Daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1859-1865, 1861-12-31

,tions. Nortisit ever TO be forgotten that
neutrality, honestly and justly preserved,
always the harbinger of peace, and
therefore is the common interest of ma
tons, which is only saying that it is the Inc
iterest of humanity itself.
Atthe same time ii is not to be denied that
It may sometimes happen that the judicial
remedy will become Impossible, as by the
shtpwreck of the prize vessel, or other cir
cnmstances which excuse the captor. from
sending or taking her into port for contisca-
ton In such case the right of the cape
tor to the custody of the captured persons
and to dispose of them, if they are really
contraband, SO as to defeat their unlawful
purposes, cannot reasonably be denied
What rule shall be applied inssuch a case
Clearly, the captor ought to be required, TO
show that the failure of the judicial rene
dy results from circumstances beyond his
control, and without his fault. Otherwise
he would be allowed to derive advantage
from wrongful act of his own:
In the present case, Captain Wilkes, az
ter capturing the contraband persons and
making prize ofthe Trent in what seems to
us perfectly lawful manner, instead of
sending her into port, released her from the
capture; and permitted her to proceed with
her whole cargo upon her voyage. He
thus effectually prevented the judicial ex-
animation which might otherwise have oc-
cnrrcd.
If, now, the capture of the contraband
persons and the capture of the contrrbaDd
vessel are to be regarded, not as two sep
arate or distinct transactions under the
law of nations, but as one transaction, one
capture only, then it follows that the cap
ture in this case was left unfinished, or was
oh VVhatbaT. the ITnitR6 States
have right to retain the chief public BEN
.efits fit, namely, the custody of the cap
tured persons on proving them to be con-
5traband, will depend upon the preliminary
question whether the leaving of the trans
action unfinished was necessary, or whether
it was unnecessary, and therefore yolun-
tary. If it was necessary, Great Britain
as we suppose, must of course waive the
defect, and the consequent failure of the
judicial remedy. On the other hand, 1T IS
not seen how the United States can insist
upon her waiver of that judicial remedy, If
the defect OF the capture resulted from an
act of Captain Wilkes, which would be
fault on their own side.
4. lCapt. Wilkes has presented to this Gov
eminent his reasons for releasing the Trent.
81 forebore to seize her." he says, Sin con-
sequence of being SO reduced in othcers
and crew, and the arrangement 1t would
cause innocent persons, there being large
number of passengers who would have been
put to great loss and Inconvenience, as
well as disappointment, from the Interrupt
ton it would have caused them in not be-
ing able to Join the steamer from st. Thorn
as to Europe. i therefore concluded to
sacrifice the interest of my officers and
crew in the prize, and suffered her to pro-
coed after the detention necessary to effect
the transfer of those commissioners, cons
sidering had obtained the important end
1 had in view, and which affected the in
terest of our country and interrupted the
action of that of the Confederates."
shall consider, first, how these reasons
ought to affect the action of this Govern
ment; and, secondly, how they ought to
be expected to affect the action of Great
Britain.
The reasons arc satisfactory to this Gov
eminent, so far as Captain Wilkes is con-
cerned. 1t could not desire that the San
Jacinto, her officers and crew, should be
exposed to danger and loss by weakening
their number to detach prize crew to go
on board the Trent. Still less could it
disavow the humane motive of preventing
inconyeniences, losses, and perhaps disas-
tiers, to tho several hundred Innocent pas
sengers found on board tho prize vessel
Nor could this Government perceive any
ground for questioning the fact that these
reasons, though apparently incongrqous,
did operate in the mind of Captain Wilkes
and determine him to release the Trent.
Human actions generally proceed upon
mingled, and sometimes conflicting, mo-
tives. He measured the sacrifices which
the decision would cost. 1t manitestly,
however, did not occur to him that beyond
the sacrifice of the private interests (as he
calls them) of his officers and crew, there
might also possibly be a sacrifice even OF
the chief and public object of his capture
namely, the right of his Government to
the custody and disposition OF the captured
persons. This Government cannot censure
him for this oversight. 1t confesses that
the whole subject came unforeseen upon
the Government, as doubtless 1t did upon
him. Its present convictions on the point
in question are the result of deliberate ex-
animation and deduction now made, and
not of any impressions previously formed.
Nevertheless, the question now is, not
whether Captain Wilkes is justified to his
in what he did, but what's the
present view of the Government as to the
effect ofwhat he has done. Assuming now,
for arguments sake only, that the release
Of the Trent, il voluntary, involved waiver
of the claim of the government to hold the
captured persons, the United States could
in that case have no hesitation in saying
that the act which has thus already been
by the Government must be al
lowed to draw its legal consequence after
it. It lis of the very nature of gift or a
charity that the giyer cannot, after the ex-
ercise of his beneyolence is past, recall or
modify its benefits.
j We are thus brought directly to the ques=
lion whether we are entitled to regard the
release of the Trent, as involuntary, OF
whether we are Obliged TO consider that il
was voluntary Clearly the release would
have been involuntary had it been made
solely upon the hrst ground assigned for it
by Capt. Wilkes, namely, a want ota sut-
icient force to send the prize vessel into
port for adjudication. 1t is not the duty
Of captor to hazard his own vessel in orr
der to secure judicial examination to the
captured party. No large prize crew, how