Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1861-11-20

AuNUnNAtNIN EMN Of IL 80 /
WiiEea CompIcteiT Justlned'
Since the news OF the arrest Of the rsssl
,missari,s and ambassadors while under ths
British flag, was published, the question G.
.be legality of the act has been universally
discussed aud various opinions expressed upon
that point. Upon the arst glance, 1t seemed
evident that It was in violation Of the laws c.
nations, and would be quickly resented by
the British government. But further in7es-
tigatiou goes far to disprove this opinion, snc |
even fully justi6es Capt Wilkes as hev!ag II |
no way transcended his powers. As the
question is q very important one present and
prospective, we give below few opinions Of
eminent authorities bearing upon the CUES
ton.
Chitty, the standard English Law writer
says in his "Law OF Nations" that upon tbs
same principle on which cOntrabands CT wsr
are prohibited, and citizens are inte--
dieted from interfering with blOcE-
ades, it has been held that "OtheT acts of u
legal assistance afforded to an enemy expose
to conascation the property Of the neutral
concerned in them. Among these, none is
ofa more injurious nature than The eon5eyoHes
Of hostile dispatches" Messrs. Mason and
Slidell were conveying important and hostile
DISPATCHES, and therefore come under this
opinion, beyond all doubt. In such cases
Chitty further says that the strict rule OF the
law Of nations originally was, that in cases
of contraband the ship should be conSscatedi
as well as the cargo, so that Capt. Wilkes
would have been justified in seizing a5 priz'
the British steamer.
Again, in Queen Yictoria's proclamation
Of the 18th Of May last, enjOining stIict neu
trality upon the part of all British subjects
she instances among the violations OF thai
neutrality, " carrying men, officers and dis
patches" The steamer Trent was certainl.
carrying dispatches, and therefore was no
neutral. The same proclamation said tina
all British subjects violating any OF its pro
visions twill do so at their peril, and of thei
own wrong, and win in no wise receive an
protection from US, against any liabilities
penal consequences" What could be strOnge
or more explicit than this language
: The proclamation of the Queen Of Spai
, says that "the carrying of war meserial, p'
psrs or communications, for the be!!igerent'
Is forbidden. Offenders shall be responsible
! for their acts and shall have no right to th
protection of my government"
I A late English writer on the law of cor
trabands says that " dispatches and milita'
passengers are denominated quasi aOHtra5ST
q Of s0ar."
n Sir William Scott says that carrying di
. patches is ''an act Of the most nczious an
3 hostile character and further that in sue
cases tit becomes necessary to resc:t to SON
other mode of cOnfscatiOn" (thsu the me;
# con6scation OF the dispatches) (which can
! no other than that of the vehicle"
Chancellor Kent says Of the carrying
"a dispatches that 'lhe appropriate remedy f
this offence is the cOn6scation Of the ship"
Pbillimore, ,denominated ''the leading Za
= lish authority on questions of information
j law" says that ''oficial dispatches from {
. official person, on the public affairs of Il
beIligerent government, imposes q hosLi
:. character upon the carriers of them"
, Wndman, another English writer upC
law, says .'It is the right Of TIE bslligere
to intercept and cut off all communication
dispatches"
In the declaration of war By EnglaI
= against Russia in 1854, is the following la
: guage: SIT is impossible for Her Majesty
foregO the right of seizing articles cOatrabal
of war, and of preventing neutrals fro
! bearing enemies dispatches"
: And finally, in words directly bearing q
= on the question of the right of carrying A
:. bassadors, Sir William Scott said in tHe ca
> of the Caroline, that "whenever the csara
ter of hostility exists, you H'Oy stop the oE'5'
:, sador Of sOur enemy on his passage.
= These extracts all being with cne exec
, tion) the opinions Of English writers, sh'
= that not only did Capt. Wilkes act he-oieal
y and patriOtically in the course he took, /
= also legally, and that the English gO7e-
ment can hardly fad an excuse for rnaSi
the affair a subject of trouble between
" two countries. We confess that re g
- greatly surprised to find such Eass c. g
U dence in favor of the legality of his act, 81
y it is needless for US to add, we are eq-a
o-a4;Gad