Ashtabula weekly telegraph. [volume] (Ashtabula, Ohio) 1853-1873, 1861-11-23
The Capture OF slidelI and MasOn-Nhs
Legality 0f the Act.

There seems to be no question: on legal
grounds of the proprey of the demand tor
the surrender Of Sildell aud Mason from
the British vessel. OF course the govern
ment will disuvow. any disrespect 10 the
English flag aud punish Captain WIlks 6y
oiriup him a better command The law
governing neutrals clearly recognizes the
| right on the part Of, belligerantS to deter.
niue the actual character Of the vessels Oh
neutral nations This can be done in maDy
cases only by examination of the vessel and
cargo itslf. The right uf visitation aud
search for this purpose, is therefore an es
sentia incident OF the law for if no right |
| of visitation and search existed, than the
suspected vessel must be permitted TO pass
| for whatever she assumed TO be- Aud TINS
would be nothing but cover for fraud and
deceit. If the right Of search be conceded,
then the right OF seizure follows as logical
{ necessity For, If upon search, contra,
C baud goods or dispatches, be found on hoard
the right Of search is futile and valulcSs,
; unless the right of seizure be also ad-
y mited.
= The present case does not in any manner
d assimiIate itself to the right claimed 10y
,e England and denied by America in 1872
There the right claimed was, not only the
right to visit and search for things contra
c. band. (which had not been der led. but to
" seal ch and seize men, as British subjects
= who had taken The oath Of allegence L
the American Government, and had there
3 by become American citizens. The case'
e. consequently bear no analogy. Indeed, l
n: is still question whether the vessel benl
10 ing SdelI aud Mason and their deSpdtche
was not itself liable 10 be captured, as haV
ing violated the laws of neutrality. Speak
IT. ing of this doctrine Chancellor Kent says
-"If upon making the search (of neutra
yessel) the vessel be found employed i
II contraband trade, or in carrying enemy
Of property, or troops, or dispatches, as ha6
he 10 be taken and brought in for adjudca'lo
b. before u prize court" Kent, Comm
~ 1853
- Tie same distinguished writer on th
Ut Law of Nations says, There are otht
DC acts Of illegal assistance afforded to bell
rs geraut besides supplying him with contr
band goods and relieving his distress, under
blockade. Among these acts, the eonve
Es ance of hostile dispstches is the most lhJn
ious, and deemed 10 be of the most host
49,. and no1iOHs character. The o
propriale remedy for this ohense is Il
confiscation of the ship and, in doing S
ON the courts make no innovation on the q
to- eient law, bot they only apply esta6lls
"A principles to new combinations OF circu
stances. There would be no penalty in
70" mere confscation Of the dispatches. 1
the proper aud efacient remedy is the conils(
nd ton ofthe vehecle employed 10 convey the
49,. n KanE Gam I52 \
do There eau be no question, then but th
Capt. Wilks was justified on every prin
pie Of International law as bearing upon
Sos. mutual relations of neutrals and belligeren
ert- in visiting and searching the neutral Veest
il aud seizing the dispatches and the bear
- OF them as officers in the service Of the c
my found on bobrd These men had
snip ambassadOrial functions or charter
way which England could take notice, as u
mp. had not any recognized nationality. \
the ther cyald they claim exemption from
49,, rest under tee British Gag as being Bri'
subjects. There was nothing, indeed,
meI but their surrender TO the proper DEM
nred OF the proper authority.