Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1862-01-02
THE TRENT CASE MASON AND
SLIDELL TO BE RELEASED.

that IN compliance with the formal ueinahu
Of Her Majesty's Government of Great
Britain, the Administration have decided to
release Messrs. Mason and Slidell, and place
them again under the protection of the British
flag. .a .....f sa.a rs..af.r s
Precisely what legal view Secretary Seward
takes of the Trent case in dvtaii, the dispatch-
es do not inform US But it appears that in
arriving 70 the conclusion which he does he
claims to follow the enlightened principles of
international law governing The subject which,
laid down by Mr.. Madison during the admin
istration of President Jefferson, have guided
this nation ever since; principles which Eng
land herself repudiated at the time, and for
the maintenance of which against British ag-
erosion, the United otates declared war
against England, and indicated them at
the lannon's mouth. Fig s'a..
Whether, If Capt. Wilkes had made prize
of the Trent and brought her into neutral
port for the adjudication Of the question In
admiralty, Secretary Seward would have
taken the same view We are not advised nor
indeed is it possible to tell precisely in what
light Great Britain hsrsef would have regard
ed the matter, had assumed such posture.
But there can be no question that Secreta-
ry Seward assumes that the commander of
the San Jacinto had no legal right to adjudi-
cate upon the quarter deck of neutral ship
whether her passengers or cargo were con-
traband. The case Of the capture of Mason
and SlideIl, as it actually exists, do i IN
volve the broad question of the right of
search, nor the liability of The ship to con-
domination but simply the right to seize per-
sons from neutral vessel upon the high seas.
We night justify even such an act upon
British precedent and British practice. But
suppose British precedent and British prac-
tice to have been wrong, and IN violation of
the maratime code which, if not yet we'll es-
tablished, this government has nevertheless
maintained for half century should govern
the intercourse of nations in their present ad-
vanced state of civilization, can we as a peo-
pie afford to be so inconsistent as to now for
the first time abandon our own cherished
policy, and defend the act of Capt. Wilkes
upon British precedents which we have so
persistently and strenuouslv condemned and
repudiated2 Had the case been reversed ;
had Great Britain been at war with another
nation and we neutral power, and one Of
our ships been boarded by an English man
of-war whose Captain assumed to determine
on the quarter deck of our ship that certain
persons were liable to capture, and taken
them accordingly without bringing the ship |
to neutral port, would our Government |
have submitted to the act Would the |
United States be ready to admit that British
midshipmen are made judges of Admiralty
to board American vessels and take out per-
sons and cargo at their sole will and pleasure?
If we are not prepared to accept such pre-
cedent as that for the American flag, how
can our Government do otherwise than con-
denim the act Of Capt. Wilkes as being unlaw-
ful in that respect
There is another difficulty which would
have met Mr.. Seward at the very Threshold.
had he undertaken to justify the seizure Of
he rebel commissioners, which though tech
meal in its character, might have caused
much embarrassment and have led to serious
That difficulty is this Our
Government have insisted all along, and still
INSIST that the rebels are not to be regarded
Is belligerents. 1t declares the war to be an
nsurrection on the part of its own citizens
against the laws and the authority of the
United States. Our Government will not
admit that those engaged in the attempt to
overthrow the Union, are belligerents in any
sense. Now if that is really the case; if the
rebels are not belgerent power, but simply
there is no sort of justifca.
ion to be made of the act of the San Jacinto,
It is true Great Britain has recognize the
pell;so-ent character of the Confederate
States" and could not deny that charac-
er, were we prepared to insist upon the point.
But by making The point in our orn faror,
would it not require virtual, nay, direct,
admission of the fact Of belligerency !? Can
We insist upon the character of belhgerency
or one purpose, and deny it in all others?
Mr.. Seward has avoided the meshes sur
rounding this point of the case, into which he
must have necessarily been led had he as
sumed to justify the act of Capt. Wilkes. He
has placed himself upon an american stand
point, in discussing the important questions
involved in the case. Why is not this the |
wise course? Why should we not, as ma
ton adhere to our own traditional policy as
well in case where it makes against us as
where il operates in our favor2 Should we