Bradford reporter. [volume] (Towanda, Pa.) 1844-1884, 1862-01-09

port does not modify the right OF the oehger-
ent captor. .r--.- ... -.....
The third question is whether Capt Wilkes
exercised the right of search in lawful and
proper manner.
If any doubt hung over this point as the
case was presented in the statement of it adopt
ed BY the British Government, think it must
have already passed away before the modfca.
tons of that statement which / have ALREADY
submitted
proceed to the fourth inquiry, namely:
Having found the suspected contraoand of
war on board the Trent, had Capt Wilkes
right to capture the same
Such capture is the chief, if not the only
recognized object of q visitation and search
The principle OF the law is that belligerent
exposed to danger may prevent the contrabaDd
person and things from applying themselves or
being applied to the hostile uses or purposes
designed The law is so very liberal in this re-
! spect that when the contrsband is found on
/ board a neutral vessel, not only is the contra
band forfeited, but the vessel which is the We
7 hcle of its passage or transportation, being
4 tainted, also becomes coutraband, and is sub
/ jected to capture and confScation.
Only the fifth question remains, namely
Did Captain Wilkes exercise the right of cap.
turing the contrabands in conformity with the
! law Of nations
1t IL just here that the difficulties Of the case
! begin. What is the manner which the Law Of
nations prescribes for disposng OF the contra,
band when you nave found and seized it on
board of the neutral vessel The answer would
be easily found if the question were what You
shall do with the contraband vessel. You must
take or send her into a convenient port, and
subject her to judicial prosecution there 10
admiralty. which will try and decide the ques-
tons of bellgerency, neutrality, contraband
and capture. So, again, you would promptly
find the same answer if the question were
What is the manner OF proceeding prescribed
by the low OF nations in regard to the contra.
band if It be property or things of material or
pecunlary value
But the question here concerns the mode of
procedure in regard, not to the vessel that was
carrying the contraband, nor vet to contraband
things which worked the forfeiture Of the yes
sci, but to eontraband persons
The books OF law are dumb. Yet the ques-
ton is as important as it is difficult First, the
beiligerent captor has a right to prevent the
c0otraband officer, soldier, sailor minister. or
courier from proceeding 10 bis unlawful voyage
aud reaching the destined scene of bis iniurons
I
ptnred may be nnocent-that be may not
1e coHlrabsnd. He, therefore, has right to a
lair trial OF the accusation against him The
Neutral State has taken him under its flag.
is bound to protect him if be is not contrabaud
ard is therefore entitled to he satisfied upon
that important question. The faith of that
State is pledged to bis safety, if innocent as its
justice is pledged to his surrender if be is really
bap xola; =
voIving personal liberty, life, honor and duty.
Here are conflicting national claims involving
welfare, safety, honor, and empire. They re-
quire tribunal and trial. The eaptors pnd
the captured are equals the Neutral and he
belligerent States are equals
While the law authorities we're found silent
it was suggested at su early day BY this Gov
ernmeut that you should take the captured per
sous into convenient port and institute Judi
cal proceedings there 10 try the controversy.
But only courts Of admiralty have jurisdiction
in maritime cases, and these courts have formu-
las TO try oHy claims 10 cOntraband chatliss,
but no 0Oe TO tFy claims concerning coDtraband
persons. The courts can entertain no proceed. |
ings and render no judgment 10 favor of or
/ against the alleged contraband men
1t was replied all this is true bat 7ou can
reach 10 those courts decision which will have /
the moral weight of judicial one By a circuit |
Gus proceeding Convey the suspected men, !
together with the suspected vessel, into port
and try there the question whether the vessel
is contraband. You can prove il 70 be so By
proving the suspected men to be contraba0d.
aud the court must then determine the vessel
to be contraband. If the men are not contra
baud the vessel will escape condemnation. Still !
there is no judgment for or against the cap
tured persons But it was assumed that there /,
would result from the determination of the I.
court concerning the vessel legal certainty
concerning The character Of the men
This course of proceeding seemed open TO /
many objections. 1t elevates the Incidental 7
inferior private interest into the proper place /,
Of the paramount public one, end possibly it !
may make the fortunes, the safety or the exis- /
tence Of q nation depended on the accident of
merely persooal and pecuniary Ltigaton-
Moreover, when the Judgment of the prize court
upon the lawtulnesS OF the capture Of the yes
sci is rendered, it really concludes notbiag and
binds neither the billigerent State or the neu-
tra upon the great question Of the disposition
TO be made of the captured contraband per-
sons. That question is still to beresily deter !
mined, il at all, by diplcuatie arrangement or
BY war.
Que may wellexpress bis surprise when told
that the Law Of nations has furOiShed no more
reasonable, practical and perfect mode than |
this of determining questions of such grave iu- |
port between sovereign powers The regret we
may feel on the occasion 10 nevertheless modi. |
fed by the reflection that the difficulty is not
altogether anomalous Similar and equal de- |
6cieneies are found in every system of munich |
pal law, especially in the system which exists |
in the greater portions of Great Britain aud
the United States Tue title to personal prop