Bedford inquirer. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1857-1884, 1862-01-10


Government has n=ither meditated, nor pIactic-
ed, nor approved any deliberate wrong 10 the
transaction to which they have called its atteu-
ton; and, on the contrary, that what has hap
pened has. been simply an inadvertauey, consist
lug ia departure, By the naval officer, free
from any wrongful motive, from rule uncer-
t4iniy established. and probably by the several
parties concerned either impeFfeetly understood
er entirely unknown. For this error The British
Government bas right t, expect tue same
repafasiou that we as an independent State,
should expect from Great Britain or from any
uther friendly nation in similar case.
have not been unaware that, in examining
+. this question, have fallen into an argument
for what seems TO be the British side of il a.
gainst ny own country. But am relieved
from all embarrassments on toat subject.
had hardly fallen into that lire os argument,
when discovered that | was really defending
and maintaining, not sD exclusively British in-
terest, but IN old, honored and cherished
American cause, not upon British authorities,
bat upon principles that constitute large por-
lien Of the distinctive policy BY which the Uni
ted States hevo developed the resources OF
continent, aud thus becoming considerable
maritime power, aud VOC the respect aud cons
fdenee Of many nations These principles
we're laid down for US in 1904. BY James
Madison, when Secretary of State 10 the ad~
niuistraiion Of Thomas jefferson, 10 instruc-
tions given 10 James AioBroe, our Minister to
England. Although toe case before him con-
ccrned description Of persons different from
those who are incidentally the subjects of the
present discussion, the ground assumed then
was the sans i now occupy, and the argu-
,nents by which he sustsiaed himself upon IT
have been an Inspiration to me in preparing
this reply.
"Whenever, be says, 'spreperty found IN a
neutral vessel is supposed to be liable on any
ground to capture or condemnation, the rule
10 all cases is, that the question shall not be
decided BY The captor, but he carried before
legal tribunal, where regular trial may be
had, aud where the eaptor himself is liable to
damage for an abuse of his power. Can 1t be
reasonable then, or Just, that beligerent
commander who is thus restricted. ard thus
responsible in case of mere property ct trl"
val amount, should be permitted, without re-
ferring to any tribunal whatever, to examine
the crew Of neutral vessel, to decide the lm-
porant question of their respective aiiegian-
ces, and TO carry that decision into execution
by forcing every individual be may choose las
80 a service abhorrent to bis feelings, cutting
him of from hi most tender conOections, ex'
posing his miud aud his person to the most
humiliatng discipline, aud his life itself to tue
greatest dangera Reason, justice, and hu-
lnaniiy unite in protesting against SO extfayl-
CANT proceeding
Ii [ decide this case in favor OF my own
Government, must disavow its most cherlsds
ed principles, and reyerse and forever abandon
its essential policy The country cannet al
ford the sacrifice. If / maintain those princl-
pies and adhere to that policy. must snrren>
der the case itself 1t viii be seen, therefore,
that this Government could not deny the JUS
tice of the claim presented 10 Us in this re-
spect upon lis merits. We are asked to
90 80 the British nation just what we have
always insisted AL nations ought to do to US.
The claim os the British Government IS not
made in disceurteous manner. This GoVs
ernmeni, since its first organization has ney-
er used more guarded language II similar
case.
To coming to my conclusion ! have net for
gotten that, if tho safety of this Union requls
red the detention Of the captured persons, It
would be tbe right aad duty Of this Govefn-
-nent to detaiu them. But the effectual check
aud waiting proportions of the existing insur-
reetion, as well as the comparative unimpor-
tanee of the captured persons themselves, when
dispassiouately weighed happily forbid me from
reserting to that defence.
Nos am unaware that American citizens
are not in any case to be unnecessarily surren-
dered for any purpose into the keeping Of
foreign State Only the captured persons, how
ever, or others who ara interested in them,
coald justly raise question on that ground.
Nor have been tempted at all by SUCCESS
tions that cases might be found in history
where Great Britain refused to yield TO other
nations, and even to ourselves. claims like
that which is noS before as. Those cases oo'
CURED when Great Britain, as we'll as the
United States, was the homo of generations
which, With ell their peculiar Interests and
passions, have passed away. She could in no
way SO effectually dissvow any such injury as
we think she does by assuming now as her own
the ground upon which we then STOOD. IL
would tell little for our own claims to the
character OF just and msgnanimous people if
we should 30 Tar consent TO be guided by the
law of retaliation as to lift up buried injuries
from their gva7es TO oppose against what uar
tionsl consistency and the national conscience
compel US to regard as clam intriDsicallJ
right.
Patiieg behind me ali suggestions of this
kind, prefer to express my satisfaction that
by The adjustment of the present case upon
principles copfesedly American. and yet as
nus,, mutually satisfactory to both of the ma
iious concerned, question is finally and right
Is settled between them, which, heretofore ex,
hausing not only all forms of peaceful discus
sion, bat also the srbitrament of war itself,
for more than half century slieaated the
.Eo countries from each other, and parplex.
ed with fears aud apprehensions all other ma
fions
The four persons 10 question are now held
in military custody at Bort Warren, 10 the
nv .f4