The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1862-01-04

ton in England. al hough it is not
essential, yet it is proper to state, as |
do also upon information and belief, that
the owner and agent, and all the officers
of the Trent, including the Commander
Williams, had knowledge of the assumed
characters and purposes of the persons
before named when they embarked OH
that vessel.
Your lordship will now perceive that
the case before us, instead of presenting
a merely fragrant act of violence on the
part of Captain Wilkes as might we'll
be inferred from the incomplete state
ment Of it that went up to the British
government, was undertaken as a simple
legal and customary belligercnt proceed
ing by CAPTAIN Wilkes to arrest and
cap .urc neutral vessel engaged in car.
rying contraband of war for the use and
benefit of The insurgents.
The question before us is, whether
this proceeding was authorized by and
conducted according to the law ofnations.
1t involves the following inquiries
LIST. Were hcpersons named and their
supposed dispatches contraband of war
I'd Might Captain Wilkes lawfully
stop and search the Trent for these con-
traband persons and dispa ches
Sd. Did he exercise that right in a
lawful and proper manner
4th. Having found the con raband
persons on board and in presumed pos
session of the con raband dispatches, had
he right to capture the persons?
Did he exercise that right of capture
in the manner allowed and recognized by
the law of ma ions?
If all these inquiries shall be resolved
in tie affirmative he British government
will have no claim for reparation.
address myself to the first inquiry,
namely, were the four persons mentioned,
and their supposed dispatches, contra
band
All wri crs and judges pronounce
naval or military persons in the service
Of the enemy contraband. Vattel says
war allows us to cut off from an enemy
all his resources, and to hinder him from
And Sir William Scott says you may
stop the ambassador Of your enemy on
his passage. Dispatches are not less
clearly contraband, and the bearers or
courers who undertake to carry them
fall under the same condemnation.
A sub lety might be raised whether
pretended minis ers Of an usurping
Power, not recognized rs legal by eli her
belligerent or the neutral, could be held
to be contraband. But it would disap-
pear on being subjected to what is the
true test in all cascs-namely, the spirit
Of the law. Sir William SCOTT, speaking
of civil magistrates who were arrested
and detained as contraband, says
" 1t appears to me on principles to be but
reasonable that when it is Of sufficient impor-
lance to the enemy that such persons shall be
sent out on the public expense, it shall afford
equal ground Of forfeiture against the vesse
that may be let out for purpose so intimate.
ly connected with the hostile operations"
l trust that l have shown that the four per-
sons who were taken from the Trent by Capt
Wilkes, and their dispatches, were contra.
band Of war.
The second inquiry is. whether Captain
Wilkes had Il right by the law of nations tC
detain and search the Trent, though she car
ried mails, was contract or merchant vessel
"a common carrier for hire. Maritime law
knows only three classes of vessels-vessel |:
of war, revenue vessels and merchant vessels
The Trent falls within the latter class. What
ever disputes have existed concerning the
right Of visitation or search in time of peace
none, it is supposed, has existed in modcrl
times about the right of belligerent in tim,
Of war to capture contraband in neutral ant
even friendly merchant vessels, and Of til,
right Of visitation and search in order tt
determine whether they are neutral and ar,
documcntcd as such according to the law o
nations.
l assume, in the present case, what, as
read British authorities, is regarded by Grea
Britain herself as true maritime law that the
circumstance that the Trent was proceeding
from neutral port to another neutral por
does not modify the right of the bclligcren
captor.
!, The third question is. whether Captain
Wilkes exercised the right Of search in law
full and proper manner?
If any doubt hung over this point, as the
case was presented in the statement Of i
adopted by the British government, think i
must have already passed away before the
notifications of that statement which | have
already submitted
proceed to the fourth inquiry, namely =
war on board the Trent, had Captain W likes
a right to capture the same
Such a capture is the chief if not the only
recognised object Of the permitted visitation
and search. The principle of the law is, tina
{ the belligerent exposed to danger may pre-
vent the contraband persons OF things from
applying themselves OF being applied to th'
hostile uses or purposes designed. The law
is so liberal in this respect that when contra
band is found on board neutral vessel, no
only is the contraband forfeited, but the yes
sci, which is the vehicle of its passage o.
transportation, being tainted. also becomes
contraband, and IL subjected to capture and
confiscatiUn.
Only the fifth question remains, namely =
Did Captain Wilkes exercise the right Of cap
turing the contraband in conformity with til,
law of nations
1t is lust here that the difficulties OF the
! case begin. VIVA, is the manner which th'
law of nations prcscribcs for dtsposing OF thu
contraband, when you have found and sei1ec
it on board of the neutral vessel? Tht
answer would he easily found if tho question
were what you shall do with the contrabrnt
| vessel. You must take or send her into
convenient port, and subject her to iudicia
prosecution there in admiralty, which vii
try and decide the questions of beligcrency
neutrality. contraband and capture. So
again, You would promptly find the same
f answer, il the question were What is the name
Of proceeding prescribed by the law of nation
!, IN regard to the contraband, if it be propcrt.
or things of material or pecuniary value
But the question here concerns the mod
of procedure in regard, not to the vessel tina
nrr,-i pg thinnS WllCl