The New York herald., 1861-12-29
with him in like unreal character Of Secretary
Of Legation to the pretended mission.

with him in like unreal character Of Secretary
Of Legation to the pretended mission.
John Slidell, in similar circumstances, was going
to Paris as pretended Minister to the Emperor of
the French, and George Eustis was the chosen
Secretary Of Legation for that simulated mission.
The fact that these persons had assumed such
characters has been since avowed by the same
Jefferson Davis in pretended message to an un-
lawful and nsurrectionary Congress. II was. as
we *, rightly presumed that these ministers bore
pretended credentials and instructions, and such
papers are in the law known rs dispatches. We
are informed by Consul at Paris that these des
patches, having escaped the search of the Trent,
were actually conveyed and delivered to emssares
Of the insurrection in England.
Although it is not essential, yet it is proper to
state, as do also upon information and belief
that the owner and agent, and all the officers of
the Trent, including the Commander Williams, had
knowledge of the assumed characters and pur-
poses Of the persons beforenamcd when they
embarked on that vessel.
Your lordship will now perceive that the csse
before US, instead Of presenting merely fragrant
act OF violence on the part of Capt. Wilkes might
well be inferred from the incomplete statement
Of it that went up to the British government, was
undertaken as simple, legal ana customary bc
gerent proceeding by Captain Wilkes to arrest and
nau q oo,,tro e.
traband of war for the use and benefit of the in
surgents.
The question before us is, whether this proceed
ing was authorized by, and conducted according
to, the law of nations?
It involves the following inquiries -
]. We're the persons named and their supposed
dispatches contraband Of war?
2. Might Captain Wilkes lawfully stop and
search the Trent for these contraband persons and
dispatches?
8. Did he exercise that right in lawful and
proper manner
4. Having found the contraband persons ON
board, and in presumed possession Of the contra
band dispatches, had he a right to capture the
persons?
s. Did he exercise that right Of capture in the
manner allowed and recognized by the law of
nations?
If all these inquiries shall be resolved in the
affirmative, the British government will have no
claim for reparatiou.
address myself to the first inquiry, namely:--
Were the four persons mentioned and their sup
posed dispatches contraband
Maritime law SO generally deals, as its profess
sors say, IN rem, that is with property, and so
seldom with persons, that it seems q straining OF
the term contraband to apply it to them. But
persons as we'll as property may become contra
band, since the wprd means, broadly, contraryto
proclamation, piDhibited, illegal, unlawful" All
writer's and judges pronounce naval or military
persons in the service Of the enemy contrabands.
enemy all his resources and to hinder him from
sending ministers to solicit assistance
and Sir William Scott says" You may
stop the ambassador of your enemy
on his passage. Dispatches arc not less clearly
contraband, and the bearers or couriers who un
deriake to carry them fall nnder the same con-
demnaton.'
A subtlety might be raised whether pretended
ministers Of a usurping Power, not recognized
as legal by either the begerent or the
neutral could be held to be contraband.
But it would disappear on being subjected to
what is the true test in all cases--namely, the
spirit of the law. Sir William Scott, speak
ing Of civil magistrates who were arrested
and detained as contraband, says :--"1t ap-
pears to me ON principle to be but reasonable
that when it is of sufficient Importance to the enc
my that such persons should be sent out on the
public service, at the public expense it shonld af
ford equal ground of forfeiture against the vessel
that may be let out for purpose so intimately
connected with the hostile operations
trust that I have shown that the four persons
who were taken from the Trent by Captain Wilkes,
and their dispatches, were contraband of war.
The second inquiry is, whether Captain Wilkes
had right, by the law Of nations, to detain and
search the Trenty
The Trent though she carried mails, was con-
tract or merchant vessel, q common carrier for
hire. Maritime law knows only three classes Of
-yessels-of'war, revenue vessels and mer-
chant vessels. The Trent falls within the latter
class. Whatever disputes have existed concerning
right of visitation or search in time
Of peace, none, it is supposed, has existed in
modern times about the right of a belligercnt in
time Of war to capture contraband in neutral and
even friendly merchant vessels, and of the
right Of visitation and search, in order to
determine whether they are neutral and are
documented as such according to the law Of
nations. ] assume in the present case
what, as read British authorities,
is regarded by Great Britain herself as
~