American affairs in Europe.
how the United States may be compelled to Relax the Cordon.
[from the London Economist]
That
England has far too great a respect for international law and morality, and far too much consideration for future and remote consequences, forcibly to interfere with or prohibit the blockade we have, we trust, made clear in previous numbers.
But those, who in their dread of a scarcity of cotton, would have our Government take this perilous and unwarrantable step, would do well to consider whether, apart from the impropriety and irrationality of their demand, they are not defeating their own end by making it. The seceding States have based much of their action and many of their expectations upon the conviction that
England cannot do without their cotton, and that, if it be long enough withheld, she will interfere to break the blockade by force; in other words, that he will embrace their cause and virtually declare war against their rival; that is, that she will take precisely the line which these complainants are urging her to take.
The South is deliberately working and toiling to force us into a quarrel with the
North; and Englishmen are found ready to fall into the trap, and help her sinister designs! 1s it not obvious that so long as the
Confederates entertain any hopes that
England will thus interfere, they will obstinately retain their cotton on the plantations, and effectually prevent our getting it in any mode?
And is it not obvious that nothing will so foster and prolong these fallacious hopes as the language which, under the dread of coming pressure, these inconsiderate merchants and manufacturers are using?
That the distress must be great and wide-spread in the industrial districts of
Cheshire and
Lancashire, if the
American crop is really and permanently withheld, we entertain no doubt, and we are not surprised that all concerned (and who is not concerned?) should view the prospect with alarm.
But the sole practical question is, how can the threatened danger be most effectually, and yet rightfully averted?
Now, as we have repeatedly shown, the resources of the
South, never very vast or very ready, are derived solely from the sales of their produce; for of accumulated funds they have no great store.
The sale of their cotton crop will, therefore, soon become to them an object of absolute necessity; and when they feel this, and can be definitely satisfied that forcible intervention from
Europe is an idle dream, they will hurry their cotton down to the ports or to some easy and safe distance from the coast, so as to have it ready for shipment by any vessels that arrive and are prepared for the risk of endeavoring to evade the blockading squadron.
At present they feel at ease, for there is no cotton gathered and packed, and no ships ready to receive it; so they can safely indulge in a menace, which they hope will bring terrified
Europe to their aid. But as soon as the cotton is ready to come forward, we have no doubt it will be transmitted to the coast, provided they can be made to renounce their hopes of foreign interposition.
Now, as far as
England is concerned, we believe we may confidently assert that her interposition will be strictly limited to insisting that the blockade of every port announced to be closed shall be
bona fide efficient, and continuous.
She must take care that the blockading squadron shall be ample and impartial, shall be considerable enough really to prevent ingress and egress, and shall connive at the escape of no ships, and shall give papers to none.
If these requirements are not fulfilled — and we are by no means satisfied on this head — then we are entitled, and are bound to notify to the
Government of the
United States that the blockade of that port or that coast is not effective, is not therefore valid by the law of nations, cannot be recognized by us, and will not be respected by our ships.
If we are vigilant enough in this respect, we apprehend that the blockade in several quarters will be found inadequate, and will have to be renounced.
But this is a very different matter from interfering to ‘"prohibit the blockade"’ altogether, on the ground that it is very mischievous to us.--The one proceeding is strictly in accordance with international law and justice.
The other is a flagrant and manifest violation of both.
Some action indispensable.
[From the
London Shipping Gazette.]
Our correspondent refers to the proceedings in the case of the
Hiawatha, of which proceedings he was an eye-witness: ‘"I attended [he says] in Court during the progress of the suit relating to the
Hiawatha and one or two others.
I was a mere spectator — that is, I neither know the owners nor any of the persons concerned in any one of the ships in question — and I assure you, at least in the case of the
Hiawatha, more law points were made by the
Judge to endeavor to sustain the alleged running the blockade than were put forward by the
District Attorney--
i.e., the public prosecutor."’ We have already expressed a deliberate opinion upon the case of the
Hiawatha and upon the judgment of
Judge Betts, and we have no doubt that the comments of our correspondent on the conduct of the proceedings are quite accurate.
Judge Betts rested the case upon the right of the
President to proclaim a blockade, and on the duty of all men to obey such proclamation.
It is for this that the judgment in question has received the applause of the
New York Press, as not only able, but ‘"patriotic."’ This is a new term as applied to a judicial decision, and is no doubt understood in
America, if not here.
It means that
Judge Betts has done the wish or bidding of those who appointed him. We did not require to be told, as our correspondent tells us as the result of his personal experience, that ‘"there is an obvious, an avowed eagerness on the part of the officials and judicial authorities to condemn British ship upon any possible legal quibble or technicality."’ Equally certain is it that British vessels, in the pursuit of their legitimate trade, have been boarded, searched, and occasionally detained, without just grounds, or that British ships having lost their masts, have been ‘"warned off and prevented entering a place of safety."’
All this is but too true, and it argues a disposition on the part of the
Federal Government, and of those who represent them, to embarrass neutral commerce, and especially the commerce of this country, which is as unbecoming as it is undeserved.
However, it is quite clear the present state of affairs cannot be suffered to continue, and that some action on the part of our Government is becoming indispensable.
Recognition of the Southern Confederacy necessary to the success of trade.
[Liverpool Correspondent of the Cincinnati Enquirer.]
In regard to
Liverpool provision trade, a letter from one of the most extensive houses in that city, to their correspondent here, says matters do not present a favorable future.--The civil war in
America, and the ill success of the
Federal army, with a probability of a recognition of the
South by the
European powers, postponing the war to an indefinite period, if such an act would be the means of engaging the
North in a war with
England, have a tendency to depress the market; and the prospects for a speculative feeling equal to last season are not at all flattering.
Cautiousness will be the motto by which they will be directed.
The letter closes with the advice to their agent here not to engage in the purchase of hogs till he hears from them; for the probability was, on the day he wrote, Oct, 5 that
England would soon, perhaps before sailing of the next steamer, recognize the Southern Confederacy, and as the effect that the move would have on the
North, not being definitely known in.
Liverpool among the business community, extreme carefulness for the present was particularly urged.
In confirmation of the condition of the market, as set forth above, we were shown two letters from Irish provision houses in as many different points in
Ireland.
