The New York herald., 1861-12-29
THE MAsON-SLIDELL AFFAIR.
CONTINUED FROM FIRST PAGE)

" did upon him. Its present convictions on the
point in question are the result of deliberate ex-
animation and deduction now made, and not of
any impressions previously formed
Nevertheless, the question now is not
whether Captain Wilkes is justified to his
government in what he did, but what
10 the present view Of the government as to the
effect Of what he has done. Assuming now, for
arguments sake only, that the release of the Trent
IL voluntary, involved waiver of the claim Of
fhs government to hold the captured persons, the
United States could, in that case, have no hesta
ton in saying that the act which has thus already
been approved by the government must be allowed
TO draw its legal consequence after it.
II is Of the very nature Of q gift, or a charity,
that the giver cannot after the exercise of his
Henevolence is past, recall or modify its benefits.
We are thus brought directly to the question,
whether we are entitled to regard the release Of
she Trent as involuntary, or whether we are
obliged TO consider that It was voluntary
Clearly, the release would have been invoun-
ground assigned for it by Captain wilkes-namely,
want of sufficient force to send the prize
vessel into port for adjudication. 1t is
net the duty of q captor to hazard his own vessel
in order to secure judicial examination to the
captured party. No large prize crew, however, is
legally necessary for it is the duty of the captured
party to acqoiesce and go willingly before the tri-
bunal to whose jurisdiction it appeals If the cap
turcd party indicate purposes to employ means
of resistance which the captor cannot, with
probable safety to himself, overcome, he
may properly leave the vessel to 60 forward,
and neither she nor the State she represents can
ever afterwards justly object that the captor de-
privea her of the judicial remedy to which she was
entitled.
B1t the second reason assigned by Captain
Wilkes for releasing the Trent differs from the first
Attest, therefore, it must be held that Captain
Wilkes as he explains himself, acted from Gem
bined sentiments of prudence and generosity, and
no that the release Of the prize vessel was not
Secondly ought we to expect these expla-
nations by Captain Wilkes Of his reasons for
leaving the capture incomplete to affect the action
Of the British government? The observation upon
this point which first occurs is, that Captain
Wilkes explanations were not made to the au-
thorites Of the captured vessel II made known
to them, they might have approved and taken the
release, upon the condition OF waving judicial
tnvestigation of the whole transaction, or they
might have refused TO accept the release upon that
condition.
But the case is one not with them, but with,the
british government If we claim that Great Bri-
tain ought not to insist that judicial trial has
Tending vessel out Of consideration for her innocent
passengers, / do not sec how she is to be bound
TO acquiesce in the decision which was thus
made by without necessity on our
part and without knowledge Of conditions or con
sent on her own. The question between Great
Britain and ourselves, thus stated would be qucs-
tion not of right and Of law, bnt of favor to be
conceded by her TO us in return for fayors shown
by to her, of the value of which favcrs on both
Mdes We ourselves shall be the judge. OF course
the United States could have no thought OF raising
such question in any case.
trust that have shown to the satisfaction of the
British government by very simple and natural
statement of the facts and analysis of the law ap.
plieable to them, that this government has neither
meditated nor practised, approved, any
deliberate wrong in the transaction to which they
have called its attention, and. on The contrary,
that what has happened has been simply an mad
vertency, consisting in q departure by the
naval officer free from any wrongful motive
from rule uncertainty established, and probably,
by the several parties concerned either imperfect
ly understood or entirely unknown. For this error
the British government has right to expect
the same reparatioD that we, as an indie
pendent State, should expect from Great Britain
or from any other friendly nation, in a similar
ease.
have not been unaware that in examining this
question ] have fallen into an argument
for what seems TO be the British side Of it against
my own country. But am relieved from all en-
barrassment on that subject had hardly fallen
into that line Of argument when discovered that
was really defending and maintaining, not an ex-
elusiYely British interest, but an old honored
and cherished American cause not upon
British authorities, but upon principles
that constitute large portion Of the
distinctive policy by which the United States have
developed the resources of continent, and, thus
becoming a considerable maritime Power have won
the respect and confidence Of many nations. These
principles were laid down for u in ls04 by James
Madison, when Secretary Of state, in the
administration OF Thomas Jefferson, in instructions