Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1861-11-29
THE OPINION AT THE NORTH.

s.., aid Slnlell. N,.n. rejoice and tremble
olhe,s fear aud u,,ublc, others justify thu
act and if they complain at all, complain tha
,hc British steamer was not taken as we'll as
her passengers. We make some extracts:
From tho National 1niellgencerl
"rhose who are not already familiar with the
principles involved in the proceeding of Capt
Wilkes, will learn with interest that it is fully
justified by the rules Of international law, as
those rules have been expounded by the mos
illustrious British jurists and compiled by the
most approved writers on the Laws of Nations
So far from having transcribed the powers with
which he was clo,hed By the code, Captain
Wilkes did not exhaust the full measure OF bis
authority, for he not only had an undoubted
right to arrest these ambassadors" of the
confederate Government, on their passage to
Europe, but, might have justly captured the
vessel on which they were found, aud brought
her into port TO be condemned as lawful
prize"
As the foregoing principles are derived
wholly from the adjud,cutions Of British Ad-
miralty Courts, and as Capt. Wilkes has ex.
ercised something less than the scope of power
vindcated for a belliserent by these rulings,
it would seem idle to suppose that his action
can afford any ground for reclamations by the
British Government, which will be more likely
to express its grateful appreciation of the for
besrance displayed by that officer in not cap.
turing the vessel found engaged IN " favoring
rhe offensive projects Of the enemy" If the
British legis.S recognize the right Of one bel
lgerent nation to capture on the high seas the
r ILL,
tortiori must they acknowledge the right Of u
sovereign belligerent government to seize, IN.
der similar circumstances, the ENJOYS Of a
faction TO which, in the present case, they have
conceded the rights and, therefore, the re-
sponsibilties Of belligerentS
1t be proper 70 add that it makes no
difference in the Law of tho case whether the
master Of vessel be ignorant or not of the
character Of the service in which he is engaged.
In the present case, however, the master OIL
the Trent must nave been we'll aware Of the
character borne by Messrs. Mason and Slidell,
and ,hcr.:i. re knew that in doing service to
the {" .-':.rent bclligerents by forwarding
their cnvuys to Europe, he was doing an injury
to the government of the United States.
The Boston Traveller" (Rep) takes DIT
ferent view. 1t says:
1t is not probable that our government would
allow British war vessel to take an Irish rebe
out of an American vessel in which he had
taken passage from New York for San Francis
co. Without time to look up any precedents
we are inclined to believe that according lt
the laws Of nations, the prisoners must be
given up, and the act of the Captain Of the SIR
Jacinto disaVowed. But may not the case o.
the Caroline be applicable to this case? Tn,
English then actually invaded our territory
and cut out an American steamboat, causing
her destruction and tho deaths Of some porso:iS
because she had been engaged in aiding the
rebels in Canada; and the British steamship
that was taking Sldel and Mason to Europe
was engaged in helping the Southern rebels
Where is tho difference! The act was boIC
one on the part Of the commander Of the Si,
Jacinto, and We cannot help admlring his pluck
while regreting that he had not mort pru
dence.
The New York Herald produces sevels
authorities to sustain the action Of Captain
Wilkes, and adds
We have precedent il the action Of tn:
British Government itscl:, in precisely simi
lar case in the Irish rebellion Of 1913, whcl
the person of Terence Bellew McManus was
forcibly taken from an American ship, the BRIG
y. D. Chase. of Boston, under protest of thu
officers in tho harbor of Cork, where he had
taken shelter under the stars and stripes, at q
time, too, after she had cleared the port uno
was virtually on her voyage. having been ly
ing of the harbor six days, waiting for f.
vorable wind. But it is evident Commodore
Wilkes was not authorized to make the arrests
on board Of British ship, and it is more thar
probable the Government will dsavow the
proceeding, apologize for it, promising never
to do it again. and perhaps reprlmand the naVa
officer for permitting his zeal to outstrip his
discretion. This is all We think the Englist
Government can fairly demand, if it ever does
make any demand on the subject. The English
papers will probably make great noise abou
it, and Palmerston and Russell will be terribly
embarrassed. But as for giving up Masor
and SlIdell, DOW that they are in the hands o.
our Government that is another affair, ant
| altogether out of the question.
The New York Tribune" remarks:
But what will Great Britain say to tn,
taking of these two would, be ENJOYS by force
from one of her merchant vessels We de
not know, and do not greatly care. We shall
endeavor to say nothing on the law Of th'
case that may even seem calculated to fore
stall or embarrass the action of our Govern
ment. If Great Britain demands the liberia
ton Of these gentlemen, and reparation fol
their capture, we propose to sustain such re
spouse as our Government shall see fit tc
make For it is not possible to make such
demand without in substance confessing tina,
the right to search American vessels for Br
fish sea,nen, and to take away those who are
adiudsed such-which was the principle case
of the WAT of 1Sl2-hss no foundation in pub
lie law. II, then, the British Government sees
fit to confess that it was utterly wrong in the
collisions which engendered our last war--
was wrong in every instance when she search
ed our merchant ships for those claimed as
native burn citizens OF the British Crown-we
trust our Government will stand ready to deal
wisely and Justly with the venerable penitent.
She need not admit that she was wrong IN
articulai ly fragrant instances, such as the at
tack Of the Leopard on tue Chesapeake IN
1903, and the burning Of the Caroline at
SchloSser, Zone y: ouS d"cks,) in the Niagara
river, in 1858 II she is ready now to estab.
lish and abide by any doctrine on the general
subject, we trust her protfers will be received
with distinguished consideration. But if she
chooses to he satisfied with British prcccdenta
for the case immediately in hand, she can be
supplied witt, them to her hearts content.
The New York journal of Commerce" says:
From the reports received, it appears that
the Trent received on board two civilians, spe.
clal ambassadors to Europe on an eIrand to
procure aid for the Southern belligeIcnts, and
carrying dispatches Of the utmost Importance
to that beligerent in the present war
Whether the cantain Of the Dri.i"h vessel
knew what he was doing is unimportant. The
law suppcses that shipmaster, or his owner
or frvightcr knows his lading and Knows the
character "f al dispatches on his ship. 10 the
present instance there is little doubt that the
captain knew the whole story. He had been
warned by his Queen, that ii he violated the