Marshall County Republican. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1856-1878, 1862-01-09

'csSei u icBai certainty COhccinin5 thc
character of the men,.
This course of proceeding seemed
open to many objections. 1t elevates the
incidental inferior private interest into the
proper place of the main paramount public
one. and possibly it may make .he fortunes,
the safety. or the existence OF q nation de-
pend on the accidents of merely personal
and pecuniary litigation. Moreover. when
the judgment of the prize court upon the
lawfulness of tho capture of the vessel is
rendered, it really concludes nothing. and
binds neither the belligerent State por the
neutra, upon the great question of the dis
position to be made Of the captured con-
traband persons. The question is still to
be really determined, if st oil. by diplo-
matte arrangement, or by war;
One may we'll express his surprise when
told that the law of nations has furnished
no moro reasonable. practical. and perfect
mode than this of determining questions of
such a grave import between sovereign
powers. The regret we may feel on this
occa ion is nevertheless modified by the re-
fection that the difficulty is not altogether
anomalous. Similar and equal deficiencies
are found in every system Of municipal
law, especially in the system which exists
in the greater portions of Great Britain
and the United States The title to per-
sonal property can hardly ever be resolved
by court without rcsorting TO the fiction
that the claimer has lost. ami the possessor
has found it, and the title to real estate is
disputed by real litigants under the names
of imaginary persons. 1t must be con-
fessed. however, that while sggrieved aa-
tions demand. and all impartial concede,
the need of some form of judicial process
in determining the characters ofcontraband
persons. no other form than the illogical
and eircuitous one thus described exists
nor has any other yet been Suggested
Practically. therefore, the choizc is between
that judicial remedy or no judicial remedy
whatever
Ifthere be no judicial remedy, the result
is that the aes,ion must be determined by
the captor himself. on the deck of the prize
vessel. Very grave objections arise a
gainst such course. The captor is armed
the neutral is nnarmed. The captor is in
terested. preiudiced. and perhaps VIOLENT
the neutral. if truly neutral, is disintercs
{. ted. subdued. and helpless. The tribune
is irresponsible. while its judgement j:
carried into instant execution. The cap
tured party is compelled to submit. though
bound by no legal, moral. or treaty obi
CATION to acquisesce. Reparations is dis
tant and problematical, and depends a
) last on the Justice. msgnsnimity. or weak
ness Of the State in pehslf and by whose
authority the capture was made. Ont o
these disputes reprissls and wars necessarily
arise, and these are so frequent and destruc
tive that it may we'll be doubted whethe
this form Of remedy is not greater socia
> evil than all that could follow if the bel
ligerent right of search were UNIVERSAL,
rencunced and abolished forever Blu
: carry the case one step further. What
the State that has made the capture un
Y reasonably refns, to hear the complaint o
the neutral or redress it? In that case tn
e very act Of capture would be an act Of wa
b -of war begun without notice. aud posi-
bly, entirely without provocation. .'
e l think all unprecedented minds vii agre
that, imperfect as the existing Judicial rem
cdy may be supposed to be, it would as
. general practice. be better to followe it thai
o to adopt the summary one Of leaving tn
i decision with the captor, aud relying upo,
: diplomatic debates to review his decision
Practically it is question Of choice be
, tween law. with its imperfcctions and de
/ lays, and war. with its evils and desola
tions. Nor is il to be forgotten that neu
traliY,. honestly and justly preserved. j
!. always the harbinger of peace. and there
o fore is the common interest of humani,.
: itself. .,f .f g,..rtI. 81
At the same time it is not to be denie,
that it may sometimes happen that the ju
!, dicial remedy will become impossible. q
|. by the shipwreck OF the prize vessel. o
: lother circumstances which excuse the cap
I, tor from sending or taking her into por
for confscation. In such case the right o
captor to the custody of the captured per
e sons. and to dispose of them. If they ar
!. really contrsband. so as to defeat their un
o lawful purposes, cannst reasonably be de
! MED. What rule shall be applied in sucl
case? Clearly. the captor ought to b
q required to show that the failure of th
i Judicial remedy results from circumstance
beyond his control, and without his fault
= Otherwise he would be allowed to deriv
!. advantage from wrongful set Of hi
n own. irs v.,t .s.f, f.-l.iI..t y Il fsf
s In the present case. Captain Wilks. al
: ter caturing the contrahand persons. AM
making prize Of the Trent in what seem
I to us a perfectly lawful manner. instead o
. sending her, into port relessead her from
!, capture. and permitted her to procee'
u with her whole cargo upon her voyage
: He thus edectuslly prevented the judicia
, examination which might otherwise hav
! occurred. ...,.,.,- .-s.,-i IS.
: If, now the capture Of the con trabsl
/ persons and the capture of the eontraban,
vessel are to to be regarded. not as .tw,
: separable or distinctions under the law, Q
nations, bnt as one transaction. one cap
d ture only, then it follows that the captur
y in this case was, left unfinished. or, wa
9 abandoned. Whether the United State
t have right to retain the chief public ben
y e6ts of it. namely, the custody Of the cap
+ tured persons. on proving them to Be con
d traband, will depend upon the prelimina
y ry question whether the leaving Of tn
o transaction unfinished was necesssry. q
!. whether it was unnecessary. snd therefor
g "a o.,