New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1861-12-17

oDly means that that which was very good in.
ternatonal law as long as they needed it, is
good no longer now that they have no further
use for it; which, perhaps we may be per.
mittcd to say, is very British why of putting
il.
But, os we were disposed five days ago to
jump to tho conclusion that the matter was
settled, because there seemed to be an acknowl-
edgment in England of legal terhnicality in
our favor; so, now, We seem inclined to spring
rs far in the opposite direction, because there
is still legal technically left undecided. 1t
was as unwise TO DO tlate on tho one occasion,
us it is urdignifed to he alarmed on the other.
We deprecate almost beyond all things else any
difficulty with Great Britain; but we are an
Independent nation, not British province, and
the one thing more to be dreaded even than
war with that power, is Che loss of our
National honor. While VIC are ready for rea.
Sensible concessions, let us no, forget our
rights; and do not let us court aggression
either by undue rejoicing at forbearance, or
undue fear at seeming threats.
The simple truth Of the matter is, that it is
now, as it was at the arrival of the mail pre-
yious, question of legal technicalities
exercising the minds of the English people.
We DO lot choose to assume that that country
is disposed to seize pretext for a quarrel,
and to drive US. hampercd with the gigantic
work we have on hand, b. tbs wall. For that
would be TO suppose England so jealous Of our
growing strength aud prosperity that she wishes
10 dissolve the Union that she may cripple
rival, and force upon us the alternative of Oh
acknowledgment of the Southern Coniederacy,
or tie acceptance Of foreign war. We are
not yet prepared to make on assumption
protectoraic of Great Britain of q slaveboldiDg
dependency, in order that she might have
cheap cotton and an unrestricted market for
her manufactures. True, her people are ex-
cited, as it is natural enough they should be,
for there is no point on which her national
pride and her sense of honor ore 50 sensitive
as the in,iola5iity of her flag 1t was
not to be expected, nor did anybody expect
that EDgland would take with any measure of
meekoess 80 signal aud emphatic disregard
Of her assumed sovereignty Of the seas aud Of
her national dignity, rs tina. conveyed IN the
act of Capt. Wilkes. Nor, i; must be con-
iessed, has our tonc since, public aud official,
Teen one to molliiy her Indignation. If We
put ourselves in their place it is easy to uu-
dcrstand that they might very honestly ask
themselves the queston-Do these people mean
wnr BIZ such an unprecedented dignity Aud
the mere suspicion, which seems almot incvi-
table, very properly suggest. the prohibition OF
the exports Of the constituents OF guDpowder,
Of which, presently, they think they may have
much need. So far il seems to Us their con-
duet is perfectly natural, and We honestly con-
Tess that il is not one whit wOrso than We
expected; for il is only fair to measure their
estimate Of tho Get Of Capt. Wilkes, on the
one hand. by our own estimate 9! 1t on the
other. t., therefore, in this frat burst OF In
dignation the English people can stop to con-
slider the question as one turning upon the
fechncalites of international law, there only
- little patience on our part to
avert such calamity az war "''"'e"
the two countries. IL seems that tie law
Officers of The Crown have bad the matter un-
der sdyisement, and have coms to some de.
ci,ion which is either in part or in whole a
Justification OF the seizure Of Mason and
Slidell. We must set aside tho menaces Of
some of the Oger.zealous EDgsh Journals, aud
look at the real facts Of the case. The first
report was that the Law Officers had justified
the seizure of Mason and Slidell absolutely as
contraband of war; the second ia, that the
proper course would have been to take the
ship herself into port aud submit the question
of what was contrabaud of war TO the prize
courts. 1t seems to be taken for granted that
We had some right in the premises. Precisely
what it is is the question. Our own Secretary
Of the Navy has publicly said in q letter to
Capt. Wilkes. that while he was thankful for
what was done, the neglect to take the ship
also must not be construed into precedent.
Here then is question for diplomacy. not
for war. 1t is subject to submit to the or.
bitration of court of international public.ts,
and not to settlement by hostile declarations.
The case is good one for such an arbitra-
fon and should not be lost The question has
yexed the nations for more than half cen.
tury; let it DO settled now and forever.
With this view Of the case We see no pos.
sible difficulty to grow out Of this affair.
Great Britain asks for az explanation.
Why should not our Government, in
making il, declare, as is unquestionably true,
that it di.clains any intentional oaense, aud
that while il thinks its act perfectly justiiablc