Ashtabula weekly telegraph. [volume] (Ashtabula, Ohio) 1853-1873, 1862-01-04

the suspected men, tOgetnort Win tne auS-
pecied vessel, into port, and try there the
question whether the vessel 4 contraband.
You can prove IL TO be 80 by proving the
suspected men to he contrabaud aud the
court must then determine the vessel to be
coHtraband If the men are not contra
baud the vessel will escape condemnation.
SdH-thefe is no judgement for or against
the captured persons But II was assumed
that there would result from the determine.
tion of the court concerning the vessel legal
certainty concerning the character Of the
men. ~ -r .rr.r...rr
This course Of proceeding seemed d'open to
many objections. IL elevates the incden-
tai inferior private interest into the proper
place Of the main paramount public one,
and possibility 1t may make the fortunes,
the safety, or the existence of a nation de-
pend on the accidents of merely personal
aud pecuniary litigation. Moreyer, when
the Judgment of the prize court upon the
lawiuIuess of the capture Of the vessel is
rendered, IL really concludes nothing, and
brings neither the belligerant State nor the
neutral upon the great question OF the dis
position to be made of the captured contra
band persons. That question is still to be
really determined, If at all by diplomatic
arrangement or by war.
One may well express his surprise when
told that the law OF nations has furnished
no more reasonable, practical and perfect
mode then this of determining questions of
such grave import between Sovereign Pow
ers. This regret We may feel on the ocea-
sion is nevertheless modified by the reAec-
ton 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 aud the
! U. S. The title to personal property can
hardly ever be resolved by court without
rcsorting to the fiction that the claimant
has lost and the possessor has found it, and
! the title to real estate is disputed by real
! litigants under the the names of imaginary
| persons. 1t must be confessed, however,
that while all .aggrieyed natious demand
aud oil impartial ones concede, thesneed OF
some form of judicial process in deternin-
ing the characters Of coutraband persons,
no other foil than thcillogieal and cireui.
tous one thus described exists, nor has any
other yet been suggested. Practically
therefore, the choice is between that Judi.
cial remedy orno judicial remedy whatever,
If there be no judicial remedy, the result
is that the question must be determined by
the captor himself, on the deck of the prize
vessel. Very grave objections arise against
such course. The captor is interested
perjudiced, and perhaps violent the neu
trail, if truly neutral, is disintereSed, sub
dued, and helpless The tribunal is ire
spousible, while its Judgment is carried in
TO instant execution The captured part,
is compelled 10 submit, though bound by nt
legal, moral or treaty obligation to acqui
esce. Reparation is distant and problema
tical, and depends at last on the Justice
magnanmity, or weakness Of the State il
whose behalf and by whose authority th
capture was made. Out Of these dispute
repriseIs and wars necessarily arise, ont
these are so frequent aud destructive tina
. it may well be doubted whether this forr
Of remedy is not a greater sociul evil tha
: I'LL that conld follow il the belligeraut righ
: of search were universally renowned an,
t abolished forever. But carry the cauS
e one step farther. What if the State tha
has made the capture unreasonably refuS
to hear the complaint Of the neutral or t
redress it In that case, the very act {
+ capture would be an act Of war-of war begn
] without uotice, and possibly entirely viii
out proVocation.
! think oil unperjudiced minds will agre
that, imperfect rs he existing rtdiei,,l rene
: dy may be supposed TO be, it would be, a
general practice, better to follow il tha
S to adopt the summary one Of leaving tn
= decision with the captor, and relying upo
s diplomatic debates to review his decision
s Practically, it is question Of choice be
} tween law, with its imperfectlons and dt
: lays, and war, with its evils and desolaton
Nor is it ever to be forgotten that neutral
!, ty honesty and justly preserved, is alway
, the harbinger OF peace, and therefore is Il
J. common interest of nations, which is on
. saying that il is the interest of humanil
# itself
Y AT the same time it is not to be deniC
that it may sometimes happen that the j
c dcal remedy will become impossible,
b by the shipwreck of the prize vessel, or OF
,f er circumstance which excuse the capt
d from sending or taking her into port f
= conlisea tion. IN such case the right
e the captor to the custody of the capture
e persons and to dispose of them, if they a
d really contraband, so as to defeat their q
II lawful purposes, cannot reasonably be
l. uined. What rule shall be applied in 50,
Is a case? Clearly, the captor ought to
ID required to show that the failure of the
y dicial remedy results from circumstanc
e, beyond his control and without his fant.
ID If, now the capture of the contraba
n persons and the capture of the contraba
d. vessel are to be regarded, not as two sc
arahle or distinct transaction under The |,
le Of aations, but as one transaction, one ca
el ture only, then it follows that lie captu
ct in this case was left unfinished, or "
~ abandoned Whether the u S. have
" right to retain he chef public benefits
it, namely, the custody of the captured p
le sons on proving them to be contrabaI
1t, will depend upon the preliminary questi
to whether the leaving Of the transaction
IL finished was necessary, or whether it y
o. unnecessary, aud therefore voluntary.
h. it was necessary, Great Britain, us we 81