The Nevada Democrat., 1861-11-26
Seizure OF Mason and sIideII--RIghts Of
BeIIIgerents.

Seizure OF Mason and sIideII--RIghts Of
BeIlIgerents.
The seizure of the rebel Commissioners
Mason and slidell, will undoubtedly lead TO
long international controversy between
Great Britain and our Government. There
ia no telling what view the British ministry
may take of the matter now, but the Seiz'
ure was certainly in accordance with the
rights which Great Britain has invariably
claimed for herself; though perhaps, In Con-
travention Of the American doctrine.
The following extracts from KenFs com
mentaries. a standard work and good au-
thority, have bearing on the SUBJECT ana
will be read with interest:
Tn order to enforce the rights Of belligerent
nations against the delinquencies OF neurals,
and to ascertain the real as well as assumed
character Of all vessels the high seas, the la"
of nations arms them with the practical power
of visitation and search. The duty oil self
preservation gives to belligerent nations TINS
right. 1t is founded upon necessity, and Is
strictly and exclusively war right, anu does
not ri9htfully exist in time Of peace, unless
conceded by treaty. All writer's upon the law
of nations, and the highest authorities, ack-
nowledge the right in time Of war as resting on
sound principles Of public jurisprudence, and
upon the institutes and practice OF all great
maritime powers. And it. upon making the
search, the vessel be found employed in cou-
traband trade, or in carrying enemy's property,
or troops. or dispatches, she is liable to be
taken and brought in for adjudication before
prize court. -.
Neutral nations have frequently been dis
posed TO question and resist the exercise OF this
right. This was particularly the case with the
Baltic confederacy during the American war
The right Of search was denied, and the
flag of the State was declared to be a substitute
for all documentary and other proof, and 70 ex,
clude all right of search. Those powers armed
for the purpose Of defending their neutral pre-
tensions; and England did not hesitate to con-
slider it as an attempt to introduce by force a
new code of maritime law inconsistent with her
belligerent rights and hostile to her interests,
which would go to extinguish the right OF mar
thine capture. The attempt was speedily frus-
trated and abandoned, and the right Of search
has since that time been considered incontro-
vertible.-[Vol. l, PIP. 1853 4 l59.
The British Government disclaim the right
Of search in time of peace, but they claim at all
times the right Of visit. But the Gov
ernment of the United States do not admit the
distinction, between the right Of visitation and
the right Of search.-[ Note C, p. l5S.
The Government Of the United States admits
the right of visitation and search by belligerent
government vessels Of their private merchant
vessels, for enemy's property, articles contra
band of war, or men in the land or naval SER
vice of the enemy. But it does not understand
the law Of nations TO authorize, and does not
admit the right of search for subjects or sea-
men. England, on the other hand, asserts the
right to look for her subjects on the high seas
into whateye source they might wander, and
will not renOunce it. . 1t was one princi-
pal cause OF the war Of 1912, and remains un-
settled to this day.-[Note b, p. l6l.
1t would seem from the above authority,
that Capt Wilkes had an undoubted right
to visit and search the English steamer; by
the British doctrine he had the right to take
by force the rebel commissioners, aud il the
papers and instructions in their possession
could be considered as "dispatcbes," then
the vessel carrying them was liable to ssiz-
ure, and eondscation.