Delaware State journal and statesman., 1862-01-07


first. AT best, therefore, II must be heli that
Captain Wilkes, as he explains himself acted
from combined sentiments of prudence and
generosity, and so that the release Of the prize
vessel was not strictly necessary or involuu-
larry.
Secondly. How ought we to expect these
explanations by Captain Wilkes of his reasons
for leaving the capture incomplete TO affect
the action of the British Government
The observation upon this point which first
occurs is, that Captain Wilkes explanations
were not made TO the authorities eff the cap
tpred vessel. If made known to them they
might have approved and taken the release,
upon the condition of waving Judicial in-
vestigation of the whole transaction, or they
might have refused to accept the release upon
that condition.
But the case is one not with them, but with
the British Government. If we claim thai
Great Britain oughtnot to insist that judicial
trial has been lost because we voluntarily re-
leased the offending vessel out of consideration
for her innocent passengers. ! 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 con-
ditions of consent on her own. The question
between Great Britain and ourselves thus
stated would be question not of right and of
law, but of favor to be conceded by her to us
in return for iavors shown by us to her, of the
value Of which favors on both sides we our
selves shall be the judge. ofeourse the United
States could have no thought of raising such
a question in any case.
trust that have shown to the Satisfaction
of the British Government, by rerv simple
band natural statement of the facts 'nuaia'ysis
of the law applicable to the . 'H"' 'nis .os
ernment has nathan M, lated, nor presuced,
no. ,,,,,,.o,,.l 49,, deliberate wrong in the |
,.a.s.,,r...... nich they have called its atten-
,ion. -, IN the contrary, that what has hap
,,on- mas been simply an inadverency, con.
sting in a departure, by the naval officer, free
from any wrongful motive, from rule uncer-
iainly established, and probably by the several
parties concerned either impereclly under
stood or entirely unknown. For rthis error the
British Government has right to expect the
same reparation that we, as an Independent
State should expect from Great Britain or
from any other friendly nation in similar
euse.
have not been unaware that, in examining
this question, have fallen into an argument
for what seems to be the British side of ii |
against my own country. But | am relieved |
from all embarrassment on that subject. had |
r. ~.
| discovered that was really defending and |
maintaining not an exclusively BFitish inter-
est but an old honored and cherished Ameri-
can canse, not upon British authorities, but
upon principles that constitute large portion
of the distinctive policy by which the United
States have developed the resources OF con-
tinent, and, thus becoming considerable
maritime Power, have won the respect and
confidence of many nations. Those principles
were laid down for us in 1904, by james Mad
ison, when Secretary of State in the Admins
tration OF Thomas Jefferson in instructions
given to James Monroe, our Minister TO Eng
land. Although the case before him concerned
description OF persons different from those
who are incidentally the subject of the present
discussion, the ground he assumed then was
the same now occupy, and the arguments by
which he sustained himself upon it have been
an inpiraiion to me in preparing this reply
"Whenever,' he says, ''property found in
neutral vessel is supposed to be liable on my
ground to capture and condemnation, the rule
in all cases is, that the question shall not be
decided by the captor but be carried before
legal tribunal, where regular trial may be
han, and where the captor himself is liable to
damages for an abuse Of his power Can it be
reasonable, then, or Just that beligerent
commander who is thus restricted, and TINS
responsible ina case.of mere property OF trivial
amount, should be permitted, without recurr-
ing to any tribunal whatever, to examine the
crew of neutral vessel, TO decide the
important question of their respective alegi-
ances, and to carry that decision Into execu-
zion by forcing every individual he may choose
into service abhorrent to his feelings, cutting
him off from his most tender connections, ex-
posing his mind and his person to the most
humiliating discipline, and his life itself to the
greatest danger? Reason, justice and humanni-
ty, unite in protesting against so extravagant Il
proceeding
If decide this case in favor Of my own Gov
ernment, must disavow its most cherished
principles, and reverse and forever abandon its
essential policy. The country cannot afford the
sacrifice. If maintain those principles and
adhere to that policy, | must surrender the
case itself. 1t will be seen, therefore, that this
Government could not deny the justice of the
claim presented to us in this respect upon its
merits. We are asked to do to the British
nation just what we have always insisted all
nations ought to do to us.
The claim OF the British Government is not
made in adiscourteOus manner. This Govern
ment, since its first organization, has never
used more guarded language in similar case.
In coming TO my conclusion have not for.
gotten that, if the safety Of this Union required
the detention of the captured persons, it would
be the right and duty of this Government ID
detain them. But the efIectual cheek and
waningproportions OF the existing nsnrrection
as well us the comparative unimportance of the
captured persons themselves when dispassion-
ately weighed, happily forbid me from resort
ing to that defence.
Nor am | unaware that American citizens
are not in any case to be unnecessarily snr
rendered for any purpose into the keeping OF a
foreign State. Only the captured persons
however, or Others who are interested in them
could justly raise a question on that ground
Nor harel been tempted at all by suggestions
that cases might be found in history whore
Great Britain refused TO yield to other nations
and even TO Dursalvpa claims ILL., 81.