The Burlington weekly hawk-eye. [volume] (Burlington [Iowa]) 1860-1876, 1861-12-28
Tho Point Made by England, |

If the version of the English papers is to be
taken IS authentic-and it must be substantial
ly so, for the London Court Journal so puts the
case-the point made against the act Of Capt.
Wilkes, and thus against the government Of the
United States, is that the c0ntraband ambassa-
dors could not be seized and held without the
decree Of a prize court, and that in the absence
Of this confirmation Of the legality Of the seizure,
it must be regarded as q trespass-i. e., q viola
tion Of the neutral Gag The objection seems
to be altogether technical, and We doubt if 1t is
in any respect sound. We, could not take and
bold anything neutral-as the Trent itself, for
example-without the judgment of prize court,
but the only purpose of the adjudication is to
prove the fact. Where we take only the con.
traband, and the fact that it is contraband is
undisputed, we cannot see that it should be i'm.
puted to US as an act Of hostility that we waived
our right to take the ship also which bore the
contraband, and when the the British govern
ment and people learn the humane motives that
induced Capt. Wilkes to allow the Trent to pro-
coed With its passengers and freight, they must
view the whole affair in better aspect, unless
perversely bent on misinterpreting it. National
rights do not rest upon forme, nor upon the pro.
ceedings of prize courts, which are alwaws ez
rarte tribunals. If we had taken the Trent and
condemned her, England would have just as
great, ard much greater claim for reparation (if
she has any than at present. "a -safs
Mason and Slilell were not private persons; ;
they we're public functionaries, Of the sort which
we have right to arrest in their passage. Their
character was avowed by the commander Of the
Trent in his dispatches to his own government !;
it can be proved to have been known by him,
and the fact itself is proved by the message of
seizing seamen without any decree of nationality
is entirely analogous. They justified such seiz.
ures automatically, not legally; why may we
not do the same in the present case? Again, in
the case Of the Caroline destroyed by them in
ls47 at Buffalo, they assumed the fact of her
hostile character, and without attempting to
take her to Canadian port for condemnation,
though she was undeniably an American vessel,
moored at an American wharf, on our own soil,
they seized her, killing those on board, set her
on fire and sent ner over the falls of Niagara.
This was shorter way Of settling her hostile
character than even by diplomacy, 4s
That England takes different view of the
present case indicates that she seeks quarrel
with our Government, and if she has made up
her mind to that, one point is as good IS anoth-
or to be raised for pretense. eve have done
ourselves what we will not allow others to do y
| the London Times says with an arrogance that
only John Bull knows how to assume, and that
tells the whole story. There is no argument to
be made when your opponent says in advance,
that he will not be held to any recognized prin-
| c;ples-not even his own. If England has de.
liberately made up her mind to pay OF old scores
she will stand on false cause Of quarrel with az
little c0mpunction as highwayman robs dy.
ing traveller, or wrecker stranded ship. Per.
haps she wished only to compel US to consent to
the establishment of the cotton republic. At
| all events, she seems disposed to quit the howl
| Of her starving Irish and English laborers by