« ZurückWeiter »
know, no Index has heretofore been printed in either country to these national series. Every year has added to the ponderous mass already existing, new scores of cumbersome documents, burying deeper and deeper the earlier volumes. It is true that any paper of which the exact date was known could be easily found; but if the investigator has sought to ascertain what public reports have been printed upon a given topic, he has been always tried with vexatious delays, and often completely thwarted. These difficulties are now removed. This Index gives, under the head “United States," nearly if not quite a complete statement of all Congressional publications, and in addition, a minute Index to all the topics which are discussed in them. We may easily illustrate the value of such an analysis by an incident which came under our observation not long ago.
A gentleman, who is writing the biography of an eminent officer of the United States Army who has recently fallen in the active service of the Union, was desirous of tracing the hero's career during his residence in California. It became necessary for him to inquire into the early history of that new State, and he searched all the works on California to which he could gain access in a large public library, but with very
little satisfaction. The public documents seemed to him so voluminous, so ill-arranged, and so badly indexed, that he was inclined to despair of turning them to any account. The Librarian called his attention to the Boston Index, and a mountain of difficulties was leveled at once. Turning to it, under the heads of California, Colorado, Fremont, San Diego, San Francisco, San Pedro, Tnlare, gold bullion, &c., he was able quickly to trace out many of the papers for which otherwise he might have searched in vain for days.
Let us take another example. The complicated affairs of Kansas are under discussion. It is ordinarily quite difficult to find authentic copies of various documents which pertain to the constitutional history of that injured commonwealth ; but under the head of Kansas, in this elaborate Index, we are instantly directed to the Leavenworth, Lecompton, and Topeka Constitutions, and to the various reports on the State affairs which in their day so completely occupied the attention of the country.
We might go on and illustrate any number of topics of national importance in a similar way; but the completeness of the Index can only be appreciated by frequent references in one's own behalf. We have tried it by many test questions, and in almost every case with entire satisfaction.
The English Parliamentary papers are analyzed with a degree of minute carefulness equal to that which characterizes the American Index. These two portions of the Catalogue by themselves are of inestimable value to all who wish to investigate the public policy, and to become familiar with the official publications of two great nations.
The preparation of this Catalogue is the work, as we understand, of Prof. C. C. Jewett, the accomplished Superintendent of the Library, assisted by Messrs. Vinton and Jillson. His varied attainments, his fine scholarship, his love of books, and his practical talents, have fitted him in an uncommon degree for the post which he fills. Appointed and sustained by a Board of Trustees, of which Mr. Everett is Chairman, and of which other members are distinguished in the world of letters, the Superintendent has been encouraged to go forward and elaborate a catalogue which will not only be a monument to their enlightened judgment, but a lasting benefit to all American scholars.
The corporation of the city are also entitled to the highest praise for the liberality with which they have provided the pecuniary means for preparing and printing this elaborate volume. We can hardly cast our eyes anywhere upon its pages, mindful of what it represents, without being impressed anew with the munificence, the thoroughness, and completeness which characterize everything which is done by the NOBLE OLD CITY OF Boston !
ARTICLE XI.-HAUTEFEUILLE ON SOME RECENT QUES
TIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.
Quelques questions de droit international maritime a propos
de la guerre d'Amerique, par L. B. II AUTEFEUILLE. Paris, 1861.
This is a brochure of seventy-four pages, written by one of the leading publicists of France, who is known by his history of maritime international law, and his treatise on the rights and duties of neutral nations. His principles are fully expounded in the latter work, which reached its second edition in 1856; and the present pamphlet, composed apparently in or since the month of July last, applies these principles, which are based on strict if not extreme views of neutral rights, to a particular case. As for the rest, being a writer of care and ability, he has a claim, in what he says of our relations to neutrals at the present crisis, to our respectful attention.
The essay opens, however, rather inauspiciously with a brief statement of our existing troubles; and his conclusion is that in the proceedings of the south “there is no rebellion, no revolt. It is a union freely formed which is freely broken.” (p. 5.) And again, (p. 7)," it seems to us that there is a wide space between the rupture of the federal pact by the States of the south and what we ordinarily call a rebellion, or to take an example from the country in question, between that rupture and the revolt of the six (1) English colonies against their mother country in 1775.” This blunder of the six colonies occurs again in another place.
This is one of the many instances in which English and French writers show their ignorance of our Constitution. They seem to argue as if all confederations were alike. So in another place M. Hautefeuille writes: “It is then a confederation, an association of free States, and this association although declared perpetual by the act which had constituted it,” [where however he confounds the old confederation which contained this declaration with the present Constitution), “had none of the permanent characters, which for Europeans are presented by the agglomeration of populations under a monarchical government.” Has he thought here of Austria with its various nationalities and differing laws, or of the union of Poland and Russia, or of that of Sweden and Norway, or of that between England, Scotland, and Ireland ? Has he never learned the distinction which German writers have denoted for a long time by the terms Staatenbund and Bundesstaat, between a league of States and a State formed by a league? Or is he not aware that the Swiss, a few years since, changed their form of constitution from the one to the other, with the United States for their model ; and that our Constitution was expressly formed on the idea of strengthening the central and weakening the state power?
Or supposing the union“ freely formed,” can it be for that reason freely broken? Is not every contract free in its essence, and is not the breaking of a treaty, relating to a “trade of pepper and coffee, calico or tobacco, or some other such low concern,” held to be a cause of war; nay, has not the breach of a contract for the supply of slaves to Spanish colonies provoked the English to hostilities; and shall the breach of “a partnership in all science, in all art,”—“between those who are living, those who are dead and those who are to be born,” be justified and go unpunished, because it was freely entered into? To us this appears to give no right to break, but to add greatly to the guilt of breaking. A province like Alsace or Frânche Comté, added by force and without the people's con. sent, cannot tear itself “from the agglomeration of populations” which constitute France, but States, forsooth, which have divested themselves of all international power, and have agreed that the Federal Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land, may do what they please, because they freely assumed the relation.
We should not need to notice this, if it did not influence the judgments of many in Europe concerning the war. Why
not recognize the seceding States, they say, in such a loosejointed confederacy? And in truth, if the confederation is what they regard it, great as are the evils of breaking it up, its continuance would be only the less of two evils. But let us pass on to the main points of the pamphlet be
Whether the southern States have the right to secede from the Confederacy or not, there is a state of war in a part of the world which affects nations not concerned in it. How should these nations regard those who are in revolt against the Government of the United States ? International law replies, according to Mr. Hautefeuille, that all regular wars ought to be reputed just on the part of the two belligerents. Or in other words there should be a strict neutrality maintained in all other nations towards the parties at war, whether they be portions of one nation, or separate nationalities. And this is the attitude which England, France, Spain, and Prussia, with varying sympathies towards the conflicting parties, have adopted. France, for example, has declared that she would observe a strict neutrality between the two hostile parties, one of which she calls the States who claim to form a separate confederation, (les états qui pretendent former une confédération particuliere), by which language she is as far from expressing a favorable opinion of their cause as neutrality will allow.
We concede the general fairness of this statement, and the propriety of the declarations of neutrality made by several of the continental powers. If, for instance, in any attempt at revolution, the insurrectionists are driven across the borders, as was the case in the last IIungarian revolt, they are not to be given up, because a government may reprobate the movement, but must be protected; and the same is true of vessels driven within neutral waters, if belonging to a revolted part of a country. So, too, it will follow from the notion of neutrality, as it appears to us, that a neutral nation cannot regard the vessels of a province in hostility to its own government as engaged in piracy, when they capture vessels of the other party, or even when they capture neutral vessels, under circumstances which render it lawful for an ordinary belligerent to seize