ONE DOLLAR PER ANNUM INVARIABLY IN ADVANCE. TOWANDA: Thursday Morningj January 9,1862. The Mason and Slidell Case. lettfrs of the English mimster and 1 SECRETARY SEWARD. Below will be found the correspondence be the British M.nister and becretary Sew- UrJ* iw. it iff"'" l . ' b,i . tb , "mit ketM this country d ht.fl.nd are amicably settled : _ * T-n Va EAKL RVSSELL TO LORP LIONS. For Etc v Office, Nov 30, 1861. 7&r la/om, h. O 8., Ar d" c , Arc. Mv Lord— Intelligecce of a very grave na tare has reached her Majesty's Government This intelligence was conveyed officially to the knowledge of the Admiralty by Comman ds Williams, airent for mails on board the contract steamer Trent It appears from the letter of Commander Williams, dated " Royal Mail Contract Pack et Trent, at Sea, November 9," that the Trent left Havana on the 7th inst . with her Majes ty's mails for England, having on board nu merous passengers. Commander Williams pars that shortly after noon on the Bth a rteamer having the appearance of a mar-of war, hut not showing colors was observed dlicnti On Hearing her at I. 15 P M. she nred round shot from her pivot guu across the bo** of the Trent, aud showed American fol irs While the Trent was approaching her < urlv the American vessel discharged a shell icross the hows of the Trent, exploding half fahle's length ahead The Treat then stop ned. and an officer with a large armed guard of marines boarded her. The officer demand ed a list of the passengers ; and, compliance witti this demand being refused, the officer said he had orders to Rrrest Messrs. Mason and Slnleli, Macfarland and Eustis, and that he had sure information of their being passengers in the Trent While some parley was going mi upon this matter Mr Slidell stepped for ward and told the American officer that the four person* he had named were then standing More turn The Commander of the Tteut and Commander Williams protested against tne act of taking by force out of the Trent ihv> t mr passengers, then under the pro rec ttou of the llritoh flag But the San Jacinto its.- st that : idle only two hundred yard* from re Tver.', fie ship's company at quarters, her p>rN open, aud tumpioos out. Resistance was therefore out of the question, and the four geirlemen before named were forcibly taken out of the ship. A further demand was made that the Commander of the Trent should pro red on board the San Jacinto, but he said he * "j!i not eo unless forcibly compelled like * *e, and this demand was not insisted apon It thus happens that certa.u individuals nave been forcibly taken from on board a Brit -h vessel, the ship of a neutral Power, while -nch vessel was pursuing a lawful and innocent voyage —an act of violauce which was an af front to the British flag aud a violation of in ternational law Her .Majesty's Government, tearing iu mind f hc friendly relations wh'ch have long snbsist 'd between Great Britain land the United Mates, are willing to believe that the United Mi'es naval officer who committed the aggres sion was uot acting in compliance with any au thors y from his Government, or ihat if be conceived himself to be so authorized, he great ii misunderstood the instructions which he had rr-tved For the Government of the United S *te> mnst he fully aware that the British Government coald not allow such an affront to tbe national honor to , pass without full re oration, and Her Majesty's Government are unwilling to believe that it could be the delib erate iiitentiou of the Government of the Unit ed States unnecessarily to force into discussion between the two Governments, a question of so grave a character, and w itfi regard to which the whole British nation woold be- snre to en tertain such unanimity of feeling. Ht Majesty's Government, therefore, trnst that when the matter shall have been brought nndrr the consideration of the Government of tbe Doited States that GovernmeD* will, of its own accord, offer to the British Government redrevs as alone could *atisfv tbe Briti>h Wtoo, namely, the liberation of the four gen tlemen and their delivery to your Lordship, id order that they again be placed under Bru nt protection, and a suitable apology for the tftrtMioo winch has been commuted >'iou j these terms not be offered by Mr. yui will propose them to him A are at liberty to read th s dispatch to .f >- -e of S'ate, and, if he shall desire * give him a copy of it. 1 Ac., Rcsscll -UR SEYYARD TO LORD LYONS. Uwr.KTHBNT Ie Hr 4TO. A WafthiUjft-.a, WafthiUjft-.a, bee . in. f • ' kigi i.' IJon<irabU Li>rd Lyons, A-c . J-c. Mr i ■ • -tn— Kuvell * despatch of N<>- • 'iiier JOih a copy of which ya have left * •• me at my request, is of the following ef- W namely ; T.w: a of O-tmrnander Will aros, dat | '•* J- Mail Contract Packet Boat Trent. Nt tember 9th, states that that vessel u, *°* oo the 7th of November, wi'h M i , mails for England, having on 1 } numerous passenger*. Shortly after 00 ° on the Bth of November, the United * - war steamer Saa Jacinto, Capt Wilkes I colors, was observed ahead That oo being l eared by the Trent, t one . Y mi on es in tbe afternoon, fired a u , Q . a : ' tlot fro ® a pivot gun across ber bows, -: ow,d American colors While the Trent | r ■!! 4 PP ruac * Mo g slowly towards the San Ja • -°s £ C'scbarged a shell across the Treot's ! which exploded at half a eable's length I idh TretU theD ,U>Pped 40 boa -a ? k * rge guard of marines ofic ® r bd orders <5! Maaara Mason, Slidell, Maefarlaod THE BRADFORD REPORTER. i ; w T" [ and Eustis, and had sure information that they were passengers in the Trent. While some parley was going on upon this matter, Mr. Sli | dell stepped forward and said to the American officer that the four persons he had named were standing before him. The Commander of the Trent aryi Commander Williams pro tested against the act of taking those foor pas sengers out of the Trent, they then being un der the protection of the British flag. But the San Jacinto was at this time only two hundred yards distant, her ship's company at quarters, her ports open and tompions out, and so resistance was out of the question The four persons before named were then for cibly taken out of the ship. A further demand was made that the Commander of the Trent should proceed on board the San Jacinto, but he said he would not go unless forcibly com pelled likewise, and this demand was not in sisted upon Upon this statement Earl Russell remarks that it thus appears that certain individuals have been forcibly taken from on board the British vessel, the ship of a neutral power, while that vessel was pursuing a lawful and innocent voyage, an act of violence which was an affront to the British flag aud a violation of international law. Earl llussell next says that Iler Majesty's j Government, bearing in mind the friendly re j lations which have long existed betweeu Great , Britain and the United States, are willing to believe that the naval officer who committed this aggression was not acting iu compliance with any authority from this Government, or that, if he conceived himself so authorized, he gr-atly misunderstood the instructions which he had received. Earl Russell argues that the United States must be fuiiy aware that the British Govern meat could not allow such an affront to the national honor to pass without full reparation. R"d they are willing to believe that it could not be the celiherate iutention of the Govern niHiit of the United States unnecessarily to force into discussion between the two Govern ment- a tpiestion of so grave a character, and with reirard to which the whole British nation would be sure to entertain such unanimity of feeling. JEurl Russell, resting upon the statement and the argument which I have thus recited, clos es with saying that her Majesty's Government trusts that when this matter *nall have been 1 brought under the consideration of the United States it will of its own accord, offer to the j Briii.-h Government such redress as aioue could satisfy the British nation, uatuelv, the ' liberation of the four priso .ers taken from the 1 Trent, and thrir delivery to your Lordship, in order that they may again be pltrced under British protection, and a snitahle apology for the aggression which has been committed.— Earl Russell finally instructs you to propose those terms to me, if I should not first oS'er them on the part of the Government. This dispatch has been submitted to the President. Tne British Government has rightly con jectured, w hat is now my duty to state, that Capt. Wilkes, in conceiving and executing th proceeding in question, acted opou his own suggestions of duty, without any direction or instructions, or even foreknowldge of it on the part of this Government. No directions had been given him or any other naval officer, to arrest the four persons named, or any of them, on the Trent, or on any other British vessel, or any other neotral vessel.at the place where it occurred or elsewhere. The British Gov ernment will justiy iufer from these facts that the Luted Btates not only had no pnrjose, but I even no thought of forcing into discussion the question which has arisen, or any which could affect in any way the sensibilities of the Brit ish nation. It is true that a round shot was fired l v the San Jacinto from ber pivot gun when the Trent was distantly approaching But, as the tacts have tn-en reported to thus Government, the shot was nevertheless intentionally fired in a direction so obviously divergent from the conr*e of the Trent a to be quite as harmless | as a blank shot, while it should be regarded as a signal So also we learn that the Trent was not approaching the Sau Jacinto slowly when the shell was tired across her hows, bnt, on the contrary, the Trent was, or seetnen to be.rnov ing under a full head of steaui, as if with a pur pose to pass the San Jacinto. We are informed also that the boarding of ficer (Lieutenant Fairfax) did not board the Trent wrh a large armed guard, bnt he left his marines in his boat w heo he entered the Trent, lie stated his instructions from Capt Wilkes to search for the four persons named, in a respectful and conrteons though decided manner, and he asked the Captain of the Trent to show his list, which was re fused The Lieutenant, as we are informed, did not employ absolute force in transferring the passengers, but he owed jnst o much as wae necess*ry 10 satisfy the parties concerned tb*t refusal or resistance would fie unavailing So, also, we are informed that the Captain of the Trent was not at any time or in any way required to goon board the San Jacinto.' The>e modifications of the caie as preseut cd br Commander Wtliiums are based upon our official repot ts. I hare now to remind yoor Lordship of some facts which doubtlessly were omitted by Karl Russell, with the very proper a.d becoming motive of allowing them to be brought into the ease, on the part of the United S.ates, in the way most satisfactory to ibis Government. These facts are that at the time the transac tion occurred so insurreetiou was existing iD the United States whiob this Government was engaged in suppressing by the employment of land and naval forces ; that in regard to this domestic strife the United States considered Great Britaiu as a friendly Power, while sbe had assumed for herself tbe attitude of a neu tral ; and that Spain was considered in the same light, and had assumed the same attitade as Great Britain. It had been settled by correspondence that tbe United States and Great Britain mn.ual ly recognized a? applicable to tbie loot! strife PUBLISHED EVERY THURSDAY AT TOWANDA, BRADFORD COUNTY, PA., BY E. 0. GOODRICH. these two articles of the declaration by the Congress of Paris in 1846, namely, that the 1 neutral or friendly flag should cover enemy's goods not contraband of war, and that neutral goods not contraband of war are not liable to captnre under an enemy's flag. These excep tions of contraband from favor were a negative ' acceptance by the parties of the rule hitherto 1 everywhere recognized as a part of the law of rations, that whatever is contraband is liable to captnre and confiscation in all cases. | James M. Mason and E. J. Maefarlaod are citizens of the United States, and residents of I Virginia. John Slide!! and George Eustis are I citizens of the United States, and residents of Louisiana. It was well knowu at llavaona when these parties embarked intheTrem that James M Mason was proceeding to England iu the affected character of a Minister Pleni potentiary to the Court of St. James, under a pretended commission from Jefferson Davis, who had assumed to be President of the in surrectionary party in the United States, and ! E. J. Macfar'and was going with him in alike l unreal character of Secretary of Legation to the pretended mission. John Slidell, iu simi lar circumstances, was going to Paris as a pre ! tended Minister to the Emperor of the French, George Eustis was the chosen Secretary of Le garion for that simulated mission. The fact that the."* persons had assumed soch charac ters has been rince avowed by the same Jef ferson Davis in a p r etended message to an un lawful and insurrectionary Congress. It was we think, rightly presumed tf:*t these Minis ters bore credentials and instructions, a''d such papers are in the law known as despatches We are informed by our Consul at Paris that these despatches, having escaped the search of the Trent, were actually conveyed and deliver ed to the emissaries of the insurrection iu Eng land Although it is not essential, yet it is proper to state, as I do also upon information and belief, that the owner and atrent, and all the officers of the Trent, including Comman der Williams, had knowledge of the assumed characters and purpose of the persons before named, when they embarked on that vessel Your lordship will now preceive that the eases before us. instead of presenting a merely flaiirant act of violence on the part of Capt Wilkes, as might well be interred from the in complement statement of it that went np to the Bntih Government, whs undertaken as a sim ple.legal and customary belligerent proceeding hv Cpt. Wilkes to arrest and capture a neutral vessel engaged in carrying contraband of war for the use and benefit of the insurgeuts. The question before us is whether this pro ceeding was atrhoriz-'d by and conducted ac- ' cording to the liw of nations. It involves the following inquires : Ist. Were the person named and their sup posed despatches contraband of war ? 2d. Might Capt. Wilkes lawfully stop and search the Trent for those contraband persona and despatches ? 3d Did he exercise the right in a lawful, proper manner : 4th Having found the contraband persons on board and in presumed possesion of the contraband despatches, had fie a right to cap ture the persons ? sth. Did he exercise that right of captnre in the manner allowed and recognized bv the law of nations ? If all these inquiries shall be resolved in the affirmative the British Government will have no clann for reparation. I address myself to tbe first inquiry, namelj, were the four persons mentioned, and their supposed despatches, contraband? Maratime law so generally deals, as its pro fessors say, tn rrm, that is, with property, and so seldom with persons, that it setms & strain ing of the term contraband to apply it to them. But persons, as well as property, may be con traband, since tbe world means broadly " con trary to proclamation, prohibited, illegal, un lawful." AH writers and judges pronounce naval or military persons iu the service of the enemy contraband Vattel ays war allows os to cut off rom an ?neiny all his resources, and t> hin der htm from sending ministers to -olicit assis tance And Sir William Scott says yoa may stop the embassador of yonr enemy on his pas sage. Despatches are not less clearly contra band, and the bearers or couriers who under take to carry them fall under the same con damnation A subtlety might be raised whether prtended ministers of an usurping power, but recogntxed as legal hy either the belligerent or the nea tral, eonld be held to be contraband. But it would disappear on being subjected to what is the true te>l in all cases—naiuelv.jthe spirit of the law Sir William Scott, speaking of civil magistrates who were arrested and detained as contraband =ays : " It appears to me on principle to be bnt reasonable that wh D ' of sufficient impor tance to the enemy that such persons shall be sent ant on the public service at the public ex pense, it should afiord equal ground of forfeit ure against the vessel that tuny be let out for a purpose so intimately connected with the hostile operations." I trust that 1 have shown that the four per sons who were taken from the Trent by Capt. Wilkes, and their despatches, were coutraband of war. The second inquiry is. whether Capt Wilkes had a right by ttie law of uations to detain aod search the Trent ? The Trent, though she carried mails, was a contract or merchant vessel—a common car rier for hire Maratime law knows only three classes of vessels—vessels of war. revenue ves gels, and merchant vessels Tbe Trent falls within the latter eiass. Whatever disputes have existed concerning a right of visitation or search in time of peace, none, is supposed, has existed in modern times about the right of a belligrreot in time of war to capture contra bands iu neutral aod even friendly merchant vessels,and of the right of visitation and search, ID order to determiue whether they are neutral and are documented aa such according to tbe law of nations. I assume, in the present case, what, as I rcud British authorities, is rwfarded by Great " RESARDLESS OT DKNtJNCIATION FROM ANT QTJARTSR." Britain herself as trae maratime law ; that the circnmstaucfe that tbe Trent was proceed ing from a nentral port to another neutral port does not modify the right of the beliger ent captor. The third qnestion is whether Capt Wilkes exercised the right of search in a lawful and proper manner. If any doubt hung over this point, as the I case was presented in the statement of it adopt ed by the British Government, I think it mast have already passed away before the modifica tions of that statement which I have already submitted. I proceed to the fourth inquiry, namely : Having found tbe suspected contraoand of war on board the Trent, had Capt Wilkes a right to capture the same ? Such a capture is the chief, if not the only recognized object of a visitation and search The principle of the law is that a belligerent exposed to danger may prevent the contraband person and things from applyiug themselves or being applied to the hostile nses or purposes designed. The law is so very libera! in this re spect that when the contraband is found on board a neutral vessel, not only is the contra band forfeited, but the vessel, which is the ve- j hide of its passage or transportation, beiDg tainted, also becomes coutraband, aud is sub jected to capture and confiscation. Only the fifth qnestion remains, namely : ! Did Captain Wilkes exercise the right oi cap- j turing the contrabands in conformity with the ' law of nations ? It b just here that the difficulties of the case begin. What is the manner which the law of nations prescribes for disposing or the contra | band wheu you nave found and seized it on board of the neutral vesei ? The answer would be easily found if the question were what you shall do with the contraband vessel. You must take or send her into a convenient port, and subject br to a judicial prosecution there in admiralitv, which will try and decide the ques tions of belligerency, neutrality, contraband and capture. So, again, yon would promptly find the same an-wer if the question were What is the manner of proceeding prescribed by tbe Inw ot nations in regard to the contra band if it be property or things of material or pecuniary value ? But tbe question here concerns the mode of procedure in regard, not to the vessel that was carrying the contraband,nor yet to contraband things which worked tbe forfeiture of the ves sel, but to contraband persons. The books of law are dumb. Yet the ques tion is as important as it is difficult. First, the belligereut captor has a right to preveut tbe contraband officer, soldier, sailor, minister, or courier from proceeding in bisuulawful voyage aud reaching the destined scene of his injurous se r vice- But, oo the other hand, the person ptured may be innocent—that he may not •e contraband. He, therefore, has a right to a fair trial of tbe accusation against him. Tho neutral State has taken him uoder its flag, is bound to protect him if he is not contraband acd is therefore entitled to be satisfied upon that important question. The faith of that State >* pledged to his safety, if innocent as its ju-tice i pledged to his surrender if be is really contraband. Here are conflicting claims, in volving personal liberty, life, honor, and duty, j Here conflicting national claims, involving welfare, safety, honor, and empire. They re quire tribunal aud a trial. The captors pnd the captured are equals ; tbe Leutrai and the belligerent States are equals. While tbe law authorities were found siieut it was suggested at ao early day by this Gov ernment that you should take the captured }*r- ' sons luto a convenient port and institute judi cial proceedings there to try the controversy. But only courts of admirultty have jurisdiction in maritime cases.an i these courts have formu las to try ouiy claims to contraband chatties, but no one to try ciaims concerning contraband persons. The courts can entertain no proceed ings and render no judgment in favor of or agaiusl the alleged contraband meo It was replied all this is true ; but yon can reach in those courts a decision which will have the moral weight of a judicial one by a circuil ou? proceeding Couvey the suspected men, together with the suspected vessel, into port, and try there the question whether the vessel ia contraband. You can prove it to be so by proving the suspected men to be contraband, and the court must then determine the vessel to be contraband If the raeD are not contra band the vessel will escape condemnation Still there is no judgment for or against the cap tured persons But it was assumed that there would result from the determination of the coart concerning the vessel a legal certainty concerning -he character of the men This course of proceeding seemed open to many objections. It elevates the incidental inferior private interest into the proper place of the paramount public one, pnd possibiy it may make the fortunes, the safety, or the exis tence of a nation depended on the accident of a merely personal and pecuniary hugatiou.— Moreover, when the jodgment of the prize court upon the lawfulness of the capture of the ves sel is rendered, it realty concludes nolbiog.and binds neither the bilhgerent State or the neu rral upon the great question of the dUpoeitioo to be made of the captured contraband per sons. That question is still to br really deter mined, if at all, bv diplomatic arrangement or by war. One may well express bis sorprise wheo told that the law of nations has furnished no mire reasonable, practical, and perfect mode ihan this of determining questions of such grate im port between sovereign powers The regret we may feel on the oeeassioo is nevertheless modi fied by the reflection that ihe difficulty is not altogether anomalous Similar and equal de ficiencies are found in every system of munici pal law, especially in the sy*tem which exists in the greater portions of Great Britain and the United States The title to personal prop erty can hardly ever be received by a Court without resorting to the fiction that the claim ant has loet aad the possessors has found it, and the title to real estate is dwpoted by real litigants under the names of imaginary per son* most be confers**], however that while all aggrieved nations demand, and all impartial on es concede, the need of some form of judicial process in determining the charac ters of contraband persons, no other form than the illogical and circuitous one thus described exists, nor has any other yet been suggested. Practically, therefore, the choice is between that judicial uenai'dy or no judicial remcdv whatever. If there be bo judicial remedy, the result is that the question must be determined by the captor himself, on tbe deck of the prize vessel. Very grave objections arise agaiust such a course. The captor is armed,the neutral is un armed. The captor is interested, prejudiced, and perhaps violent; the neutral, is truly neu tral, is diseoterested, subdued, and helpless. The tribanal is irresponsible, while its judg ment is carried in*o iostant execution. The captured party is compelled to submit, thcugh bound by no legal, moral, or treaty obligation to acquiesce. Reparation is distant aud pro blematical, aud depends at last on the justice, magnanimity,or weakness of the State in whose behalf and by whose authority the capture was made. Out of those disputes reprisals and wars necessarily arise,and these are so frequent and destructive that it may well be doubted wheth er this form of remedy is not a greater social evil than all that could follow if tho belliger ent right of search were universally renounced and abolished forever. But carry the case one step farther. What if the State that has made the capture unreasonable refuse to hear the ocmpiaint of the neutral or to redress it ? In ; that case, the very act of capture woald be \ an act of war—of war begun without no tice, and possibly entirely withont provoca , tion. I think all unprejudiced minds wiil agree that, imperfect as the existing judicial remedy may be supposed to be, it wou'd be, as a gene ral practice, better to follow it than to adopt the summary one of leaving the decision w'tb the captor, and relying upon tfip diplomn'ie debates to review his dt-cision. Bracticaiiy, it is a question of choice between law, witn n imperfections and delays, and with its evils and desolations Nor is it evpr to forgotten that neutrality, honestly and jns'lv preserved, is always the harboring of iea< .-, and therefore, is the common interest of na tions, which is oniv saying that it is the iu terests of humanity itself At the same time it is not to be denied that it may sometimes happen that the jodi cial remedy will become impossible, as by the shipwreck of the prize vessel, or other cir cumstances which excuse the captor'rom end ing or taking her into port for — In such a case the right of the captor t<. the custody of the captured persons and to diepos*- of them, if they are really coutraband, so e to defeat their unlawful purpose*, cannot rea 3 onably be denied. What rule shall be applied in such a case ? Clearly, the eaptor omrnt to be required to show that the failure of tbe judicial remedy results from ctrcuinstances oe yond his control, and without fault. O'tier wise he would be allowed to derive advantage from a wrongful act of his own lu the present case.Capt. Wilkes, after cap taring the contraband persous and making prize of tbe Trent iu what seems to us a j>er fectly lawful manner, instead of sending her into port, released her from the capture, and permitted her to proceed with her whole cargo on her voynire. He thus effectually prevented the judicial examination which otherwise might have occurred. If now the capture of the contraband per sons and the capture of the contraband vessel are to be regarded, not as two separate or dis tinct transactions under the law of nations,but as one transaction, one capture on'y, then it follow* that the capture in this cass wn left unfinished or abandoned Whether the United State* have a rignt to retaiu the chief public benefits of it, naturai'y the custody of the cap tured persons on proving tbeua to be contra band, will depend upon the preliminary ques tion whether the leaving of the transaction nn finished was necessary, or whether it was un necessary and therefore voluntary If it was necessary. Great Britain, as we suppose, must wa ; ve the de'eet, acd the consequent failure of the judicial remedy On the other band, it is not seen how the United States can insist upon her waiver of that judicial remedy, if the de fect oi the capture resulted from an act of Cnpt. Wilkes, which would be a fault on their OWD side Capt Wilkes has presented to this Govern meot his reasons for releasing the Trent. " I forebore to seize her," he says, "in consequence of my bring so reduced in officers and crew, and the derangement it would cause innocent persons, there being a large number of paseen gers who wouid have been pot to great boss and inconvenience, a* well as disappointment, from the interruption " would have caused them in not being tojoiu the steamer from St Thomas to Europe " T therefore concluded to sacrifice the interests of my officers and crew in the prize, and suffered her to pr<x*eed after the detent.on necessary to effect the transfer ol those Comuiissiouors, considering I nud obtain ed the important end I had in view and which affected the interests of our country and inter rupted the action of that of the Confede rates." I shallconsider first,how these reasons ouzht to affect the action of this Government ; and, secondly, how they ought to be expected to affect the action or Great Britain The reasons are satisfactory to this Govern ment, so far as Capt. Wilkes is concerned. It could not de&ire that the San Jacinto, her of ficers and crew, should be exposed to danger and loss by weakening their number to detach a priz* crew to eo oo l>oard the Trent Still leas could it disavow the humane motive of preventing inconveniences, losses, and perhaps disasters, to the several hundred innocent pas seugers found on board the prize vessel Nor could this Government perceive any ground for questioning the fact that these reasons, though apparently congruous, did operate ia the mind of Capt. Wilkes and determine hi® to release the Trent. Human actions gener ally proceed upon mingled, and conflicting coo tires wruet-'mee Brstared the sacrifi"** vol,. XXII. —NO. 82. [| which this decision woold cost. Jt manifestly □ however, did not occur to him that beyond the :• sacrifice of the private interests (as he caffs i them) of his officers and crew, there might 1 also poaaibly be a sacrifice even of the chief and public object of his captnre—namely, the i i right of his Government to the custody and / disposition of the captured persons. This gov ernment cannot censure him for this oversight, s It confesses that the whole subject came an ?; forseen upon the Government, as doubtless it . | did upon Lim. Its present convictions on the i point in question arc the resalt of deliberate - examination and dedaction no ■ made, and not , ' of any impressions previonsly formed. ! Nevertheless, the question now is, not whe ther Capt. Wilkes is justified to his govern ment in what he did, but what is the present view of the government as to the effect of what he has done. Assuming now, for argument's sake only, that the release of the Trent, if vol untary, involved a waiver of the claim of the government to hold the captured persons, tbe United States could in that case have no hesi tation in saying that the act which has that already been approved by the government mast be allowed to draw its legal consequence after it. It is of the very nature of a gift or a charity that the giver canuot, after the ex ercise of his benevolence is past, recall or mod ify its benefits. We are thus brought directly to the que#- : tion whether we are entitled to regard tbe re ! lease of the Trent as involuntary, or whether we are obliged to consider that it was volunta ry. Clearly tbe release would have been in voluntary had it been made solely upon tbe j first grouod assigned for it by Capt. Wiikes, I namely, A want of a sufficient force to send the priz- ves*l info port for adjudication. It is not the duty of a captor to hazard his ova vessel in nr.j>-r to secure a judicial examination to the captured party No large pr zs ere", HOWEVER,|IS*IKHIIV nrfessary for it is thedutv of the captured party to acquiesce end go willing v oefore the tribunal to whose jurisdiction it appeal" I f tbe cap'ored party indicate per j poses to employ means ot resistance which 'he captor cannot with probable safely to him- I ..|f svofeoiQe, he may proprrjy le-avc the ves sel to go forward ; arid neither sue nor tbe | ""'ale she represents c&o ever afterwards just j object thhr the capture depr red her of the jodiciu, remedy to which she wa entitled Hut the second reason assigned by Captain i Wime. tor releasing tne Trent differs froin i 'tie drat A' beet, therefore, it must be held j 'hat Capt W'lk-s, as he explains himself, act -d from combined sentiments of prudence and generosity, and so that tbe release ot theprixe vessel wus not strictly neces-ary or involuuta ry. Secondly TTow cnght we to expect these explanations by Capt Wilkes of his reasons ' for leaving the captnre incomplete to affect me action of ibe British Government ? Toe observation upon this point which first occurs is, that ('apt. Wilkes' explanations were not made to the authorities of the cap turod SPIS If made known to them they might have approved and taken the release, upon the condition of waiving a judicial in vestigation of the wboie transaction, or tbey might nave refused to accept the release upon that condition. Hut the cae is not one with them, bat with the British Goveruuieut. Jf claim that Great Hritian ougnt not to ius-.it that a judicial trial has beeo lost because we volun tary released the offending vessel out of con sideration for her innocent passengers, I do not see how she is bound to acquiesce in the | decision which was thus made by us without . necessity on our part, and without the knowl edge of condition" or consent on her own The ' question between Great Britain and oarselvei would be a question of not right of law, but |of favor to be conceded by her in retoro for favors shown by us to her, of the value of which favo r s on both si its weouraelve* shall he the judge Of course the United State! could have no thought of raising such a ques tion in anv case. I trust ih*t i nave *hown to the satisfac ttoa of the lii itiih GoTeromtnt, hr a very#im [Je and natural statement of the facts, a; d arialvo* of the law applicable to the®, that this Government has neither meditated, nor practiced, nor appro red an t d berate wrong in the traiiactioD to wiich r :y have caiied its attentiou ; and, on the contrary, that what has happened ha* been t : tnply an inadverten cy. consisting in a departure, by the naval of ficer, free from any wrongful motive, from a rate uncertainly established, and probably by the e vera! parties) eoueerned either imperfectly understood or entirely unknown. For this er ror the Briti&n Government has a rignt to ex pe*t the same reparation that we as an inde pendent State. shnid xpect from Great Brit tan or from *ny other inendly nation in a sim ilar rase. 1 hare not been unaware that, in examining thi qnestion, ! harp fallen info ao argument (or wha' t-eemn to be the British side of it ngainn my own country. But I an. relieved f rom all embarrassments on tnat subject I had hardly fallen into that line of argument, when f discovered tbat I was really defending and maintaining, not an exclusively Bnusb i*re<t, but an old. hoDor-d and cherished American cause, not 'jpon British authorities, hut upou princip'es chat constitute tion of the distinctive pgJicy by which the United States hare developed the resources of a continent, and thus becoming a considerable marttme power, and won the respect and con fidence of tiiauy nations. These principles were laid down for u* in I*o4, by James Midison, when Secretarv of State in the administration of Thomas Jefferson, io instruction* given to James Monroe, or Minister to England Al though the cae before him concerned a descrip tion of persons d fferent iroia those who tre in cidentally the subjects of the present discus sioo, the ground assumed then waa the same I now occupy, and the arguments by which ha sustained b:m*eif upon it have been an inspi ration to me in preparing this reply. 14 Whenever," he says, " property foood fa a p.eulrsi r*el is supposed to be itable oo My r *• fmt+fk eny- 4
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers