Cincinnati daily press. [volume] (Cincinnati [Ohio]) 1860-1862, 1862-01-04

The New York Post is not disposed to at
tach too much faith to the belief that the sur.
render ofMason and Sldell will satisfy Great
Britain. 1t gives its reasons as follows:
We are not altogether certain that the En-
glish Government will accept Of the reasons
which Mr.. Seward assigns for yielding Ma
son and Slidell to their demand. IL Is not
apparent to us that that Government has.
by its demand, and by the acceptance and
answer of our Government, settled any doc.
trine whatever, either the disputed claim of
Great Britain to impress seamen, or the right
OF taking ambassadors out of O neutral YES.
sci, or any other substantial point.
The demand of England was not made on
any particular ground. The statement Of
Lord Russell was very broad, that certain
individuals had been fOrcibly taken from on
board British vessel, on lawful and iuno-
cent voyage, an act of violence which was
ON afront to the British flag ard violation
Of international law.
1t should be borne in mind that, strictly
speaking, this was not even presented to us
as a formal demand. Lord Lyons was in
structed to inform the Secretary Of State
that he should make the demand, leaving
the Secretary to offer the same terms him.
self which the British Government would
ask. This course was courteous and diplo-
der of Mason and Slidell wholly on the
ground stated by the Secretary of State in
his letter, and England is not bound by the
arguments or explanations of Mr.. Seward.
1t may be argued that England virtually
lays down the doctrines of that letter by
making the demand. We do not see that
she does. On the contrary, it will be OBJ
served that NJ. Thouvenel in his letter to Mr..
Mercier says, that the circumstance which
governs all this affair and renders the con-
duct of the American cruiser upjustihable,"
is that the Trent was not destined to a point
belonging to one of the belligsrents, but was
carrying her cargo and passengers from a
neutral port to q neutral port. Now where
does it appear that this is not the ground of
Lord Russelps complaint also2 In what
sense can it be held that England assents to
any of the reasons which Mr., Seward assigns
for the giving up of the prisoners, when
there may be views of the circumstances,
wholly unmentioned and outside of his letter,
which moved Eugland to declare that the
arrest was not justifable by the laws of ma
tions?
We are inclined to think that we have not
gained so. much on England in this matter
as some have supposed. If the willy English
diplomatist should see fit to reply in cold
and formal terms to Mr.. Seward, admitting
nothing and denying nothing, the case will
form precedent wholly useless, except as
against US in the future, but not binding
England to any principle, unless the broad
ground that ship must be brought into port
for Admiralty jurisdiction before passengers
or goods can be taken out of her, shall be
established by future correspondence on the
subject. 1t is not, perhaps, possible; it will
certainly not be honorable, for England to
withdraw from the subject without admit
ting or denying this point. But she may do
so, and when Mr.. Stewards letter is read in
England, we take it for granted there will be
a strong disposition there to avoid conceding
any of the principles which he lays down for
the future assent of the two countries.
We are not to be understood as finding
fault with the surrender of Mason and Sill
dell. We remarked some time since that the
nation would sustain the Government in 80
doing, if the course was determined on. But
we are not satisfied with the manner in
which the surrender has been made, and we
greatly mistake the nature of Englishmen
and Americans if it shall be found that we
have made any advance in settling priuci-
pies of international law by the course which
has been pursued