Delaware State journal and statesman., 1861-12-31
THE TRENT AFFAIR.

The demands upon this government by the
British authorities, for preparation in the
stoppase of a British vessel-the 'rrent--upon the
high seas and the fOrcible seizure of the rebel
Commissioners thereirom, by an American man
oi-war, has given rise to a variety Of legal views
on both sides Of the Atlantic, in reference to the
law in the matter. We haN met with nome
however, which more clearly aud coucsely sets
sorlh the whole question of right and law, than
the two opinions We herewith giye,--one from
an English lawyer aud the other from an Ameii- |
can Jurist-both of them gentlemen Of legal
distinction and research. 1t will he seen that
the arguments advanced ty the British lawyer
are strongly American in their conclusions, while
those of the American Judge lean to the English
aide Of the question 80 far as relates to the "ir-
regularity" of the proceedings of Com. WILKES,
and thus in point Of justice if not Of strict law,
the harmony of the two opinions is on our side.
The following is from the British legiat to the
editor Of the London 7imes:-
STA: When so momentous question as that
Of war between England and the Northern
States of America is in the balance think you
will be disposed to give publicity iniiierently tn
every view in which the matter can possibly pre-
sent itself l venture, therefore, tu request per-
mission to offer a few observations on the criii
cal question of the extent of the reparation which
| the English Government are entitled TO demand
at the hands Of the Washington Cabinet.
That the American cruiser was guilty Of ir-
regularity, and, in point Of form. OF an illegal
nct, in carrying of the Southern Commissioners
without q judicial sentence oil the Trent, must
now be admitted, even by those who are disposed
take the least infammatory view Of the subject,
The practice ofallowing the heligerent cruiser
to constitute himself judge in The matter is
clearly so improper and inconyenent that it is
impossible to permit such an act to pass into u
precedent unquestilned. On the other hand, il
a es seem to me that the extent of the pFcpnra
tion we should demand depends in great mea-
sure on the question whether the injury we have
sustained was one of form only, or Of substance
Now, whether the injury was one Of form or Of
substance depends upon the second question,
whether, il the American cruiser had acted in p
regular manner. e., had carried the Trent
into an American port in order to bring her he
fore a prize court-there were not materials On
which to found judioiNTy condemnation. II
the case is not go clearly in our favor as that a
decision in the American court cOndemning the
vessel would have been liable to no questioned
by US, as manifestly contrary to the law of ma
tions, then the itregnlariy of the American
captain in allowing the Trent to proceed to
Southampton clearly redounded to the advantage
of the British owners and the British passengers.
! Could we in such case find ground Of inter
| national quarrel ia an error of procedure which
in effect told in our own favor
Now, were there not materials from which the
American prize might aud most probably would
8 have arrived at such condemnation On 81
doubtful point, which at the least it must bI
admitted to be, the American decision would
probably have been in their own favor. The
- prize court is Judge not only of law, but of the
r facts from which inferences are to be drawn
it might have fairly taken the confession of Mr.
Slidell and his friends that they were Southern
= Commissioners, coupled with the occupation il
e which it is notorious that the other Southern
r Commissioners now in Europe are engaged as
| sufficient proof of the hostile character Of the
mission Ii the court had come 10 such deci
b sion could the English Government have dis
,t puted their judgement as one in gross violation
Of law and Justice? II not, it would have beel
J. binding on u.s. aud the Trent would have beei
1t condemned as lawful prize. distinction In
been drawn between the despatch aud the mes
aenger who carries the despatch, which seem
to me wholly unsustainahle II a beligeren
has power to seize the despatch he must hay
y the power to detain the messenger, who probahl
c. knows the message by heart, and is neither NOR
IN nor less than living dispatch.
Now, | do not put forward these consideration
T. as suggesting that We have sustained no iniur
Of NJ the hands Of the Americans, or for the rur
sp pose Of questioning our right 10 demand reparu
, ton. But confess that it strikes me yer
~ strongly that the quality Of the injury material!
70 affects the nature of the amends which We al
10 entitled TO require. If the Trent would piobabl
in have teen legally condemned in case Of a rcgt
lar course had been pursued by the captain
the San Jacinlo, in form it is true she susiaine
an injury, but in substance il is certain she ha
ce a fortunate escape,
n. The conclusion therefore at which arrive /
this what we are entitled beyond all questig
as to demand, is an apology for the illegal M
Ter irregular proceeding on the part Of the Sn
lps JacntO which cannot be sustained on any pO
+, sble view Of the law Of nations; and IN undt
taking from the American Government that Il
LOT offence shall not be repeated. But unless it
gh perfectly demonstrabe that il the captain Of Il
vii San Jacinto had carried the Trent into New Yo
she could not legally have been condemned
cannot think that We are entitled to push OIL
ng demand to the extreme point of requiring Il
&c. restitution Of tue Commissioners. Such a d
mand would almost certainly be repeed. Al
England, before she can appeal to the arbitr
~ ment of arms, must have n quarrel good not on
Bn in form but in substance. 1usTlrIA.
ieF TEMPLE, NOVEMBER -, 1861.
il The following communication to the Bost
ex- Journal, is from the pen of Geo Ticknor Cart
M le" ESQ., the well known able jurist of that city
hat Being constant reader Of your paper, !
re- attention WAS attracted yesterday by the folio
for ing statement 10 your editorial columns:
an at is curious to observe that nearly all Of o
iurests who have written upon the Mason a
rl Slidell case passed over as entirely indefensil
es the position which the British Government il 50
ich to have finally assumed, viz that the Trent oug
ort to have been searched and carried in for iudic
the condemnation"
.te Il may be of little importance, but will y
the permit to state that, before the English view
se, or could be known here, Mr. G s. flilard prir
Of Ell n communication in the Boston Courier, al
his the writer of this letter printed another in viii
lful the omission to bring the Trent in for adjudiC
cit tioR was poiuted out as a great irregularil
ing likely to lead to serious consequences ! a
rn- your ndulgenee, then, while endeavor TO she