Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1861-12-29
bD Gas. DEPT OF TIE 10.
nnnL On I-nr 4.
THE mASON-sLIDELL AFFAIR,
The Latest Opinions OF the Tnunderel

From the LoBdon Tiues Dsc5
Gen. Scott denies that it was in direct obedience
% the instructions from the government at Wash |
ngton, that Commodore Wilkes perpetrated the |
outrage upon our flag. So far, so well. General |
Scott, however, has only denied what no one be-
ieved. Oar special correspondent at Washington |
had, by anticipation fortified against giving ere
dence to any such fabrication He had already |
told US that the act of the Captain of the San ia |
cinto his own, AID that he had undertaken this
as & means Of distinguishing himself. |
1t Is not, however, very assuring that Gen. Scott
like his countrymen is rather inclined to disavow
the conception of this act than to repudiate it now
that il has been done. He wishes to look upon IT
as very small affair, and he does not seem to be |
able to see that the question of what is cons |
traband of war cannot be as lawfully determined
by an Cfhcer at sea as by an international prize
court He thinks that, after a public insuIt has 1
been offered by the officer of one country to the |
flag of another, the first thing to be done is NOT
complete restitution, but an argument between the
ministers of the two countries whether what has |
been done in violence might not have been legally
effected in peaceful manner. General Scott 0rie
vousy mistakes the feeling Of the country if he be-
lieves that good relations between America and
Englsnd are to be preserved by any such sugCes-
tons as these. We have sent to Washington NOT
tn open a controversy, but 10 demand restitntion
When that has been done we shall be happv m ala
the other questions at issue at any length the
Americans may please.
a question
discussion is the right Of bellIgerent power TO
take by force and carry away the passengers and
cargo of q neutral ship We must do the Ameri
cans the justice to say that they have seen this
fculty, and have made some clumsy ATTEMPTS to
meet it. Of course, it cannot be argued upon prin.
ciple. The cOnseQ uences of such rule would be
universal piracy. 1t is attempted, therefore. by
some writers. and even by some who ought to know
be tier and do better to justify what has been done
by Commodore Wilkes-for we cautiously abstain
from treating this act of the United States IN
til they have formally adopted it-by showing that
similar things have been done before. One gentle
man at Boston, who is, we believe near relative
of Senator Sumner, who is said TO write under in
spiration quotos what he calls q case in noiut
where as he says. az envoy from the insurgents in
America to Holland was captured on board of a
Dutch ship, and was committed to the Tower as
traitor. Mr.. George Sumner is entirely mistaken
50 to the one important fact in his case for the
ship on which Mr. Lsurers was captured was not
Dutch, bit American; but he is equally mistaken
if he thinks that even were his case parallel 10 that
Of the Trent in all its circumstances, it would be
allowed by US, or by France, or by Russia or by
Spain, or by any civilized msTstime nation TO have
any bearing upon the question as to what ia he
law of nations at the present day. A hundred
wrongs will not make right. The pages of histo-
ry, far back as history can be read are specked
with deeds ofNEiolence and crime but these act,
are cited by morsists proofs that such deeds
now constitute virtue.
If the Cabinet of Washington proposes to contend
that we must IN the year 1851 submit to endure at
the hands of their cruisers every indiguity which
our ancestors have ever at any time inflicted UPON
q neutral flag, then we understand what will be the
issue between US If they do not propose to 20 this
length, these resusctations of loBg buried circum
stances are irrelevant, and are in themselves con-
fession Of weakness There is nothing which could
not be proved By such precedents az these. 10 the
year 1904 the government of France sent detach,
ment with artillery across the frontier of neutral
State, and there seized q refugee brought him TO
France, tried him by cOHrt martial and shot him
This is precedent which the world is never likely
to forget for the name of the victim was the Due
D'Enghien. The French, however, would be little
sufprised if the Americans we're to think themselves
justified by this precedent in landing near Havre
and carrying of some captain of Confederate
craft So. at date so late as June, 1855 an Ameri
can captain, In the harbOr OF Smyrna, undertook
to demand possession of Hungarian refugee, whom
the commander of the Austrian ship of war Ussaro
had kidnapped from the shore. The American
cleared for action and proposed to fight the Austr
an In the hRrbor for the possession of person who
had no more claim on America than on Eagland.
The American, however, would scarcely hold
this precedent to justify the captain of a1 English
frgate in Selling in the streets of New York an En-
glish subject accused Of treason against the Cow
eminent of England, nor would they be satisfied to
see substantial justice done against the English
frigste by French ship of war which should open
hsrbor. Again, the federal Americans only the
other Day seized upon some travellers from Cali.
forDia, on the ground of their being suspected of
Southern procliyites and CaTPisdthem as prison
ers through the neutral territory eff New Granada
laughing to sCorn the protests of the neutral State
and the opposition of the small force which that
State was able to produce. Viii the Cabinet of
Washington be willing that should, on the first
occasion, appeal to this precedent q rule of in
terna.ionsl law? viii Napoleon, or the Emperor
g Al,
trisn refuge in let Ius say, Canada, aud bringing
him through the federal States down 20 New York |
for embarkation.
We can give the Americans plenty more Of these
precedeHts, if they are desirous of them, and we
doubt not that they can produce a considerable |
number against US. We are not more Immaculate
than other people. When we were at once strong
aud passionate we sometimes did unjustifsbe
things Having done them, we generally fought
our wsy out of the difficulty, but we claimed
to make presidents CT them, nor were other Ha>
tons ever willing to accept them as such.
Nothing but wilful ignorance or presumption
could pretend to draw justification from g pre-
csdent Of wrong. International law rests, indeed,
upon precedents but it deduces its rules from pre-
cedent Of acts done with the general concurrence
Of all nations. just consequences drawn from
natural prime pies" says Grotss, discover to US
the law of nations" The modern deeds of viO-
eDGe have almost invariably been committed upon
weak nations, and have met only with the general
of mankind The Americans viOlat-
ed the territorial rights of Turkey of the petty
State of New Grausds, and there was No means of
.esiing by war what the opinion of these nations
was. We, however, pressed our extreme rights
against the powerful az well as the weak. and the
very acts which the Boston jurists would adopt
lreCedents were those which armed all the North
against US, and set US fighting with great maritime
eagues International law, like municipal law.
changes with the necessities of society, and both
ieneral Scott ard HIS friends It home must be pre-
Jared to accept as international law, not what we
md others have done in old times, but what we |
hould be permitted ourselves to do in the present
ay. II