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

la judicial trial has been lost because we
Voluntarily released the Offending vessel
ont of consideration for her innocent pas
aengers,I do not see how she IS to be
/ bound to acquiesee in the decision which
\ was thus made hyus without Necessity on
our part, and without knowledge oil con-
Il ditions or conseutfon her own. he ques-
/ lion between Great Britain aud ourselves
thus stated would be a question not of
right and of law, fbut of favor to be con-
| ceded by her to as in return for favofs
shown by us TO her. of the valne of which
| fayors on both sides we ourselves shall be
the Judge. OF course the United States
could have no thought of raising such
/ question in any case. -.,.-..,-5-
+ 4 trust that 1 have shown to.the tistae-'
ltion Of the British Government, by very
! simple and natural statement OF the facts,
and analysis of the law applicable to them
THAT this Government has neither. medita-
j ted, nor practiced, nor approved aany de-
lfberate wrong in the transaction TO which
they have called its attention; and, on the
contrary, that what has happened has been
simply m inadvertently, consisting in de-
I partIlre, by the naval officer, free from any
| wrongful motive, from a rule uncertainty
established, and probably by the several
parties concerned either imPerfectly under
stood or entirely unknown. For tins error
the British Government has right to eX-
lpect the same PREPARATION that we, as an ln-
dependent State, should expect from Great
Britain or from any other friendly nation
lin similar case. III - +
1 have not been unaware that, in exam
lining this question: ThaYe fallen INTO an
! argument for what seems to De the British
side of it against my own country. But L
/ am relieved from ali embarrassment on that
subject, Ihad hardly fallen into that line
of argument, when l discovered that was
really defending and maintaining, not an
exclusively British interest, but an old
honored, and cherished American cause,
not upou British authorities, but upon
principles that constitute large portion
;of the distinctive policy by which the unl-
ted statesshaye developed the resources OF
continent, and TINS becoming consider
able maritime Power, have won the respect
and confidence of many nations. Ihese
principles wore laid down torsus IN 1aO4,
| by James Madison. when SECRETARY OF state
| in the Administration of Thomas Jefferson
\ in the instructions given to James Monroe,
our Minister to England. Although the
| case before him concerned o description OF
! persons different from those who are Incl
| dentaIly the subjects of the present discus-
| sion, the ground he assumed then was the
| same now occupy, and the arguments by
which he sustained himself upon it have
been an inspiration to me in preparing this
reply.
NWhenever,'' he says, 'tproperty found
in a neutral vessel is supposed to be liable
on any ground to capture aud condemna-
ton, the rule in all cases is, that the ques-
ton shall otibe decided by the captor, but
be carried before legal tribunal, where
regular trial may be had, and where the
captor himself is liable for damages for an
abuse of his power. Can it be reasonable
then, or Just, that beTIigerant commander
who is thus restricted, and thus respon-
sibIe in a case of mere property of trivial
amount, should be permitted, without re-
curing to any tribunal whatever, to exam
inc tine crew of a neutral vessel, to decide
the important question of their respective
aIIegiances, and to carry that decision into
execution by forcing every individual he
may choose into a service abhorrent to his
feelings, cutting him OFF from his most ten
der connexions, exposing his mind and his
person to the most humiliGting discipline,
and his life itself to the greatest danger
Reason, Justice, and humanity unite in pro-
testing against so extravagant q proceed
| ing"
i'll decide this case in favor of my own
Government, must disavow its most cher
ished principles, and reYerse and forever
abandon its essential policy. The country
those principles, and adhere to that policy,
must surrender the case itself. twill be
seen, therefore that the government could
not deny the Justice of the claim presented
to us in this respect upon its merits. We
are asked to do to the British nation just
what we have always insisted that all ma
lions ought to do TO us. -
The claim of the British government is
not made in discourteous manner. This |
70 mr. ENiI Il
has never used more guarded language in a |
similar case. =. -e=7sr sgzFT i
In co ming to conclusion have not for |
gotten that, if the safety of this Union re-
quired the detention of the captured per-
sons, it would be the right and duty of the |
government to detain them. But the eff
fectual check and waning proportions of |
the existing instruction, as well as the |
comparative unimportance of the captured |
persons themselves, when dispassiouately |
weighed, happily forbid me from resorting |
to that defence.
Nor am unaware that American citi-i
zens are not in any case to be unuecessa-s
rilY surrendered for any purpose into the
keeping of q foreign State. Only the cnP-
tured persons, however, or others who are |
interested in them, could Justly raise 8 |
question on that ground: lEs a.
Nor have / been tempted at all by sug- |
gestions that cases might be found in his
tory where Great Britain refused to yield
to other nations, and even to ourselves,
claims like that which is now before us.-'l'
Those cases occurred when Great Britain,
as well as the United States, was the home
of generations which, with all their pecu-
liar interests and passions, have passed
away. She could in no other way SO eff
fectually disavow any such injury asswe
think she does by assuming now as her own
would tell little for our own claims to the
character of a just and magnanimous peo-
pie five should SO far consent to be guided
by the law of retaliation as to Lift up bu-
ried injuries from their graves to oppose
against what national consistency and the