Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1862-01-09
THE SURRENDER OF MASON AND Sill.
DELL.
BY HORACE GREELEY.

other wit) OF the Peace OF Amlens, that IL was
one of which Everybody was glad and nobody
proud" his epigram was one capable Of very
wide if not general application. A war arres-
ted or avertcd is blessing which can hardly,
be priced too highly even though the salts
faction be nowise akin to exutation.
Hitherto. Great Britain has been known as
the champion Of extreme pretentons with re-
gard to the rights of belligerents over the mer-
chant vessels Of neutras aiding, however un-
consciously, inconsideraby, or indirectly, the
enemies of such beliligerents respectively. In
opposing that championship, we had the sym
pathy and approval of the Great Powers of
Continental Europe, all smarting under a sense
of wrong and ndignit involved in the treat
ment of neutral vessels By the cruisers and lri-
bunals Of the Mistress of the Seas That sym
pathy, that approval, we were about to lose by
persisting in the retention of Mison and Sli.
dell, after their protection had been assumed
and their delivery demanded by Greut Britain
The dispatch Of VI. Thouvene is decisive on
this point, its terms being explicit beyond the
usual limits of diplomacy. To have waged war
at once upon the most formidable rebellion ever
known. upon the greatest Nava power on earth,
and upon the Public Opinion of Europe, would
have overtaXed the resources of the greatest
Military nation. Even had the injustice of
our cause becn in our own view, unquestion-
ing that National existence on so desperate an
issue.
Had the retention of the rebel Commission
ers been vital to our safety, the proper course
mi ht not have been SO obvious. But those
persons were of small account to us, and of
little more to our adverseries. Their conse-
quence is almost wholly extrinsic and Fictitious,
growing out of their presumed ability to en-
broi us in foreign war and vanishing with the
probability Of such an issue. They were sud-
denly ioisteI into importance by Capt. Wikes's
capture, and sink into their pristine insignifi-
cance when handel over to Great Britain.
But long as they remained our prisoners,
they embodied or represented to European eyes
principle-that of the Freedom Of the Seas.
Tney had sought and received (such was the
version of the affair that obtained general cur
renew the protection of the British flag The
honor of that flag was involved in their immu-
nifty from seizure by our Government while it
was legally diepayed over their heads. At
whatever cost. by whatever means, Great Brit
attn was bound to see them safely through their
voyage, the dangers of the of course ex-
pected
but the Queens Procamaton-vha of
that? BY it, she had solmnly enjoined her
subjects not to transport officers, soldiers, or
dispatches for either party in our internal strug
gle. HID not the Trent clearly defed this in
| junction? Had she not taken from slave
holding neutral port, wherein hostility to the
| United States is rampant, distinguished ennis
saries of jefferson Davis, with their suit and
dispatches, fully aware that they had just elu-
ded our blockade and were then proceeding on
an errand of signal hostility and peril to the
United States? Can there be a rational doubt
that the commander of the said Trent was con-
scious of the errand of those Commissioners,
and deliberately promoting its success9 Can
there be shadow of question that, had Canada
or Jamaica been in rebellion, the Trent an
American vessel, her captor Briton, Mason
and Slidell emissares of the rebels on their
way to solicit recognition and assistance from
the Courts of France and Spain, and the case
properly brought before Sir William Scott or
Lord Stowell for adjudication he would have
condemned vessel and cargo as lawful prize of
war, and the rebel emissaries found on board
would have been sent to the Tower if not to
the scafiold For one have no more doubt OF
this than OF my own existence.
But then, it is fairly if not forcibly urged,
times have changed, and the extreme assertions
Of belligerent rights over neutrals which were
current in British Admiralty Courts fifty or
sixty years ago, are not now upheld in any
quarter. What Great Britain did to us in the
days of our weakness and her maritime domin-
ion, is no conclusive measure of what she must
concede to us in the altered circumstances of
of 1861.
Perhaps And yet it seems hard that bel
| ligerent maritime rights, which were so broad
and grasping when we were neutral and Eng
land a belligerent. should have "shrunk to such
little measure" when we are at war and Great
Britain neutral The rule works so unevenly
that there is palpable ground for jockeying OF
''prestidigitation" in the hand that welds it.
For lO but consider this Snppimpn of Rfitish
logic:
The Daily Ners CLondon) is a liberal journal
usually fair and even friendly towards this coun'
try. Yet even The Ne,cs contriyes this dilemma,
and offers us the choice of its horns:
Mason and Slile were either begerents OF
they were not But we have denied them the
character of belligerents, regarding them sim
ply as insurgents or rebels. But, in that char
acter, we can only contemplate them on an
English vessel as refugees from justice at home
and Great Britain never surrenders political
refugees. Our precede IT'S therefore, are al
abroad and our position unite liable
The answer to this is very simple:
Mason and Sldell were not refugees seeking
n foreign asylum from our pursuing vengeance
On the contrary they were enemies of the Uni
ted States, bouLd on an important errand o
hostility, wherein th4 Trent was their willing
accomplice. Had they been fleeing from our
shores for refuge, intent only on escape and
immunity for punishment they would be justl,
entitled to British asylum and protection, a'
they now are not. But the assumption that
because we do not accord to our repels bege-
rent rights they may be aided by neutral powers
to any extent, and may thus pursue with impu
nifty on the high seas their projects of hostiiit,
to the country they have forsworn, needs bu
to be illustrated to be secuted. Were it tenable
T a British merchant fleet might be employed il
transporting rebel troops from Norfolk tc
Charleston, from Charleston to Pensacola
from Pensacola to Galveston, etc. ETC., through
out the contest, and our ships of war must pas
them withou. challenge because we deny then
{ the character of belligerents Great Britiol
did not think so when MeNab burnt the rebe
steamer Caroline at an American wharf, anC
her Government assumed the act with all it'
responsibilities. A nations right to pursue ant
to protect self against its enemies flows in
evtably from its right to exist and is not vi
tally affected by the character in which it re
CARDS those enemies. Refugees and activ,
agents of a pubic enemy are quite distinc
characters.
{ But NJ. Thouvene is quite right in reminding
us, and Gov Seward is SO heartily concedinI
to him, that. in any controversy affecting thu
Rights of Neutrals on the high seas, the natu
raj and historical position of tho United States
is OH the side of the largest liberty. We mus
not be, even unjustly, accused of recreancy t