FEDERAL INTERFERENCE WITH ENGLISH TRADE.

Southland Times, Volume III, Issue 12, 4 December 1863, Page 3

FEDERAL INTERFERENCE WITH ENGLISH TRADE.

(Fiom the Saturday Review) The corresoondence on the interference of the Federal Government with English trade illustrates, not for the first time, the uneasy and dangerous relations between a belligerent eager to strain all the privileges of war, and a neutral who is principally intent on maintaining national honor by insisting on the observance of legal rights. In the absence of an impartial tribunal, it is almost impossible to come to an understanding on the application of unsettled or conflicting principles. There can be no doubt that the Northern Americans desire to injure and insult the country which they have selected as the object of their animosity, ns \vell as to deprive the insurgents of commercial intercourse with the outer world. Mr Seward would be supported by public opinion, or by popular clamour, if he were to announce that an attempt by an English master of a ship to break the blockade would be treated as a capital crime. The New York papers not long since reported, with unhesitating approval, that the blockading ships would henceforth -sink all merchant vessels instead of captnring them ; and the prospect of wholesale mureler was universally regarded as a proof of wholesome vigor. In the course of tw© years, the Americans have entirely forgotten that they once pretended to be champions of neutral immunities against the harsh prescriptions of English maritime law. They 'have now peTsuarted themselves that the trade of a nentral with the weaker of two belligerents is a legal and moral ciime, as well as an act which may be prevented by the exercise of superior force. Mr Seward thinks that he is bringing a serious charge against English merchants when he alleges that the trade cf Nassau has largely increased since it became the principal port of communication with the Confederate States; yet it is difficult to understand why it is more culpable to sell goods to a community without a navy than to conduct a similar traffic with a power which command-; the sea. The risk of capture is considered in prices and in insurance, but there is no disgrace either i.i running a blockade or in being baffled in the attempt. Scrupulous moralists may, perhaps, doubt the strict propriety of selling munitions of war to eiiher combatant, but Mr Seward transcends the range of ordinary understandings when he dilates on the danger that provisions or cotton fabrics should find their way into th? possession of the Confederates. It is the business of the Federal cruisers to prevent the traffic, and it is the right di tracers on both sides to evade the exceptional prohibltri jn. The Government of the United States has not contented itself with a rigorou3, or even excessive, enforcement of the blockade. By a series of enactments and regulations it has undertaken to strike at fliat portion of English trade which may possibly or probably be destined to supply the Confederates with the necessaries or comforts of life. Ey an Ace of Congress, the Collector of Customs is authorised to refuse clearances to all vessels which he may suspect of an intention to take cargoes for the ultimate use of the enemy. It is hardly necessary to say that the power is exercised in an injurious and offensive manner; but what the English Government complains of is the assumption that commerce may be lawfully interrupted between the ports of friendly Governments. By the Treaty or Convention of 18=15, afterwards extended to the British West Indies, English subjects and American citizens aie •reciprocally authorised to trade with perfect freedom between the ports of both countries. Mr Seward attempts no reply to Lord Knssejl's argument that war can have no bearing on the trade between two nrovernments wfio are at peace with one anuthcr. The Confedera'es, if fliey possessed a navy, might refuse English vessels access to New York, hut the Federal Government is guilty of an unfriendly and irregular act, in prohibiting the export of goods from New York to Nassau. The act ,of Congress can by no possibility affect the right of a foreign country, although the Federal Legislature has more than once, since the commencement of the war, affected to override the clearest rules of international law. Two years ago, the President was authori-ed by Congress to close the Confederate ports by proclamation, instead of exercising the belligerent right of blockade. If Mr L'ncoln had attempted to enforce the Act he would have provoked an immediate collision toy authorizing the capture of vessels for breaking a paper blockade. The Act on which Mr Seward now relies is, as he says, general in its terms; nor does it purport to impose discriminating disabilities on England, or any other State. The grievance arises -wh^n it is applied to trade with a i Euglish port, although it may be true tha the prohibition to trade with the Bahamas applies to all vessels, whether American or foreign. The Federal Government would have a right to close the port of Xew York to foreign trade, but in the present instance, the port wluch is for certain purposes closed belongs to English, and not to Americun.jurisdict.ion. If trade between New York and Liverpool were summarily forbidden, it would be absurd to argue that the hardship inflicted dn England was common to the rest of the world ; yet the trade with Nassau is more exclusively English than the traffic which crosses the Atlantic. Mr Seward, under the instructions of his Government, states with unanswerable force, that the trade between England and American ports in the undisturbed possession of the Federal Government can be in no way affected Tjy the stste of war. He adds, with equal truth, that the trade of England with the enemy of the Un ; ted States can be affected only to the extent provided by the international law of blockade. Nassau is a part of England, and New York is in the exclusive possession of the rederal Government ? yet the trade is arbitrarily interrupted. An attempt to interfere at the fountain head with traffic destined for the Confederate States has no assignable connexion with the right of blockade. Lord Kussell declares that domestic legislation has • no bearing on the case : — " It is 'one in which the forms of domestic legislation have heen made subservient to an endeavor to control a paticular branch of neutral trade carried on, "not -within the territory of the United States, but in the proper territory of the neutral Power." With the provisions of the Act of Congress the English Government has no concern. The Federal Legislature may disport itself at its own pleasure in enactments which violate the rights of foreign States. It is only when lawless provisions are enforced that the right of remonstrance accrues. The unwillingness of the Northern Americans to tolerate the existence of relations between the Confederates and nentrals may be perfectly intelligible, but their commeecial excommunication of an English port is an intolerable abuse of belligerent privileges. They have throughout the war assumed that they were entitled to prevent the evasion of rules which they were at liberty directly to enforce, and they have never divested themselves of the belief that neutral intercourse with the Confederates is essentially criminal. If the obstruction of the trade with the Bahamas is lawful, similar restrictions in time of peace may be defended on precisely si'iiilar grounds. The English Government is not called upon to notice the reasons which rray affect the policy of the United states. Trade between New York and Nassau, with the exception perhaps of traffic in munitions of -war, can in no degree be affected by belligerent rights. If the export of printed cottons to Nassau is forbidden, England may with equal justice refuse to allow raw cotton to be shipped from Liverpool for New York. The prohibition might, to avoid invidious discrimination, apply to all English and foreign

Vessels, and Lord Russell might inform Mr Seward that every State was sovereign over its own subjects and ovnr foreigners residing within its territories The Lancashire manufacturers would profit by the diminished demand for the iaw material, and, if they thought it worth while, they might borrow all Mr Sfrward's arguments in defence of a system of non-intercourse. It is doubtful whether the American Government merely commits an injustice for a special object, on its Favorite principle that the United States have a monopoly of rights, while the share of other nations consists in duties and obligations. Mr Seward may perhaps also be preparing for the contingency of a quarrel, which he could scarcely commence, as his partisans recommend, for the avowed purpose of healing domestic dissentions. The unanimous desire of all Englishman for peace, as long as peace is compatible with honor, may perhaps tend to avert a rupture until the present emergency is past. It is painful, however, to deal with a litigious neighbor who never waives a case of offence, and who is unscrupulously bent on encroachment. The Federal Government will do well to remember that it has everything to lose by a quarrel, although England may have nothing to gain. The independence of tiic Confederacy would be instantly and finally established by the first gun fired in anger, and the blockade wonld be transferred to New York and Boston.