The weekly north Iowa times. [volume] (McGregor, Iowa) 1857-1867, 1862-01-08


right of his government to the custody and
disposition Of the captured persons. This
government cannot censure him for thia
oversight. 1t confesses that the whole sub
icct came unforeseen upon the government,
, as doubtless it did upon him. Its present
convictions on the point in question are the
result Of deliberate examination and de
duction now made, and not Of any impres.
sions previously formed. !,
Nevertheless, the question now is. not
whether Capt. Wilkes is justified to this
government in what he did, but what Is tbs
present view Of the government as to what
he has done. Assuming now, for argu.
ment's sake only, that the release Of the
Trent, if voluntarily, involved = waiver .of
the claim Of the government to bold the
captured persons, the U. S. could In that
case have no hesitation in saying that the
act which has thus already been approved
by the government must be allowed to draw
its legal consequence after it. 1t is Of tho
very nature of gift or charity, that tho
giver cannot, after the exercise of his benc.
violence is past, recall or modify its benefits.
We are Just brought directly to the ques.
ton whether we are entitled to regard tbs
release of the Trent as involuntary, OF
whether we are obliged to consider that II
was voluntary. Clearly the release would
have been vo:ntary had it been made sole.
ly upon the first ground assigned for it by
Capt Wilkes, namely: want Of sufh:
cient force to send the prize vessel into port
for adjudication. 1t is not this duty Of
captor to hazard his own vessel in order 10
secure judicial examination to the c.ptur.
ed party. No large prize crew, however,
is legally necessary, for it is the duty Of the
captured PARTY to acquiesce and 60 willingly
before the tribunal to whose jurisdiction y
appeals. If tho captured party indicate
purposes 10 employ means Of resistance
which the captor cannot with probable safe.
ty to himself overcome, lie may properly
leave the vessel to go forward and neither
she nor the State she represents can ever
afterwards Justly object that the captor de-
prived her Of the judicial remedy to which
she was entitled.
But the second reason assigned by Capt.
Wilkes for releasing the Trent differs from
the first. at best. therefore, it must &c
held that Capt. Wilkes, as he explains him.
self, acted from combined sent ments O:
prudence and generosity, and so that the
rcleae Of the prize vessel was not strictly
necessary or involuntary.
Secondly How ought We TO expect thess
explanations by Capt. Wilkes Of his rcasors
for leaving the capture incomplete to aiftc.
the action of the British government.
The observation upon this point which
first occurs is, that Capt. Wilkes explana.
nations were not made to the authorities Of
the captured vessel. If made known to
them they might have approved and taken
the release, upon the condition Of waiving
judicial investigation Of the whole tsanS!
action. or they might have refused to ac.
cept the release upon that condition.
But the case is one not with them. bIt
with the British government. II We claim
that Great Britain ought not to insist that a
judicial trial has been lost because We 70.
luntarily released the offending vessel out
of consideration for her innocent passen.
gers, do not see how she is to be bound
to acquiesce. in the decision which was thus
made by US without necessity on our part,
and without knowledge of conditions OF
consent on her own. The question b.
tween Great Britain and ourselves thus stat
ed would be a question not of right and Of
law, but favor to be conceded by her to US
in return for favors shown by US to her, Of
the value Of which favors on both sides we
ourselves shall be the judge. OF course
the {. s. could have no thought Of raising
such a question in any case.
trust that have shown 20 tho aatisiac.
ton of the British government, by 4 very
analysis of the law applicable to them, that
| this government has neither meditated, nor
practiccd, nor approved any deliterata
wrong in the transaction to which they
have called attention; and, on the contrary,
that what has happened has been simply
an nadvertency, consisting in departure,
by the Eaval officer, free from any wrong
ful motive, from rule unce, tainly estab.
lished, and probably by the several parties
concerned either imperfectly understood or
entirely unknown. For this error the
British government has q right to expect
the same reparaton that we, as an indie.
pendent State, should expect from Great
Britain or from any other friendly nation in
q similar case.
have not been unaware that, in examiu.
ing this question, have fallen into argu.
mcnt for what seems to be the British side
of it against my own country. But I a.u
relieved from all embarrassment on that
subject. had hardly fallen into that line
Of argument, when discovered that was
really defending and maintaining, not an
exclusively British interest, but an old,
honored, and cherished American cause,
not upon British authorities, but uboH
principles that constitute large portion Of
the distinctive policy by which the U. S.
nave developed the resources Of a cont.
nent, and, thus becoming considerable
maritime power, have won the respect and
confidence of many nations. These prin.
ciples were laid down for US in 1904, BY
James Madison, when Secretary Of State ili
the administration Of Thomas jefferson, il,
instructions given to James Monroe, our
Minister 10 England. Although the case
before him concerned description of per.
sons different from those who are inciden.
tally the subjects Of the discussion, the
ground he assumed then was the same I
now occupy, and the arguments by which
he sustained himself upon it have been an
inspiration to me in preparing this reply.
Whenever" he says, property found
in neutral vessel is supposed to be liable
on any ground to capture and condemna.
ton. the rule in cases is, that the question
shall not be decided by tho captor, but he
carried before legal tribunal, where re-.
gular trial may be had, and where the cop
tor himself is liable to damages for an
abuse Of his power. Can it be reasonable.
then, or just, that a belligercnt commander
who is just restricted and thus responsible
in a case Of mere property Of trivial amount.
should be permitted, without recurring to
any tribunal whatever, to examine the crew
of neutral vessel. to decide the importane
question Of their respective allcgianccs, and
to carry that decision into execution by
forcing every individual he may choose in.
to a ser7ice abhorrent to his feelings, cut
ting him off from his most tender coniee.
tions, exposing his mind and his person ID
the mos, humiliating discipline and his life