The Evansville daily journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ia. [i.e. Ind.]) 1848-1862, 1861-11-28
tCoTTespoHde1sce.l
The Capture OF Mason and sIideIi
once more.


EDITORS JOURNAL In your editorial
notice of my communications of Monday,
you charge me with misunderstanding you
and then, in substance at least, re-assert that
with which charge you. Let me re-state
my position. We, as nation, now admit
and always have admitted, the right of the
armed vessels of belliserents in time of war
to search the merchant vessels of neutrals
for property, persons and dispatches, contra
band Of aoar. and for no. other purpose; and
in the exercise of this right which we have
awarded to others and claimed ouselves,
Commodore Wilkes arrested the Confederate
Ambassadors.
The right claimed by England and which
we have resisted, and / think very properly.
is another and a very different thing. 1t is
the right of the armed vessels of one nation,
in time OF peace, to search the merchant
vessels of another nation to whom she does
not sustain the relation of belligerent and
neutral under the pretense of searching for
deserters or under any other pretense. And
your argument is not aided by your very
ingenious allusion to the "great struggle
between England and France as you know
full well that the right was never asserted
by England nor denied by us as war
right, and the parties never claimed on the
one hand or conceded on the other the relation
of belljgerent and neutral On the con-
trary, England claimed it as a general
maritime right In time of peace, and as
she then claimed to be mistress of the seas,
she insisted upon enforcing the doctrine,
and as we were little jealous, and though
not 90 strong, yet as proud as she, and
believing u an arbitrary assumption on her
part for the mere purpose of humiIiating u.s.
we resisted the enforcement of the doctrine
and have continued to resist it successfully
for half a century; ard inasmucll as | be-
lieve our theory is right and as think
'gredt nations ought 10 be consiStent" | am
in favor of our continuing to maintain our
position. 4ot
But you seek TO make diversion by the
point that we have not recognized our
enemies in the present civil war az bellig-
erents that we complain of England, &c
This is true to great extent with the peo-
pie and especially the press. We are not
aware, however, that onr gogernment ever
gave any striking marks of dissatisfaction
il reference TO the Queen proclamation and
other acts Of the British Government
awarding 10 the coniederatess The position
of belligerents ;and though our Government
did hesitate to treat the rebels, (for as to
as they are rebels) as belligefents for
time, and there was nothing improper in
that. The moment we treat their prisoners
as prisoners of war and exchange them we
award to them the character of belligerents;
and upon this point we rest the argument.
You say we refuse to exchange prisoners
with them and thereby deny to them the
character of belligerents / say that we
have exchanged prisoners with them, in
large numbers, and are continuing to do so :;
indeed, it is now understood to be The set
tied policy of the Government, and there
fore we have already awarded to them the
character ola belligerent pos0er, though not
nation, and that is clearly sufficient to
sustain my position and to justify the cap
ture upon the well settled principles of in
ternational law. ~