Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1861-1862, 1861-12-04
RICHMOND WHIG.
THE CASE CT HEssRs. MASON AND sLiDELI.

TIE CASE CT sEsSRs MASON AND sLIDELI-
No. ii.
To hs Editor Of ths Wig:
In article the other day showed, it is believed
that the author Of the article in the Charleston 4Ts
curry had entirely mistaken the feet Of the decision OF
the British Court of Admiralty in the case OF the Caro-
line, and that that decision not only did not shord any
ground on which this arres. Of the neutral vessel of
Great Britain on the high seas could be justified but
shat tie law of nations, then expressly announced,
showed that the without the color OF right
The Cour. said that he practice of nations has allowed
neutral States the privilege of receiving ambassadors
from begerent sts!es and the use and convenience oi
immediate negotiation with them"
Such is the result Of the direct argument and posI-
tive authority. Bu. the corcluson Is made more man
ifesiy necessary by the opposite mode of argument.
1t often occurs, is now the fact in our present
case that one of the begerents has powerful naval
force, whilst TIE o,her is altogether without navy.
In such cases IL the Minister of the begerent cannot be
lawfully carried neutral vessel he cannot be carried
all and the privilege Of such neutral to receive such
Mi listers at its own court is totally defeated.
We will proceed now with the studied and elaborate
article in the New York Herald
The writer admits that Sat the rst blush OF the
of the capture BY Commodore Wilkes of the rebel Com
niasiorers Mason aud Slde and their respect
i've sscFetaIies hacfal'ud and Eustis, board the
BsitsL steamer Trent, in the Bihlma Channel con-
edarsble degree OF took hold Of the public
mild lest our Government ac'uated by desire OF
msiutauine frank AVID friendly Tea,iors with Great
B ain might feel under the necessity OF making repAra
ton which might involve the sending on the rebels in
national steamer"
Here it is acknowledged that, on the frsFGnnounce
me. OF the news when men moved by only their
own inuiiive perception of the right and wrong
siderable degree OF fear took hold of the public mind
tlat the &C, Of urls fable hostility to the
British lg and i. only by reference TO the books
OF authority that the writer supposed this opion OF the
public could he reversed and their apprehonsiOns asyeh
We will therefore follow him TO iis books and will
expect If these do not support hia conclusions the pab
Lc will return to the first honest opniol - r
He Gays: "Chity standard law writer on Tho
laws of nations, says on the principle which
coHtrabsnds Of aud iniraoons Of blockadts have
been incTd!cled in the commerce OF nations-I MEAN
the principle that neutarl has right 20 relieve bel
igerer-it has been held that other acts of Illegal as
ssance afforded 10 any enemy expose 10 cogf cation
the property of che neutral concerned in then. Amorg
these is OF III lr0us than the coz
veyance Of hostile dpatcnes. The mischeveons COZ.
s,qIences Of such services ara in iruite irnitry ne;
the eUeCt OF CO0tflDfnO tnN can De conveyed
Tic carrying OF tao three cargoes of stores Is
Sarly assistance OF limited nature; bat, in the
transmission OF dpltches may be conveyed the entire
clan OF cf mpaiga that may defeat all the prtjsc Of
the other bsllgerent in that qlarer Of the world"
On tbs qqotaion, the writer in the Herald coolly
asks "Now does not this case" Of our commissioners
come clearly within the doctrine here laid down."
We answer as oooly, no s "a within u I'll, brt
clearly without It. Bu. the Hrald proceeds to the prooi
of the proposition implied in the asseitory question.
The convsyance of the hostile Dispatch Is the illegal
act which is the sur act OF what is said here by Mr. Chit
ty was therefore incumbent the writer 20 show that
the steam veesel Tent, on which our Commissioners
we're carried had board hostile dispatches, and that
she was stopped and her deck invaded for the puros
Of intercepng those dispatChes-iu Short that it
case Of carrying hostile dispatches.
Now how does he attempt to prove this proposition?
His method is remarkable, and hs sophisica worthy
OF the President and Ministers of hs Government be de
sends He does not simply assert that Ministers,
the vessel bore hostile dspAchesthAt would have been
p,lra3; insufficient he proposition required for
premise snd therefore required proof but he adroity
ssrts the fact with other things in form which
to imply that tho truth of tho\ proposition in the sense
and according tho Specification OF the term "bost.
dspat hes rs used by Chy in the qotation from bis
book was not questioned, bat colcded BE says
"The Commissioners were moro deeply implicated IN
act, of hostility to the Federal Government" withou.
telling US what those acts and then proceeds with
sort of argument to prove that certain acts, which
might have been intended TO he performed by the Com
missoners abroad, might be more Injurious to the enc
my-his Federal Government-than any displtches.-
But he does not show or srm that any such
would be within tho rule OF law quoted from Mr.. Chty.
But hear hm-we will give the entire paragraph. IS
a curiosity:
"These smssariss arrested on the Trent we're on.
ly bearers Of hostile dispatches, bm oven
dsery implicated in acts Of hostility agai1s. the Govern
meut of the United States II the miscbieyous eousc
ouenees Of simple dispatches Infinite as W. Chtty
remarks, bow much more infinitely Injurious NAV be
iaries who are sent abroad to plot with others who
have gone before them aud TO impo'te if possible,
trail oEers in the ho'tilites existing"
TIE instructions with which they clothed might
ia the words Of the author defeat all the projects
of the other hogereEt IN that quarter of the world"
In the a.t sea.encs there is a cunning aud obrqro
assumption shat tho instructions with which these com
mssoners we're clothed, OF the class Of things
which are deuomipsted by the writer's on international
law 'hossls dspa'chean
The writer had the tf'ontery to eirm such pro-
position, sut thus obhquey aSsertji Ttn tue expech
ton that !; would be questioned but the bereht Of
/; allowed him in the argument, p.
1t is entitled to no Cfc: whatever 1.-THE be'lgeTent
bad tie right to send ministers he neutral court II
had PROFESSIONALLY 5e right to give them ir,truc,ioas
aid they must have the right to carry such pspsr5 ou
bosrd the vessel which bore them. These no: hos
tile dispatches, hu instructions 10 ministers fCr their
negotiations at foreign cOn7ts. The author assume
that such negotiations might &c pr1ndisis TO tac remy,
Ald therefore, msy bo intercepted on board neutral
vessel Bu. this is mere logical fllAcY the conclusion
does no:fo9T the premises The remedy againet saoh p
pretended jury is not the capure of tha minister sGd
bis Instructors, on beard the neutral vessel and there
by dcfast OF The negotiation with tie foreign powc
Tht is clearly laid down to Se the law by Sir VIM Scot
10 the decision already quoted by US, and mentioned
,he Herald iteelE