shut out from the benefit of any of ‘he provisions of the new moritime jaw, There ia {ges vd marque givea | gown & GLtent prweipie, vig, was UE contra | EVER B Uatigns Whewls May Vevuiy Levu tue i8W ve Il which we turn away our eyes and our mind, viz. . AES Americans an ‘dle ia purng” tho THE FRENCH FOR FREMONT. their AO Mtg be pe Ep ren Les Populations Franco-Americaines ct "'E* lection Bresiacnticiic. would give to war a most horrible f¢ oe There is one it Mr. Marcy forward New Yous, 20 aot’, 1856. which is not destitute of moral as well as of politi- Derni¢rement, une fenille qui prétend a "honnéur oe ane jo aan pi as destructive of nav pt peneperty ane dangerous to civil liberty. de représenter les populations franco-américaines déclarait qu'elle s’abstiendrait de prendre parti dans expense up is a heavy@) le prochaine lutte présidenvielle. Au moment ot: harge, upon the peopl They, ae, aaa les clections promettent d’avoir un résnltat aussi im- eyes Iay government, as wi pol t, ne pensons ne ito} frameo- fact, a threat held out’ against other nations. | Sméricains ge contentent de cutis declaration. Oon- A large army, whether naval or military, always ready for war, presents a temptation to make war. The policy of the United States has always been opposed to such establishments, and never more so than now. Never will the United States be induced to ac ae any modification of the mari- time Jaw which would make it necessary for themto maintain, in time of peace, either a great naval or a grt military establishment. If ever they should driven to assert their rights by arms, they will be contented to depend u pn volunteer troops in their military operations by land, and for the protection of their commerce by sea they will depend upon their merchant marine—that is, upon privateers. If this country should ever be deprived of the above resources, then it would be obliged to chang its policy, and to assume before the world a mili tary attitude.” So far Mr. Marcy. Now, most assuredly we are not in love with standing armies or navies any more than Mr. Marcy; but we cannot see how it wonld tend to put them aside, that tie United States should complain of being obliged to change her po leg ans take a military attitude before the world. France, England, Pied mont, Belgium, might be suled by standing armies and fleets as by a simple police. Only (and alas for libersy that it is sv,) the governments of Austria, Russia and Prussia caanot stand by any other system than that of the sword and the cannon. Where is, bowever, a stand- ing army in apy one nation of Europe there must, of he a standing army in all the others. As to hardly necessary to remark that they are the anxiliaries of armies. Happily for the United States all the faults of her Executive are easily corrected by means of the elec- tious. The successor of Mr. Pierce will soon be ap- pointed, and let us hope that a new Secretary of State will understand differently from Mr. Marcy the bearing of the refusal which Mr. Marcy has given to the abolition of privateering. P.S—The Bourse Gazette of August 23, under the caption of Berlin, announces that all the great Powers nave determined to take measures, in a body, te induce the United States to accede to the princi- ples of maritime law laid down by the Congress of ‘aris. de leur influence, et n’ay#nt pas de ménage- ment a garder, ils exerceront franchement et libre- men un des plus beaux priviliges de leur uaturali- sation. La question, cette fois, ext clairement poste, Les trois partis qui se disputent la prééminence se re- conn Ua des traits bien marqués. Lan, le démocrate, fait profession ae liverté, et néan- moins il admet comme légitine lL extension de }’e+ clavage; l'autre, le parti amérvain, prend naiseance dans Ja haine des ctrangers, es «» etranche, qaaut aux qui a ena, derritve Ce vagnes géné- ralites; le parti républicain efi ne croit pas que !a liherté se manifeste et se prouv+ mar un fait quien dépossede Jes hommes, et déclare hautement que Tesclavage ne franchira pas see lim'tes actuelies, L’épreuve subie par le Kansa: atieste ce que ren- ferme }s souveraineté du peuple © l’e que l’eutondent les prostlytes de M. Dougl+s. A son ombre, tous les pouveanx territoires aspirent & monter au rang @Etats deviendraient le thiaire de scenes sau- glantes. Le colon du Nord y serait t ujours exposé aux insubes des roffians di Sud. a yidi leurs esclaves donnent le Joisir d’aller guerso +r contre le travail- leur jibre. Dans le Kansas, er 1 1't de souveraine: on n’a vu fonctionner encore que ts souveruineré de la force; et i] en sera maiheureusement ainsi tant quon fera dépendre une isettetion politique oa sclre de intérét au lieu de ta eéduize d'un prin. cipe. La violation de la justice » toujours son inconw'- nient, ses catastroplies. Intorrog’s eur }'esclavage, Jes hommes dn Sud en avocont (res-volontiers les malheurs. On se demande ppuryusi ils ne s’en- tendent pas alors avec les hor da Nord pour mettre un terme A son extensiv rest qui y aici une question be ryt qui dowine tout. Luis sion d’un nouvel Etat liore diss !¢ Congres ral donnerait la majorité parlere:taive a Pune des : ndes sections du paye: le Sud verait a lan lu Nord. Selon nous, c’est sur ce point que lon vrait d’abord discuter et s‘enteudve. Nous ne r ici engager l’opinion de personne. muia simplement expoger la notre: nous ne sommes liés qu’envers lew principes. Lorsque la confédération amGricaine s’esj_form'e pour résieter & une agression pulitique, il n'y avait pas lieu & statuer sur la condition sociale ou future des Etats repri sau Cong s’unirent tels qu’ils étaient pour pro lamer leq’ a gerne nationale, avec ou sane l’esclavage, ave réserve de se gouverner chacun chez eux comme ils lentendraient. Cette réserve voustitue an droit de souveraineté incontestable; et y The Brooks Ball Correspondence of Greenville, 8. C. Charleston Standard | The Decevations of the Roo The Dramatis Pe a Thinkiwy that a stray inkling from the mountaia region might interest some 0: the mapy readers of your valua- Die journal Treat myself amid the noise of svenklag from the Hon P.S. Brooks and the cheers of the excited . logetber with the occasional music ‘rom a fine ud a slight deseription of the com astevening. According to sn me oil. and it proved a moat sus The large and amole ball mblage of tapoy faces, tv of the Palmetto State, pre pectarle of exceeding beauty. Tne large bail of Tt House 90 by 60 feet, was need for the oc casien, and, beautifully decorated with taste and labor, bad been converted into a palace of euchantment tered ibe hall, the eye was arrested by a ¢ of the Palmetto t-ee, with the inscription, ere.” on the top. together with the date of mner, May 22 i853, The beng with ns, supported:in the centre wi ‘with one star; wreaths were formed o1 toe siter, with the initials ov the guest's name: the floor handsomely painted for quadrilles; the orebestra was beautifully ar ranged, and the whole decoration would ‘o credit to a city ball rocm. Mr Brooks was committee, amid t d music, and av ‘ion. présidé a la formation méme de } [ Maia cette souveraineté, cris pendence, cette propnété de soi, qui ¢taient lapanage des Etats révolutionpaises, ne nous sem lent plus exister pour les Etats formes & Vombre, sous i: tutelle, et sur les territoires recounus et acquis américaine. Si les nouveai législature propre, s‘ils se grave c'est pe un acte particulier du Congres fCdéra reste le gardien naturel des traditions et des inert’ fendawentales. Dé ‘t incontestableni du ressort de la majorité du Conurés fédéral, avant dadmettre un nouvel Etut ¢ membre de la confédération, de déciarer que wile ou telle institu tion n’est pas compatible avec lee priacipes de existence. Cette regle est Cgulewent appl nn Etat souverain et indépendant qui demanc étre admis dans l'Union. La souveraineté, ndance et l'égalité absolues partenaient blement qu’aux treize premiers Etats de ce’ noble confdération: Jes Etats formés ou anne: depois sont tous sujets a n’étre aduis qu'apros in- ventaire, C'est sinsi qu’en remontant par 'es faits aux p-in- cipes, on arrive 2 coe conclusion juste, et que, pour gouverner, on trouve enfin une base rationaeile au vote de la majorité. Les hommes da Nord ne de vraient donc plus hésiter A déclarer que ie Coogrés fédéral n'a pas A stetuer sur lesclavage duos fee anciens Eats ot il existe, mais que, par conve, ilu Je droit incontestable, sans violec sucua principe. @empeé cher I'établiasement de vette institution les territoives de l'Union se conatituaat en Etsts; car, dans ce dernier cas, le Conrris fédéral na 1 en face de lui un Etat pair, invest’ des méme souveraing que tous ses confeddrés, mais w s'est formé sur son sol 6t grace {. sa orotection. 2, be selected a pr ping commenced, « guests gave ne demonstratioa that b2 could uve his fee as wel) as hie Lands. Beauty wae there seen in it: brightest moods, with its moet super decorations. We have never seen a finer display of rich and magnificent tollets or fairy forms on on aspiring music, the ‘lashing 4 fa'ling of heals, ma‘e up a gor ering spectacle, making them re- wn roses bathed in dew, dancing like fa tome spirit land. All is gay colors ape universal ai Ve doubt if ay city in the Union could aiaplay a greater variety of beauty aud in te:ligence than was gathered together to do howiage to cbampion of the South. There were many ladies (rom n fact, the surrounding districts were well aud Deantifully represented, anc were it possible in ike thie to be persopal in our description, the two Mieses “——'s from Columbia, wi high on the roll of beauty and fashion, aptly among our own matchless belles, eving their iumphs on their own native ground. Pendieton was richly represen‘ed b+ the accomp! Mire |——s, Charleston came in for its share of Janrels Apderron, Edgetield, Newbery, &., all had more or ices of their beauteons lair, which beiped to make up a bow uet Of excellence 8 rare that it would be inadm!.«a- ble 10 folate a solitary tower, Our owa to strict seemed do all former efiorts indeed tu the of her delegation. can | dereribe th orpassing loveliness of Greeav fay davghterr’ First on the roll of beauty stands —-8; ride by side with Misa T——n it requires close clore judgment to ascertain which should bear tie paim. Mra, S—r, from Mobile, was there to couten! for the Prize of beavty: and although a young and dashing wi Gow, secured tbe attentions of many of the sterner sex ves W———, from near Willamston, were thero, the very cbildren ei nature, upon whom the fa bled deities of the poetic nations seem to have lavished their most preoioun gifts, The Misses 1 ad J., trom Fairviow, were there, ‘The tormer sis were the admiration of (he room—the con7entration of ali that is exquisite in grace—most poett- cal ip the poetry of motion; the latter, fair and bsavtifal luminary, what can we say of thee’ If thy early dawn it to redolent of suvsbine, how brightly dezziing will de tay nocnday epiendor! The Misses B., cousins of our go were mveb adaured. The younge: danest with « ——— de ce principe par le Congris fderal Nord a) jeralt certainement cesser J'agitation an comme au Sud; ni l'un ni lautre n’auratent sujet de se craindre, et les circoastances et ie + améneraient le reste. Tl est encore une autre question fort delicate i résoudre pour en finir avec cette agita’ion dépio rable qui paralyse ce vaste cham) de la liberté ha- maine. Nous voulons parler de Ja loi sur les esciaves fugitifs. Adoptée par le Congr le Congres est parfaitewent en droit de l'annnier. Mais cette me- sure, Oit-on, entrainerait inévitablement la sépara- tion du Sud. Qn’y gagnerait-il? Séparé da Nord, préterdrait-il imposer A celui-ci une Joi révoonte pendant lear commune union? La menace ex donc parfaitement vaine, et la justice cura son cours. Un esclave n'est pas un malfaiteur pour avoir réusei A saffianchir; et le droit federai ne peut pus rigowreux que le droit international, qui n'exige et be sanctionne que la reddition des crimineis. Au reste, #1 le Sud trouve l'esclavage profitable —ce dont nous doutons—qu'll fasse les frais des sucvell Jants dans ses ports et sur ses frontidres; mais on esclave Loy gt est un homme lire, et ji fant ele tombé dans la dernivre dégradatioa pour l'arre er et le — a Peo hy og os pon exte' ‘esclava ge et le rappel de Ja loi sur les esclaves fugitifs forment tou’ Viafrat Je la prochaine clection présidenticlie L’agityion ne cetsera qu'alors que ces deux points importants seront acquis au droit et i wumanité. [a rason de notre Ace exige impérieusement cette satisfac footfall ight a8 a bopey bird's wu 4 he brashes tre tion: le Nord la recoupaitra cla dé f . . a at, claratl the cempany with « beaunful feroy dance. May J—a | 4’abolir Vesclavage dans les anciens Etats ot ji ox déclaration, nous lavouous, est coutrare a droit paturel; mais l'Union amérieaing s'eat forme sous certaines conditions, et ja violation de celleset par one imsjorité Mgislative fdérale seri avei réprébenrible qu'une violence pur le wabre. Oo ne conteste pas au Sud le droit de se gouverner comme il lentend, mais on veut, parce qu'on enale & constitutionne!,—empécher Vextension d'une ‘nett- — qui prive une fag) tartie des citoyens éricains, bon pas noirs, male blancs, de leure. Groits les ping précieax, N'en vyicon pad ea ey o- ment meine dés exemples ivappanta? La c excel ed even bereell, her commanding form was aa embo dument of the poet's dream, the rourptor’s glory. Mins y elicited much admiration; ber eparkling eye ap- d )ke the orvs of a sea bora goddess just rien io ivid sunlight trom her snow driven couch © roray. Mien Cmo—, Mitt Bor, Mine ¥——r, the Misses i——#. Sine Sa, Mies T—n and many others, all he eve ranting beauty of the xcene. ——t, from Alabams used many to exclaim— A of beauty Is a joy for ever Git (i r ity with the reign wooing | ture républicaine est proscrite wi Sud; certains invited guests noticed Hod Wate: cours y sont ccfendas, certatn probiby« Thompeon, Sion. J. 1. Orr, Hon. B. F. Perry, Col, Gist. ul mie op beit, on y mange en toute litect; on ay peat p atin ding, "om Jouiriana, aud many more of Caroliva’s novic | parler on penser de mé oé pone. all enjoying the festive scene. oi une ae oe un ‘Coup @e nae on aig a The decciog wae kept up with spirit and animition | prix qu'on de den enclaves ! acl Jook, when they adjourned t» tho auopor ta ‘Ce ‘eat’ di aves | j vvly and beavtifully supplied with » L re ce moment de crise que les pas populations tranco-americaines ont & temir Feeare du verutin. Elles soot tennes, te. ccoeeatro, bir om Somes Lenr sens mori et intel ptoel leur undiquera assez de que! ov “ les viritables principes, jusarpaikeponae Avec M. Buchanan, en effet, avec le parti crate, continustion de Vagitetion de lescla petition dans tout nonvean territoire des scenes sanglantes qui ailligent le Keusas, en un mot, vio lence partout. Nons parsons sar la corruption administrative, sur les diversions extérieures qui dé tourneraient la pense des mastes da. lemme BOC al qui eommence } se poser an sein de socidt’ ame rica'ne. américain, an une de persed to the repose w snother day, aade plearant by tho rtcollections of last ch woulo prepare tben for the scenes of pigbt To tbe adwirab’ svperimtended the abagement of the committees who ould give effect to the scene, vieiters, Toe numerous at edgment of this paime takiog red pereoos baving enjoyed te Some most reserved fam'lies, who rarely fo out of their owe immediate circles, were delighted end delighting guee® For the decoration of the nail, ne Avec M. Fillmore, avee le parti solution & esp rer; davs l'administration, menngement o the floor, &e., the committee are under | MeDt de le corruption démocrate par ‘la site gations tu I be — Par une longue , et, en fait = avec le parti républicain. au . aoOM panied ng the Greonvilic Pease hotel, and xt the nea mous call of the citizens he appeared and aderessed them ine heat and appropriate speech, during whieh he high tribnte of res Orr, bat he did not log addressed them y evening nt family left ia the morting, weil plenged, no dowbt, with this cemonetration oF feeling A New Britisa Mixieren ror rae Ustren Srares —We Ona following in the foron © (dened of Friday last —W ‘ed, A lew days ago, the probability that the Hon Mr. next ambassador from Great Britain to the United States. believe there js now no doubt that such will be the case, We bave reason to know that Mr. Villiers has accepted the appointment, The Hon. Charies Pelbam Viiiiers, thoogh said to be of a very indolent nature, is a man of remark. able ability, etrong intelligence and most courtly grace and gentleness of manner. Except that he is careless in ‘The Tart. CENTREVILLE COURSR, 1. 1—TROTTING. A trotting match for $1,000, three mile beats, in bar- afternoon, nest, came of on Monday between r. m. “Lady Riley and bik. m. Beeswing. The roan mare won dress. be bears ingular resemblance to hiv brother, | the race. The isa Lord Clarendon, baving bis peculiar Nquid blue eye and following is a summary -— Jon of jangu'd courting, Like Mr. Mowpay, Sept. 22.—Trotting mateh, three mBo Advocate, be was which swept them down, and ia the enoy of the ballot he has always synee be appointment he bas heen doomed tive tacitornity of the Treaenry bench, but hie views have reateh of freelom approgohing, if not With gy Lp ow cme ait, ‘ DR ae ree eeeedeces