Raftsman's journal. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1854-1948, 1862-01-01
MASON AND sL1DELL RELEASED.


dence between the representatives of the Gov
ernments of Great Britain and of the United
States in relation to the capture of Mason and
Slidell upon the British steamer Trent. The
result arrived at, remarks cotemporary, will
create equal astonishment in both countries.
In England the opinion seems to have BEEN
nearly universal that the act of Commodore
Wilkes was in obedience to express orders;
but whether so or not, that 1t would be accep-
ted and justified by the Government OF the
United States. In this country It is known
| that the act OF Commodore Wilkes was not
| anticipated but from the discussions upon
| international law which have taken place, it
was believed that there was authority for his
course in the opinions of writer's upon the law
of nations, and also from a long course of
precedents established by the English Gov
ernment in past years. 1t was not, therefore,
anticipated that Mason and Slidell would be
given up; and the fact that they are to be
handed over to the British Government will
excite intense qualification over the water,
whilst in this country it will be received with
| sullen acquiescence, and with bitterness of
regret which will have bearing upon our re-
lations with Great Britain for many years to
come. Indeed, we feel but little hesitation in
| asserting that the seeds of future war with
Great Britain were sown the 26th of De-
cember, 1861, and that as soon as the United
States succeeds in quelling rebellion at home
it will be ready to avail itself of the first op-
portunity of showing its regard for the nation
which has taken advantage of our supposed
weakness to dcnounce as an offensive act
transaction which has such line of British
precedents in former years to justify it.
The discussion OF the question by Mr..
Seward is temperate and ingenious, and the
bitterness of the pill is sugared over as thickly
as possible under the circumstances. The
ground taken in determining the action of the
United States is essentially the same as that
assumed by the British crown officers, as re-
ported by the English newspapers. 1t is con-
tended that Mason and Slidell were liable to
arrest by the law of nations, and that the YES
sci upon which they were carried was liable to
seizure. But in the case of contraband
goods it is established by the law of nations
that the vessel carrying them shall be sent into
port for trial, wherein the character of the
supposed contraband can be judicially ascer-
tanned by properevidence and adjudication, so it
| is now conceded by the United States that
Captain Wilkes although acting strictly accor-
ding to the requirements of international law
| up TO the time of the arrest, abandoned all
these advantages by permitting the Trent to
proceed without bringing her into port for the
proper ascertainment of the fact whether the
men were contraband. In other words il is
admitted that if Captain Wilkes had stopped
| the vessel and taken out arms or munitions of
| war, or other contraband goods, and then per.
mitted the vessel to proceed, he would have
committed an offence in thus assuming, upon
the high seas, the powers of captor and of a
Judge. 1t is conceded that in the case of
contraband men the same principles apply ,and
that Captain Wilkes erred in not bringing the
vessel into port, and in fact By his omittng to
do SO the United States Government lost all
the advantages previously gained.
1t is certainly sharp point the part of
the British Government to insist that the in
suit to its flag would have been no insult if the
officer who made the arrest of Mason and Sill
dell had been less considerate of the interests
of the feelings of the innocent passengers, by
rudely interrupting their voyage and sending
the ship aud all on board out of their way to
wait the weary delay of the law. But this
follows from the position of Earl Russell and
of his Government, and however absurd and
ungenerous it may be, the fact will stand out
in bold relief in the history of this controversy
In yielding to this argument, however, Mr..
Seward has ingeniously thrown himself back
upon the old American doctrine asserted in
the controversies before the war of 1872 in
reference to the impressmen of seamen upon
American merchant ships by British cruisers.
Mr.. Madison, in 1904, expressed himself most
strongly upon the high handed proceedings of
the British naval commanders, who, sswthout
recurring to any tribunal whatever" examined
the crews Of neutral vessels, and decided the
important question of sstheir respective allie.
giances," and carried that decision into exc.
cution s'by forcing every individual they
might choose into service abhorrent to his
feelings" Mr.. Madison protested in this a.
gainst the great power given to naval officers
who were, in fact, without supervision, and
whose acts could never be subjected to proper
trial and examination.
The warning from France may seem to be {
needless Intervention in the dispute but the
position assumed by NJ. Thouyenel is taken ir
a manner which seems to partially excuse the
communication to NJ. Mercier. France un.
doubtedly has great interest in the settle
ment of principles which may modify OF
change the international law bearing upon the