The rams in England Once more.
--We noticed on Saturday the pharisaical argument of the Exeter
press in favor of suppressing these formidable leviathans, and published the fierce assault which one of the number made upon their own especial favorite, Lord Russell, because he did not, in violation of all law, lay upon them the strong hand of possession.
It seemed to be utterly regardless of the palpable encouragement which he had already given to some Abolitionist to come forward and perjure himself by swearing that he knew the vessels were designed for the Confederate States
. --Surely Russell
did not deserve such treatment from his friends of the humanitarian stripe.
No man has shown himself more inimical to the Confederate States
, or more subservient to Seward
and Yankee Doodle
Two opposite passions seem to be in possession of his soul, if it is to be presumed that he has a soul, and that it has warmth enough to entertain any passion whatever.
One is the destruction of the Confederate
For this he would be willing to risk everything, were it not that the conflicting passion neutralizes this one, and creates that pause between the conception and acting of a dreadful thing when we are told "the genius and the mortal instrument" are at war. He thinks it for the interest of England
that the belligerents should fight until they utterly destroy each other, and he fears that desirable consummation cannot be obtained if an end be put to the strife by the armed intervention of England
For a similar reason he cannot be expected to grieve very much at the destruction of Yankee commerce by Semmes
, for he knows that it secures the entire carrying trade to England
, and banishes the "gridiron" from every sea, unless when it floats from the mast of a ship-of-war.
But for this latter consideration, beyond a doubt, he would long ago have found some law for seizing the rams.
We are told by the Exeter Hall
press that privateering was abolished by the treaty of Paris
Now, as we stated on Saturday, the United States
were not only not parties to that treaty, but Lord Russell himself has, by his own act of omission, acknowledged it to be already obsolete.
It required that a blockade to be binding must be effective — that is, that it must be an actual
blockade, so strict that vessels cannot enter the blockaded port without being captured.--There probably never was a blockade that answered so badly to that description as that which the Yankees
The trade of Charleston
, so far from having been reduced, is, beyond all comparison, greater than it ever was before.
With what face, then, can the Exeter Hall
press demand the observance of the treaty of Paris
when it makes in favor of the Yankees
, unless they demand a similar observance when it makes in our favor?
We are not much versed in international law, but we believe that the continued, habitual violation of one clause of a treaty amounts to an abolition of the whole instrument.
This, at least, is common sense, if it be not law; for if one party violate one clause at will, another party may violate another clause, and thus the whole treaty come to be entirely disregarded, which we take to be pretty much equivalent to abolishing it. If the Exeter Hall
men intend to effect anything, let them go boldly to work, and insist that the whole treaty, in all its parts, be faithfully executed.
Do not let them pick out the parts which suit their purposes, and ignore all the rest.