Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1862-01-09

will escape condemnation Still there is no judgment for
agant the captured persons But IT was answered that
corning vessel legal certain concerning the charac
er of the men,
lions It eeya1es the incidental inferior private interest
into the proper place Of the man paramount public one
nd nnssibe il may make the fortunes the safety
tence of nation depend the accidents of merely
soral pecunary litigation Moreover VIXEN the judg
n of the prize court upon the awfuDess of The capture
of the vessel rendered, really concludes nothing and
binds the begeren State nor the neutral the
treat questions the disposition to be made of the cap
fured contaband That question is still to be
ally determined, if at ALL by diplomatic arrangement by
One may well express his surprise when told that the law
fnaons prescribed be practical and
perect than this of determining questions of such
grave import between sovereign powers The regret
may feel on occasion nevertheless modified by the
Election difficulty s altogether anomalous
similar and equal DEFICIENCIES found in every asylum of
municipal law, especially in the asylum which exists in the
greater port of Great Britain and the United States
ne tS ~ p4suu' pPi 70 4ba 6ctio1 that the csi.
las los and tie has found it, and the title
estate disputed by real tigants under the names of ina
gnary 1t must be confessed however, that while
all aggrfeved nations demand, and all impartial
cede the need of some form of judicial process in deter
mining he character OF contabdnd PERSONS ne other form
than illogical and crcuitOus thus described exits
nor has other yet been suggested Practically there
fore choice between that judicial remedy judi
ca remedy whatever. II there be judicial remedy the
result tn the question must be determined by The captor
himself the deck Of the prize vessel Very grave objec
against such The captOr armed the
eura is unamed. The capor is interested, preudced,
aud perhaps violent; the neutral truly neutral dsn
teested subdued and helpless The tribunal irrespOns
he while its Judgment is carried into instant execution.
The captured party compelled to submit, though bound
by no legal moral treaty obligation acquesce. Re-
ptraton is distant and problematca and depends at last
the justice magnanimity CT weakness OF the State in
whose behalf and BY whose authority the capture
Dade. Out Of the disputes reprs and wars necessarily
arise frequent and destructive that it may
well doubted whether this form Of remedy great
social evil than all that could follow If the bsllfgerent
right of search universally renowned and abolished
forever. Bat carry the case one step farther What the
that has made the capture unreasOnaby refuse
hear the complaint of the neutral to redress In that
afCff Urud hn pf Cf Of
begun without notice and possibly without proVocaon
think all unprejudced minds will agree that, imperfect
the existing judicial remedy be suppo'ed to be, it
would be- general practice better TO FOLLOW it than to
adopt the summary one OF leaving the decsIon with the
decision Practically it is question of choice between
law with its imperecens and delays and with its
evils and desOatOns Nor is it be forgotten that
neutrality honestly and justly preserved is always the har
binger of peace and therefore, is the interest of
nations Which only ing that IS the interest of hui
At The same tins it is not to be denied that it may some
times happen that the judicial remedy will become mpOs
be the shpwreck Of the prize vessel other cir
cunstances which the captor from sending TAX
capto the custody Of the captured persons and to
dispose OF them if they really contraband, de-
unlawful cannot reasonably be denied.
What rule shall be applied in such case? Clearly the cap
tor ought required to show that the failure of the ju
ca remedy beyond his control
and without his fault otherwise he would be allowed to de-
rive advantage from wrongful act Of his own.
cotraband persons and making prize Of the Trent in what
seems to us perfectly lawful manner instead Of sending
her into port released the capture and permitted
her to proceed with her whole cargo apon her voyage He
thus efectuay prevented the judicial examination which
might otherwise hpye occurred.
Now, the capture OF the cont.aband persons and the
capture the cOnaband Vesse are to be regarded not
separate distinct transactions under the law OF
% tfo ctnre in tIis case Vas Ieft unfinished or
abandoned Whether the United States have right to
tain the chief public benefits OF tDamey, t. custody OF
captured persons proving them to b contraband
will depend upon the preliminary question: whether the
leaving the transaction unfinished necessary, and
therefore voluntary Ii it necessary Great Britain
~ he
sequen failure Of the Judicial remedy On the other hand
il Is not the United States insist upon her waiy
that judicial remedy, ii the defect OF the capture
suited from act OF Captain Wilkes which would be
fault their side.
for releasing the Trent forebore to seize her, he
SAYS in consequence of my being reduced in officers
crew. and this arrangement would cause innocent per-
sons suffer- there being large number Of passengers
who would have been pat great loss and Inconvenience
well disappointment from the interruption it would
them, in not being able to Din the steamer
St. Thomas to Europe. J, therefore, concluded to
sacrifice the interest of officers and to the prize,
suffered her proceed after the detention necessary
effect the transfer OF those Commissioners considering
obtained the important end had ia view and which
affected the interest Of our country and interrupted the
ton OF that of the Conederates
shall consider first how these reasons ought TO affect the
Of this government and SECONDLY how they ought to
be expected to Affect the action OF Great Britain.
The satisfactory to this government so far as
Capt Wilkes concerned it could desire that the
JuGuto officers and should be exposed danger
and by weakening their number to deach prize
to 20 on board the Trent still less could it dsaVow the
motive of preventing nconvenient losses and per
found on boad the prize vessel NOT coGlu thlS uoVern
perceive any ground for questioning the fact that these
reasons though apparently ncODgUous, did operate in the
mind OF Capt wilkes ana determined nun 20 release Inc
Trent human action generally proceeds from mingled
and sometimes conflicting motives He measured the sac
rlces which has decision Woua cost. mahnesy now
ever did him that beyond the sacrifice OF the
private interests Gas he calls them) OF his officers and crew
there might also, possibly be sacrifice even of the chief
public object Of his capture, namely The right OF his
the custody and disposition of the captured
persons This cannot him for this
sight conesses that the whole subj unforeseen
upon the government, doubtless did upon him. ltt
present convictions the point III question the result
of deliberate examination and deduction made, and
not of any impressions previously formed.
Never theess, the question ls not whether Capt
Wilkes is justified his Government in what he did, bu
present view Of the Government to the eec
Of what he has done Assuming now for arguments sake
only that the release of the Trent if voluntary. involved
waiver the claim of the Government to hold the captured
the United States could in that case have no hest
saying that the which has thus already bee
approved by the Government must be allowed to draw it
legal consequences after it. 1t Is of the very nature of
gift charity that the gycr cannot after the exercise
Lis beneyoence is past recall or modify It's benefits
We thus brought directly to the question: whether
entitled regard tie release Of the Trent nVouH
tary or whether obliged consider that it is voun
tary? Clearly release would have been made solel
upon tie first ground assigned for by Capt Wilkes
w. want of sufficient force send the prze vessel int
port for adjudication. 1t is not the duty of captor
hazard his vessel in order to Judicial exanirS
ton to captured party No large prize crew, however
is legally necessary Tor the duty the captured part
to acquece and go willingly before the tribunal to who's
Jurisdiction it appeals 1t the captured party Indicate pu
poses to employ of resistance which the cSpor
not with probable safety himself overcome, he may
pey leave the vessel to forward aud neither he nor IL
he represents afterwards justly object th
the capor deprived her OF the Judicial remedy to whic
She entitled.
For the second assigned Captain Wilkes for
leasing the Trent differs from the first At best therefor
10 must be held that Capt. Wilkes as he explains hnseI
acted from sentiments Of prudence and generOs
y and that the release OF the prize vessel was not src
ly necessary or involuntary
Secondly-How ought we to expect these explanation
10y Capt Wilkes of his for leaving the capture
complete to affect the action OF the British Government?