The State of the case.
--The London
Times, commenting upon the excuses which have been made by the
Yankees for the seizure of
Messrs. Mason and
Slidell, observes, in substance, that they have taken as precedents one or two cases of acknowledged wrong done by
Great Britain, and endeavored to draw them out into precedents.
A code of laws, founded upon precedents of wrong, would certainly cut a very pretty figure.
In common life, we would all be justified in committing theft and murder, wherever the person who was robbed or murdered, had himself been guilty of those two crimes.
This is precisely the code which the Indians and other savages have established, and by which they are guided in their dealings with the whites. --It is the old law of retaliation — a law abhorrent to God, and fatal to civilization, which is recognized by no Christian nation, unless in cases where no other remedy can be had. In the history of any powerful nation that ever existed, cases may be found of violence not justified upon any principle known to Christian society.
To go no farther, the pages of French and English history are full of such.
But nobody ever dreamed of laying them down as precedents upon which to found general maxims of law. First
Consul Bonaparts invaded the territory of
Baden, which was a neutral territory, seized a political refugee by force, and had him shot.
Is it to be inferred therefrom that it is lawful so seize refugees upon neutral territory, and is the party so seizing allowed to justify and plead this case as a precedent?
England sent a squadron to
Copenhagen, a neutral port, took the whole
Danish fleet, and bombarded the city.
This was clearly a great wrong; but it furnishes a precedent if it be determined to construct a code of international law upon cases of that description.
She fired into the frigate
Chesapeake, a neutral vessel, made her strike her colors, boarded her, took a number of seamen from her whom she claimed to be English subjects, and hung several of them as deserters.
Here was a wrong — acknowledged, we think, to be a wrong by the
British Government itself.
Are we to form a law out of such a precedent as this, and solemnly decide that any ship of war may stop any other ship of war at sea, search her for deserters or subjects, and hang such men as are found on board coming under that category?
Two powerful nations engaged in war, are almost sure, amidst the excitement of a struggle for life and death, to forget that any other nation has any rights whatever.
Such was notoriously the case during the wars which the
French and
English waged upon each other, during the last years of the last, and the first years of the present century.
They acted precisely as though there were no other powers in existence except themselves, and they never hesitated, when the neutrality of any nation stood between them and the execution of any project which they had in view for the annoyance of each other, to violate it on the instant.
They did it, however, always at their own particular risk, and in every instance paid dearly for it in the end. Thus
Bonaparte did not hesitate to march a corps of his army through the
Prussian territory of Bareuth, when it lay between him and the grand army, he was concentrating around him, and
England did not hesitate to violate the neutrality of the Porte when she suspected him of a design to take part against her. Both these acts were clearly unjustifiable, or justifiable only on that plea of the tyrant, necessity, which pushed home, may be made to sanctify any and every enormity that blackens the page of history.
Upon these exceptional cases, or cases like them, the
Yankees wish to found their new code of international law.--They will be apt to learn, we think, that public law is not founded upon violent acts done under peculiar circumstances, but upon column decisions recognized by all the civilized world.
From all we can gather,
England has acted with decision in the present emergency.
She feels that she has been insulted, and she will listen to no argument until the insult be first atoned for. In the case of an individual, when he feels that an insult has been offered him, it is not usual for him, we believe, to enter into a discussion of the act conveying the insult, as to whether it really be an insult or no. It is sufficient for him that he feels it to be such.
It must be disavowed, before he can take a single step, in the direction of conciliation.
So, we take it, the case stands with nations.
In the present instance the
Yankee Government must first disavow the intention to insult, and prove its sincerity in such disavowal, by restoring
Messrs. Mason and
Slidell to the position they occupied when they were seized.
It is galling to Yankee pride, no doubt, to do this, but it must be done.
