Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1862-01-03

Thu Mason and Slidell, ohnsithe Trent.
.x,;. hs,;,, come to an end, at least so lar
ss the two Governments are concerned tne
English press. which has been lashiHg i'seii
and the patton into fury with false ale
cations OF intentional insult on the part y,
our government, will lave chance 70 coOi
oH. 1t appears from the letter oil Earl nus
AL thu. the British Government was not
a, all disposed to assume the dletatoriai anu
overbearing tone which thosemischiei makers
nrescribed for it. When the British Gov
eminent wishes to get into war with the
q. S. it will find its occasion in something
else than a quarrel about two such worthless
rsscals as Mason and Slidell. Earl Russell
assumes that the act of which he complains,
as contrary to international law, and oil
itself an affront to the British flag TN
authorized, and that if the U. S. officer sup
posed himself authorized to commit 1t, he
was acting under q Misunderstanding OF ais
orders,-and that when the Z. 5. Govern
ment understands the case, it will be ready
to make proper redress. In all this Earl
Russell does no more than U. S. Minister
would do in such case, if he took q like
view of its character. lie does not complain
of the Irenf's being stopped or searched
but only that TIE L. S. officer took the
men with violence out Of ber-she being a
neutral vessel For aught that appears in
his letter, there would have been no COM
plant If Com. Wilkes had taken the vesse
and all On board into Z. s. port, for adju
dicaiion by prize court.
There is nothing like threat in his Ian
suage-notbing which forbade the SecretaI,
of State to traverse the case, or that pre-
cluded a discussion of the larS bearing oil
it 10 be carried on BY the two Government
without any lowering OF the dignity
either.
The whole Of Secretary Stewards discussion
of the subject is not before US. But from
the portion thus far received by telegraph
it is eveident that the case has been decide
on American, and not on British, principle
and precedents. Mr.. Seward takes tn
ground that the L. S. Government has al
ways contended that no officer of Nationa
armed vessel could properly be permitted
do what Capt. Wilkes did in the Trent case
because it would be allowing the officer
discretion which would DO liable to danger
GUS abuse, to the injury Of neutrals. Grea
Britain h IS never been willing to come fairl
on to our ground in that regard. but Nj
Seward thinks that as she now advocates i
she will no longer hisItate to do go. And ,
any rate, our Government proposes to
what We have always claimed to be right i
every case Kept one in winch the safety
Nation might be vitality concerned.
The decision, unexpected as it may be
many, made on such grounds, will be readil
accepted by the Country at large, and WI
bring a feeling of relief to many an anxior
patriot The purpose Of resistance to Il
claim OF Great Britain on the part of o,
people has been based on the belief that Il
act of Capt. Wilkes was delensiblc as night
international law. The decision Of our ow
as well as Of other Governments, l. hOweve
that it was irregular and indefensiblc, and tn
ing the case, there is nothing to do but
promptly repair the wrong. 1t is as man
to acknowledge cheeEfully and frankly Il
error, as it would be to fight for rigL
Certainly the possession Of these men is not
ing Of consequence enough to fight for. NJ
Seward evidently thinks very lightly Of al
harm they can do, and so probably DO a
They are a couple of dead dogs, which t
London Times, the Morning Post and L
London O5se, rer are welcome to. Let thu
take them and make the most Of them.