Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1862-01-03
MR. SEWARD TO LORD LYONS.
=, DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

| - ~ = r,''nb sho buDbthnCo OF EAT
hUasELLs dispatch to Lord LYONS, and correct.
ing some points therein made, as to matters OF
fact, Mr.. SEWARD proceeds:
Your lordship will now perceiye that tba oass
before us, instead of presenting merelv FAC.
rant rant act OF violence on the part of CAPTAIN
Wilkes, as might we'll be inferred from the in
complete statement Of II that went up 10 The
nntlen Government, was undertaken es q sim
PIE legal and customary belligerent proceeding
Dy Capt' wilkes 10 arrest and capture a neu-
tral vessel engaged In carrying contraband OF
war Tor the use and benefit Of the insurgents.
The question before US is, whether this pro
eeeaing was authorized by and conducted ac-
coroing TO the law of nations. II involves the
following inquiries:
lst. Were the persons named and their cup
posed dispatches contraband of war?
I'd. Might Captain Wilkes lawfully stop and
searcn the Trent for these contraband persons
and dispatchee7
80. Did he exercise that right in lawful and
proper mannef7
4th. Having found the contraband persons on
board and In presumed possession of the con-
traband dispatches, had he right to capture
the persons7
9th. Did he exercise that right of capture In
the manner allowed and recognized by the law
of nations2
If ell these Inquiries shall be resolved In the
affirmative, the British government will have
no claim for reparation.
address myself TO the first inquiry, namely,
were the four persons mentioned, and their
supposed dispatches, contraband2
Maritime law so generally deals, as its pro.
fessors say, in rem, that is, with property, and
90 seldom with persons, that il seems strain
ing OF the term contraband to apply it to them.
But persons, as we'll as property, may become
contraband, since the word means broadly,
CONTRARY 10 proclamation, prohibited, illegal,
unlawful"
All writer's and judges pronounce naval or
military persons In the service of the enemy
contraoand. Vattel says war allows us to cut
of from an enemy ell his resources, and to
binder him from sending ministers to solicit as
sistance. And Sir William Scott SAYS YOU NAV
stop the ambassador of your enemy on bis pas
sage. Dispatches are not less clearly contra.
band, and the bearers or couriers who uhder-
take TO carry them, fall under the came con
| demnation.
A subtilty might be raised, whether pretend
ed ministers Of o uaurping power, not recog.
nized as legal by either the belligersnt or the
neutral, could be held to be conirAbaud 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, speaking of civil
magistrates who were arrested and detained as
contraband, says:
at appears to me on principle to be but rea.
sonable, that when il is Of sufficient importance
TO the enemy that such persons shall be sent out
on the public service at the public expense, Ii
should afford equal ground of forfeiture against
the vessel that may be let out for purpose 80
intimately connected with the hostile opera
tions."
trust that have shown that the four per-
sons who were taken from the Trent by Captain
Wilkes, and their dispatches, were contraband
of war.
The second inquiry is, whether Capt. Wilkes
had right by the law of nations to detain and
search the Trent2
The Trent, though she carried mails, was
contract or merchant vessel-a common carrier
for hire. Maritime law knows only three class
es Of vessels-Vessels of war, revenue vessels,
and merchant vessels. The Trent falls within
the latter class. Whatever disputes have exist
ed concerning right Of visitation or search in
time of peace, none, 1t Is supposed, has existed
In modern times about the right of belligerent
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 deter
mine whether they are neutral, and are docu-
mented 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 true maritime law: that the circum-
stance that the Trent was proceeding from
neutral port to another neutral port does not
modify the right of the belligerent captOr
The third question is, whether Capt. Wilkes
exercised the right of search in lawful and
proper manner2
| II any doubt hung over this point, as the case
was presented in the statement OF it adopted by
the British government, think it must have
already passed away before the notifications
of that statement which / have already sub
mitted.
proceed to the fourth inquiry, namely:
Having found the suspected contraband of war
on board the Trent, had Captain Wilkes a right
to capture the same2
Such q capture is the chief If not the only
recognized object of the permitted visitation
and search. The principle of the law is, that
the belligerent exposed to danger may prevent
the contraband persons or things from apply
ing themselves or being applied to the hostile
uses or purposes designed. The law Is 50 very
liberal in this respect that when contraband is
found on board neutral vessel, not only is the
contraband forfeited, but the vessel, which is
the vehicle of it's passage or transportation, be-
ing tainted, also becomes contraband, and is
subjected to capture and con6scation.
Only the fifth question remains, namely;
Did Captain Wilkes exercise the right Of cap
turing the contraband in conformity with the
law of nations2
Il is Just here that the difficulties of the case
begin. What is the manner which the. Law of
ma lions prescribes for disposing Of the contra.
band when you have found and seized il on
board of the neutral vessel7 The answer would
be easily found if the question were what you
shall do with the contrsband vessel You
must take or send her into q convenient port,
and subject her to q judicial prosecution there
In admiralty, which will try and decide the
questions of belligerency, neutrality, contraband
and capture. So, again, you would promptly
find the same answer if the question were, What
is the manner of proceeding prescribed by the
law Of nations in regard to the contraband il
II be property or things Of material or pecuniary
valne7
But the question here concerns the mode of
procedure in regard, not to the vessel that was
carrying the contrabaDd, nor yet to contraband
things which worked the forfeiture Of the vessel,
but to contraband persons.
The books Of Law are dumb, Yet the ques-
tion Is as important as 1t is difficult. First, the
belligerent captor has right TO prevent the
contraband officer, soldier, sailor, miniater, mee-
senger or courier from proceeding in his nnlaw-
full voyage and reaching the destined scene Of
his injurious service, But, on the other hand,
the person captured may be innocent-that iR,
he may not be contraband. He, therefore, has q
|, right to fair trial OF the accusation against
, him The neutral State that has taken him
under its flag, 10 bound to protect bin II he is
not contraband, sAd is therefore entitled 70 be
satisfied upon that important question. The
e.;th f Aha Gkaka Ia nj Al ood To hia aRfefV III i-