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