The Evansville daily journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ia. [i.e. Ind.]) 1848-1862, 1861-11-23
The Arrest of sIideII and Mason.

The following article from the Boston
Daily Advertiser of Monday, is probably
from the pen of Mr.. Everett, who has long
made study of the law of nations. 1t
appears TO dispose of the question in the
most satisfactory manner:
To the Editors of The Boston Advertiser.
Some doubt has been expressed whether
the arrest Of Messrs. Mason and Slidell on
an English vessel may not be made ground
of complaint by Great Britain. In recog-
nizing the rebels as bellgerents, however,
that pc yer has accorded to both parties the
free exercise of every belligerent right.
Among those rights no one is better estab-
lished than the maritime right of visitation
and search. We speak now of the right Of
visitation and search in time Of war-not Of
the claim which has been the subject of
disagreement between this country and
Great Britain, to visit our vessels for slaves
or alleged deserters. So we'll recognized is
this right that the mere refusal. TO submit to
it by a vessel otherwise innocent, is cause Of
confscation and forfeiture.
The detention and examination of the
Trent, upon which Messrs. Mason and Sill
dell were found, furnishes, then, no cause of
complaint. 1t is also clear that any vessel
engaged in the service of one of the bellig-
erent parties is subject to forfeiture at the
hands OF the other.
Among the acts which authorize seizure
and conhscatiOn, common violation of neu-
trality in the transporting munitions of
war is not the most heinOus. "The con-
veyance of dispatches" says Chancellor
Kent, sis the most injurious and deemed to
be the most hostile and noxious character =
| it is alone sufficient to justify seizure and
confscation. Il .fortioTi would transporta-
ton of an embassador-an embodied dis
patch--be violation of neutrality.
Sir William Scott held the carrying by a
neutral of dispatches from the Governor of
an enemy's colony to the Government at
home, ground of confscation. 1t would
seem, indeed, an absurd Inconsistency that
a vessel might transport with IMMUNITY an
! accredited messenger provided with author
/ ity and with means to obtain munitions of
war, and to intrigue and negotiate, while
| it might be seized and confscated for re-
/ turning with these very munitions pur-
chased by the same messenger, or for trans
| porting the dispatches announcing his sue
cess. Nor is there anything in the position
of these pseudo-embassado7s to furnish pro-
lection. Sc far as Great Britain is con-
cerned, these persons did not occupy the
position of ambassadors, and without vio-
lating Der own proclamation, her Majesty 8
| Government could not accord it to then. -
They were merely messengers or agents of
the rebels, seeking recognition as embassa-
doris.
Again-we see no ground for supposing
that the course of Capt. Wilkes could be
considered as a violation of asylum upon
English soil, represented By an English
vessel. These persons we're not seeking re-
| fuge- They were engaged in acts for which
they would be subject by our laws to capt.
| tai punishment. The officers of the Trent
and their vessel were openly and knowing
/ ~ engaged in aiding them in these acts, in
| violation of the neutrality proclaimed by
| the Queens proclamation and of the law Of
nations.
"Private vessels, moreover" says Mr..
/ Wheaton, Storm no part of the neutral ter
/ ritory." The owners of the Trent should
ind cause of gratitude rather than COM
| plant, that their vessel has not been sub
| jected to the forfeiture to which 1t might
well be argued she was properly subject.