Columbia Democrat and Bloomsburg general advertiser. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1850-1866, 1862-01-18
What Is Settled P


ucther certain that the English government
will accept of the reasons which Mr.. Sew
ard assigns for yielding Mason and Slidell
to their demand. 1t is not apparent TO
us that the government has, by its do.
mand, and by the acceptance and answer
of our government, settled any doctrine
whatever, either the disputed claim Of
Great Britain to impress seamen, or the
right of taking ambassadors out OF the
neutral vessel, or any other substantial
point.
The dem and of England was not made
on any particular ground. The statement
of Lord Russell was very broad, that Ger.
tain individuals had boen forcbly taken
from on board British vessel, on law
full and innocent voyage, an act of violence
which was an affront to the British Flag
and violation of international law.
1t should be born c in mind that strictly
speaking this was not presented to us as a
formal demand Lord Lyons was instruct
ed to inform the Secretary Of State that he
should make the demand, leaving the Sec
retary to offer the same terms himself
which the British government would ask.
This course was cour teous and diplomatic,
but it results in placing the surrender Of
Mason and Slidell wholly on the grounds
stated by the Secretary of State in his let
ter, and England is not bound by the ar
guments or explanations of Mr.. Seward.
1t may BIZ argued that England virtu'
ally lays down the doctrines Of that letter
by making the demand. We do not sec
that she does. On the contrary, it will
be observed that Mr. Thouvenel in his
letter to Mr., Merccr says that the "cir'
cumstancc which governs all this affair
and renders the conduct of the American
cruiser uujustifablc,' is that the Trent wa
not destined to point belonging to one o
the bcligercntS, but was earring her carg'
and passengers from neutral port to
,. neutral port, Now were does it not ap
p ar that tlis is not the ground of Lor'
Rus els complaint also! In what sens'
can t be held that England as.ents to an,
# the reasons which Mr.. Seward assign
; for the giving up Of the prisoners, who
9 there may be views Of the circumstances
wholly unmcntoncd and outside Of hi
letter, which moved England to declar
, that the arrest was not justifablo by tn
laws Of nations.
We arc inclined to think that VIC hav
. n3t gained SO much on England in thi
-, matter, as some have supposed. If til
willy Engish diplomatist should see fit t
reply in cold and formal terms to NJ
Seward, admitting nothing and dcnyin
nothing, the case will form rraccdcl
: wholly cess. exc, pit as against US III IL
future, but not birding England to an
principle, unless the broad ground that
ship mu be brought into port from ad
miralty jurisdiction before passengers {
, goods can be taken out of her shall be es
tail shed by future correspondence on tt
, SUBJECT Ills not perhaps possible, it wi
certainly rot bo hodorable, for Englar
to withdraw from the s,lj'ct without 81
mittisg, or dcnyin this point, But E!
may do so, and when Mr.. Seward lett,
is read in England, we take it for granite
there will be strong disposition there
avoid concediug any Of the principl
which he lays down for tho future asse>
of the two countries
We are not to be understood as fndir
fault with the surrender of Mason an
Slidell. We remarked some time sine
TIA, tAg nlti)l would 81 tain the Govern
mcnt in SO doing, if the course was to |
determined on. But we are not satisfe
with the manner in which the surrcndt
has been made, and we greatly initial
the nature of Engli hmen aud American
, if it shall be found that we have made an
:. advance in settling principles of internc
tional law by the course which has bee
pursued.