Bedford inquirer. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1857-1884, 1862-01-10
VOL. IS. NO. 9,

~ poi " ssizs hefs ee SAYS. I'm consequence
Of my being 80 reduced in officers aud crew,
and the arrangement it would cause innocens
persons. there being large number Of passen-
gers who would have been put to great loss
and incouEcnienee, az we'll as Disappointment.
from the interruption it would have caused
then in not being able to JOIN the steamer fron
ot. Thomas to Elropa. therefore concluded
to sacrifice the interests of tey officers and
crew 10 the prize, aud suffered her to proceed
after the detention necessary to effect the trsns-
fer Of those Commissioners, considering had
obtlined the important end had in view. and
which affected the interests Of our country and
interrupted the action Of that Of the Confed-
erates''
shall consider FIRST, bow these reasons
ought to affect the action of this Government.
and, secondly, how they ought to be expected
to affect the action Of Great Britain.
Inc reasons arc satisfactory 10 this Governs
meat, 50 far as Captain Wilkes is concerned.
Ii could not desire that the San ,Jacinto. her
officers aud crew, should be exposed to danger
and loss by weakening their number to detach
prize crew 70 90 90 boasd the Trent. Still
less could il disayow the humane motive Of
preventing inconscnieuees, losses sna perhaps
disasters, to the several hundred innocent pass
seogers found oa board the p-ze vessel. Nor
could this Governments perceive s0y ground
Tor questioning the facs that these reasons.
though apparently congruous, did operate IN
;he mlnd Of Capt. Wilke- srd determine him
10 release the Trent. Humln actions eeoer-
ally proceed upon mingled, and conflicting
motives, lie sometimes measured the eacrif,
ess which this decisiol would cosi Ii mani
festly, however, dlo not occur e. hin that ba-
5ond the sacrifice Of the private interests tss
he calls theml Of his oficers and crew, thors
m'gAt alss possibly be sicfif ce even Of the
eaiei and public objeet OF bis capture--nam
~, the Tlght ef his Government TO the custody
aud disposition of the captured persons. This
government cannot eeDsure him for his over
sight, 1t ceafrssss that the whole subject
came unforeseen upon tie Government as doubt ]
less il did upon bin. Its present CONVICTIONS
On the point IN question are tie result Of de-
h5erate examination and deduction nov m de
an not Of any impressions previously form
ed.
Nevertheless, ihe question now is, not whefh-
er Capt. Wiikes IS Justified To- his go%srnmens
Ia what he did, but what is the present view
of The government as to the effect os what be
has done. Assuming nos, for arguments sake
oBly, that the release of the Treut, if volun-
tary, involved waiver Of the claim Of the
government 10 hold the captured persons. the
Unned States could IN thas ease have no hesi-
tatlon IN saying that the act which has thus
already been approved by the government must
be allowed 70 draw its legal consequence after
it. L Is Of the very nature of gilt or A
oherity that the giver cannot, after tbe exsr-
else Of bis beuosolenee is past, recall or mods
fy It's benefits.
Wo-are thus brought directly to the question
whether ve are entitled to 7egard the release
OF the Trent as involuntary, or whether ws
are obliged TO consider that it was voluntary.
Clearly the release would haze been iuyolunSa-
II bad it been made solely upon the first
grouud assigned for it by Capt. Wilkes, name
| iy, want OF sufficient force to send the urtza
vessel into port for adjudicstioe. 1t is not the
duty Of captor to hszz4rd his own vessel in
order TO secure Judicial examination to the
captured party. No large prize crew, howevs
| er, is legally necessary, for it is the duty of
the captured party to acquiesee aud go wiling
hngly before the tribunal 10 whose jurisdiction
it appeals. Ii the captured party indicate
purposes to employ means of resistance which
The oaptor cannot with probable safety TO him.
self overcome he may properly leave the ves-
sci to co forward; and neither she nor the
| State she represents can afterwards Justly o5-
joet that the capture deprived her of the iu-
dical remedy to which she was entitled.
Bot the second reason assigned by Captain
Wilkes for releasing the Trent differs from the
FIRST. 1t best, therefore, it must be held tha.
Capt. Wilkes, as he explains himself, acted
from combined sentiments of prudence and
generosity, and so that the release of the prizo
vessel was not strictly necessary or inyolun-
tary.
Secondly. How oaght we expect thase ex-
planations by Capt. Wilkes of his reasons for
leaving the capture incomplete to affect the
action of the British Government
Tne observation upon this point which iirst
occurs is, that Capt. Wilkes explanations were
not made to the authorities of the captured
vessels. Ii made known 10 them .hey might
have approved and taken the release upon the
condition Of waving judicial investigation Of
tbe whole transaction, or they might have re-
fused to accept the release upon that condi-
! tion.
But the ease is not one with them, but with
! the British Government. If we claim shat
Great Britain ought not to insstthat judicial
! trial has been lost because We voluntarily ro-
leased the offending vessel cut of consideration
cor her innocent passeugors, / do not see how
she is to be bound to aequiesce In tho decision
/ which was thus made by US without necessity
0u COR part, and without the knoRladee Of
conditions or consent on her own. Iae ques.
;Ou between Great Britain and ourselves
would be question not Of right Of law, but
OF favor to Dc conceded BY her to as 10 return
for iayors sbowo by as to her, of tho value of
which favors on both sides we ourselves shall hs
the judge. Of course the United States could
have no thought Of raising sueh question ID
an5 case.