Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1861-12-27
THE ENGLISH QUIRK.

The decision Of the English law officers of
the Crown on the Mason, SideA, and Trent
affair, as the report now stands, turns on
hwyer's quirk. According to all inter
national law, the right of a national armed |
vessel, in time Of war, TO stop and search q
neutral mercantile vessel for contraband
articles and persons engaged in the enemy's
interest, such as ambassadors, persons carry
ing hostile dispatches, &C., is unquestioned.
Furthermore, If such contraband persons or
articles are found on board, the vessel and
cargo may be seized and taken into port for
adjudication by an admiralty Court. If the
officers in command of vessel are found
guilty of having abused their neutral privi~
leges, by carrying contraband persons or
articles, the vessel, and sometimes the cargo,
is forfeited to the captors. This forfeiture is
in the way of punishment for the ofense. OF
course, if there were no daJthty to punishment
of this sort, there would be nothing to check
such operations by dishonest neutrals. Their
chance would be, faA pay if they carry the
oontraband persons or articles safely, and
nothing 10 lose if they are detected. On the
other hand, if the detention and seizure
prove to have been unjustihable, damages are
awarded to the innocent sufferers by the
arrest. Such is the international law of the
case and it agrees with the plain dictates
of common sense.
In the case of the Trent, Capt. Wilkes,
from desire to avoid, as far as possible,
disobliging the passengers and the owners of
property in and on board the vessel, deter
mined to forego for his officers and men, all
interest in the condemnation of the vessel and
cargo, and to be content with delivering up
TO his Government the persons of the
contraband ambassadors and their secretaries
Their dispatches escaped seizure, and the
English papers chuckle over their safe ar
rival in England.
Now, say the English lawyers and the
English press, Capt Wilkes had n right
to take upon himself the responsibility of
deciding that Mason and Sldell were CONTRA
band; the only way was TO take Uesscl and
oil INTO port to await the decision of an Ad-
mira ty court and since he did not, but re-
hnquished his hold on the vessel and cargo.
why then Mason and Slidell must be given
up too put safely on board a British vessel,
and allowed to 90 on their way rejoicing,
Considering the un:Uasal practice of Eng
fish naval officers to push to the ertre1qest
poins their ass mption Of responsibility when
sn object .1,avoring their government is con-
oerned, and n, notorious fact that when
one has ovcrs:eppea he mark, 50 that his
government has been obli:e~ TO dlsavow the
act, or even to punish the ofics. temporarl-
~ for his abuse Of authority, the su,-. '9uent
reuard of the same officer for his zeal "a.
been 4 frequent occurrences, this Enolsb
condemnation Of Capt. Wilkes for taking
-.. .,...... ~ slc,7 them courtesy,
at the expense of his own officers and crew is
q rather cool proceeding. We doubt whether
any other than Englshmen could face it
through. Seriously,-to suppose that in
the treatment OF one of the most important
questions v hich can arise between two ma
tions, the vital merits of it are to be pushed
out of sight, and the whole reduced 20 the
grade of a dispute before common-law
court,-as whether an action should be one of
trover ,one of book account,or one for getting
goods on false pretenses, in order to be regu-
larry before the court, is small business
indeed. Crown lawyers may resort to such
bubbles; but to suppose the English Gov
eminent is going to war on such a quirk,
is to suppose them SO anxious 30 get into
war with the United States, that if this
pretext were not at hand, they would find
or make another. As yet we do not
believe that to be the case.