New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1861-12-13
NUMBER 24l.
Tae Mason-sIideII Arrest from ap EnglIsf
.s.t,s l. ... .a Point of View. ..azH-Y-

So much curiosity is naturally evineea to learn |
what may be said by the English press of the act |
Of Commodore wilkes, in foreibly taking Messrs.
Mason and SlideH from on board the English |
steamer Trent, that we reprint, from the New /
York Albion, recognized organ Of English senti |
ment in this country, statement of the case from
purely English point of view. It will be per- |
ceivea that the editor of that journal takes very
different view of the matter from that which has
been represented by the Northern editors and
jurists. He argues that the Trent was a public
vessel and was, therefore, privileged from being
stopped on the high seas-that Messrs. Mason and
Slidell were not ambassadors, but merely passen-
gers on board the vessel, and as such, were not
liable to arrest-that as the Federal Government
has not recognized the Confederate States as
beligerent power, 1t cannot exercise belligerent
rights that no proclamation Of war having been
made, but only q blockade of our own ports, moth
ing has been done to convert the Confederates
from rebels into enemies. The Albion writer con-
tends that Captain Wilkes has been guilty Of q
very serious breach of international eo8sitg, but
leaves jurists to decide whether lie has also violated
internationalIaw. What the British Government
may do or demand is held to be serious question,
and one which Is not to be dismissed quite easily
as the Northern press affects to believe. We make
some extracts from the AIbion's article .e@
Few will deny that on land and at sea the car.
riers of mails have always been vested with pri-I
vileges, greater OF less according to the greater
or less advance in civilization of the people who
granted, or guaranteed them. Has every one for
gotten how, about thirteen years ago, commerce
and progress ~ were linked together in pseaBs
and congratulations; when it was proclaimed to
the world that the two undoubted leaders in COM
mercia enterprise, as in love of liberty, had taken
nos rpfa In fha rirn fnr2 Ara IEGr h.
ling from our subject? You she'll see. On the
18th OF December, lS4s, there was signed in Lon.
don, by Mr.. Bancroft, as United States Minister,
and Lord Palmerston, as Foreign Secretary, a cer-
tain Postal Convention, whereof article Xxx, was
expressed in these words: s1 g. s}'.~''
''In case Of war between the two nations, the
mail packets of the two offices shall continue their
navigation, aoiltotA inapedineft on Daoestdtioa,
until six weeks after notification has been made
on the part of either Of the two Governments, and
delivered to the other that the service is to be dis
coatinued; in which case they shall be permitted
to return freely and ppder special protection, to
Nearly all the American writer's, who have fa-
Vored the public with ther opinions during the
past week, having adopted what may be termed
| the fortio,-i view Of the case, we commend, the
above extract to their calIa consideration and beg
them to apply it after that fashion. For IT, in war
time it was deemed desirable that no let or hind
| rance should be thrown in the way Of these quasi
public messengers-H possible enemies, that is,
bound themselves, in the interest of the CONNER
cial world at large, to sacrifice the commonest hos
| tile rights-what might be, what ought to be, ex-
pected in time of peace between friendly people,
| still standing mutually in the position of allies,
though as regards third parties one was belliger.
| ent and the other neutral? Singular pains seem
| to have been taken, in the above clause, to hedge
| round mail steamers with peculiar Jealousy. Up
to the moment of their compulsory return to port,
they were still to be under Especial protection
1 What constitutes, we would ask, special protec-
ton, and freedom from impeachment or molestation?
At least these privileges were denied to the Brit
| ish royal mail steamer Trent her comings and
goings being regulated, moreover, by lieutenant
| in her Majesty's navy, whose presence on board
might be supposed an additional plea for respect.
| n ... ~. - -zt.r3 = ~
We have said enough, we think, to justify US in
| holding Capt. Wilkes guilty of a very serious
breach of international comfy Whether he has
also violated international law jurists must decide
The case is untouched by precedent We believe
ourselves that the Trent is to all ntents and pur
poses, public vessel; but attorneys-general, we
say, and judges must decide. Let us glance briefly
at Capt. Wilkes proceedings, after he had broken
down the barriers that should have restrained him
He fOrclbly took OF two passengers on the plea
that they were ambassadors from an enemy, OF
they carried dispatches, or both; for the case OF
their secretaries may be adjourned. Now, we
deny point blank that Messrs. Sdell and Mason
had any ambassadoral character whatever. a
confederacy that has no recognized national exist
II ence cannot send forth an official representative
the captain Of the Trent these persons could have
been no more than any ordinary passengers, what
| ever he may have heard of their errand by com
| mon report-for, thank heaven, we have not retro
graded to passport system and they were there
fore entitled to such protection as his neutral nas
!, could afford, and to such an asylum on board his
ship as her special character should have secured
They themselves we repeat had no official po
! ston. They were not ambassadors, they certainly
| were not soldiers they could not be legally seizet
on board neutral ship at sea without some justi
fable pretext, however easy it is for a Secretary
Of State on shore to consign whom he pleases to
. military prison for alleged civil offence. aOh, bu
they were bearers of dispatches y say the voIun
teer legists, arguing again on their fo,to,i prin
ciple. " If the carrying Of dispatches according
to all authorities, subject vessel to forfeiture
course the bearers must be liable to seizure" Tn
argument is weak; law and practice run the othe
) way. Breakers Of blockade and carriers of con
. traband incur risks-but no personal risks, say
the Inconvenience of temporary Imprisonment
But were these gentlemen bearers of dispatches
We know not, and certainly the Captain of tn
= Trent had no means of knowing, since it is not tn
. custom on board our shirs to search passengers
persons or baggage on embarkation, or to pry int
the contents of the mail bags. Indeed, so far a
the latter are concerned, Messrs Slidel and Maso
+ had no control whatever. Observe, we do not pr,
tend that Messrs. Slidell and Mason were not en-,
It. mics and most fragrant enemies of their captori
, but we do pretend that international law does n,
warrant the seizure after this fashion of individual
t, not designated by public law; and further, TIL
l. no single word in the Queens oftquoted proclaim
a ton prohibited the Captain of the Trent fro
taking these individuals on board, all rumer as
: their mission or commission to the contrary nc
$ withstanding.
y And now, if there be any force in the position v
have assumed the cloud of 80 called precedent
set forth by your American contemporaries, di
W solves into thinnest air. We admit the unique
toned right of belligerents to visit and scare
neutral merchant ships; the Trent is public We
l. sci. An enemy's ambassador may unquestioiab
# be stopped upon the high seas, Messrs. Sdell
- Mason are not ambassadors. Private ships frau
10 ulendy" carrying dispatches (says Sir Walt
s. Scott, the word tacised being convenient
omitted, just now by all the American CONNIE
~ tators) are subject to confseaton the Trent w
ID not fraudulently carrying dispatches, nor was Al
y; attempt made TO seize her. In addition to this
~ ~ right whatever in this case is war right. WHIT
~ did the United States proclaim war against Il
~ ~ South They proclaimed blockade of their oV
y. y. ports, not of any enemy's. They have done n
q g thing whatever, officially, to convert the Southe
Confederates from rebels into foes. Nor can it
- pleaded that our government has acknowledge
J., both parties as belligerents. The United Stat
70 70 Government must have done so itself ere it cou
90 lawfully exercise one beligerent's rights iowa
+ another begerent, in presence and to the det
- 4 ment OF a neutral. .e.t y.. s....s. --9
VI VI Looking at all these doubts and dscrepancie
~ we cannot quite agree with writers around us th
e the American view Of the case is indisputably t.
ny correct one. We fail even to be convinced by Il
hu solemn announcement of Professor TheODbilus Pr