hide Sorting

You can sort these results in two ways:

By entity
Chronological order for dates, alphabetical order for places and people.
By position (current method)
As the entities appear in the document.

You are currently sorting in ascending order. Sort in descending order.

hide Most Frequent Entities

The entities that appear most frequently in this document are shown below.

Entity Max. Freq Min. Freq
United States (United States) 86 0 Browse Search
Harper's Ferry (West Virginia, United States) 28 0 Browse Search
Fortress Monroe (Virginia, United States) 26 0 Browse Search
France (France) 26 0 Browse Search
Maryland (Maryland, United States) 22 0 Browse Search
Garrick 22 0 Browse Search
Cadwallader 18 12 Browse Search
England (United Kingdom) 14 0 Browse Search
Aquia Creek (Virginia, United States) 12 0 Browse Search
California (California, United States) 12 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of The Daily Dispatch: June 8, 1861., [Electronic resource]. Search the whole document.

Found 6 total hits in 4 results.

United States (United States) (search for this): article 17
rrect definition of law by the American Prize Courts. To seek to define what is the law of nations in a royal proclamation would be, instead of a safeguard, a snare for the unlearned reader, since it would lead him to rely on an interpretation of that law which would not be binding on the court before which his case is to be decided. We note a trace of this common error in the case proposed by Mr. Horsfall to Lord Palmerston. That question asks whether merchant ships, chartered by the United States prior to the proclamation, will be liable to its penalties? We apprehend, whatever those liabilities may be, the proclamation, which is only a warning not to break the law of England and the law of nations, could in nowise alter them. The answer that can be given to Lord Ellenborough is that a blockade must be, on the one hand, a great deal more than a mere paper prohibition. A hen may be induced to believe that a broad chalk line forms a barrier which she cannot pass, but mankind hav
Jefferson Davis (search for this): article 17
consideration than the question proposed by Lord Ellenborough was the doctrine with regard to "privateering" enunciated by Lord Derby. The argument of Lord Derby seems to be that the North, by declaring a blockade of the Southern ports, claims from neutral nations the respect due to its rights as a belligerent power; and therefore that, whatever the North may choose to do with the citizens of the Southern States captured on board the privateers fitted out under letters of marque from Mr. Jefferson Davis, the North has no right to treat the belligerent rights of the South as a nullity with regard to the subjects of countries from whom it claims respect for its own belligerent rights. The result would be that the North, by declaring a blockade of the Southern ports, has bound itself not to execute as pirates the subjects of neutral States serving on board such privateers. The argument is one of great subtlety and refinement, and seemed to receive confirmation from the arguments of su
Horsfall (search for this): article 17
hat constituted a blockade, that definition would avail nothing, unless it was accepted as a correct definition of law by the American Prize Courts. To seek to define what is the law of nations in a royal proclamation would be, instead of a safeguard, a snare for the unlearned reader, since it would lead him to rely on an interpretation of that law which would not be binding on the court before which his case is to be decided. We note a trace of this common error in the case proposed by Mr. Horsfall to Lord Palmerston. That question asks whether merchant ships, chartered by the United States prior to the proclamation, will be liable to its penalties? We apprehend, whatever those liabilities may be, the proclamation, which is only a warning not to break the law of England and the law of nations, could in nowise alter them. The answer that can be given to Lord Ellenborough is that a blockade must be, on the one hand, a great deal more than a mere paper prohibition. A hen may be ind
May 18th (search for this): article 17
The blockade and letters of marque.[from the London Times, may 18.] The proclamation of the Queen does not make the law of England or of nations, but simply warns all whom it may concern against any breach of it. It is not by the proclamation, but by the law on which the proclamation is founded, that mankind must guide their proceedings; and, had the proclamation defined ever so strictly what constituted a blockade, that definition would avail nothing, unless it was accepted as a correct definition of law by the American Prize Courts. To seek to define what is the law of nations in a royal proclamation would be, instead of a safeguard, a snare for the unlearned reader, since it would lead him to rely on an interpretation of that law which would not be binding on the court before which his case is to be decided. We note a trace of this common error in the case proposed by Mr. Horsfall to Lord Palmerston. That question asks whether merchant ships, chartered by the United States