Bradford reporter. [volume] (Towanda, Pa.) 1844-1884, 1862-01-09


which this decision would cost 1t manifestly
however, did not occur TO him that beyond the
sacrifice of the private interests (as he calls
them of his officers and crew, there might
also possibly be sacrifice even OF the chief
and public object of his captnre--namely, the
right of his Government to the custody and
disposition of the captured persons. This gov.
ernment cannot censure him for this oversight.
1t cOnfesses that The whole subject came On.
fOrseeH upon the Government, as doubtless is
did upon him. Its present convictions on the
point in question are the result of deliberate
examination and deduction noa made. aud not
of any impressions previously formed
Nevertheless, the question now is, not whe-
ther Capt. Wilkes is justified to his govern.
ment in what he did, but what is the present
view OF the government as to the effect Of what
he has done. Assuming now, for arguments
sake only that the release of the Trent, if vol.
untary, involved waiver of the claim of the
government to hold the captured persons, the
United States could 10 that case have no hesi.
tation in saying that the act which has thus
| already been approved by the government
must be allowed to draw its legal consequence
after it. It is Of the very nature Of gift or
q charity that the gver cannot, after the ex-
ercise of bis beuevolence is past, recall or mod.
ify it's benefits.
We are thus brought directly to the dueE.
tion whether We are entitled to regard the re-
lease OF the Trent as involuntary, or whether
we are obliged to consider that it was volunts.
~. Clearly the release would have been in.
voluntary had it been made solely upon the
first grou2d assigned for it by Capt Wilkes.
namely, want of q sufficient force TO send
the prize vessel into port for adjudication Il
is not the duty Of a captor to hazard his own
vessel in order to secure jndica examination
20 the captured party. No large prize crew,
however psilegally necessary for it is the duty Of
the captured party 10 acquiesce and 90 willing.
y before the tribunal 10 whose jurisdiction E
appeals II the captured party Indicate pur.
poses TO employ means OF resistance which
he captoT cannot with probable safety 10 him.
self overcome, he may properly leave the yes
sci 20 gO forward and neither sue nor the
State she represents CAP ever afterwards Just
y object that the capture depr we'd her Of the
judicial remedy TO which she wss entitled
But the second reason assigned by Captain
Wilkes for releasing the Trent differs from
the first A. best therefore it must be held
that Capt Wilkes, IS be explains himself. act
I'd from combined sentiments OF prudeuce and
'
vessel was not strictly necessary or iuEoluuta.
~.
Secondly How ought We to expect these
explanations by Capt Wilkes OF his reasons
for leaving the capture incomplete to effect
tue action Of the British Government?
Tue observation upon this point which first
occurs is, that Capt. Wilkes explanations
were not made to the authorities Of the cap
tured vessels If made known to them they
might have approved and taken the release,
upon the condition of waving a judicial in
yestgatiOG OF the whole transaction, or they
might nave refused to accept the release upon
that condition.
Bu. the case is not one with them, but
with the British Government. If ze claim
.hat Great Britain ought not to INSIST that a
judicial trial has beeu lost because We volun-
ts-ily released the offending vessel out Of con.
SderstiOn for her innocent passengers. | do
not see how she is bouOd to acquiesce in the
decision which was thus made by us without
necessity on our part, and without the knoWl-
edge Of conditions or consent on ber owu The
question between Great Britain and ourselves
would be question OF not right Of law, but
of favor to be conceded by her in return for
feVOrs shown by Us 10 her, OF the value Of
which fayors on both sides We ourselves shall
be the judge Of course the United States
could have no thought Of raising such ones
ton 10 any case.
| trust that ! have shown to the satisfac-
tiOH of the BritiSh Government, by a very sim
p4e and natural statement OF the facts, AID
ANALYSIS of the law applicable TO them. that
this Government has belther Tedtated, nor
prscticed nor approved any j. ;berate wrong
IN the transaction TO wnch t.,4y have called
its attention aud, on the contrary, that what
has happened has been simply an inadVerten-
cy, consisting in departure, by the naval Of,
hcer, free from any wrongful motive. from a
rue uncertainty established, and probably by
the severa parties concerned either imperfectly
understood or entirely unknown. For this er-
ror the British Government has q right TO ex-
pect the same reparstloE that we as an inde.
pendent State, should Expect from Great Brit
ian or from sny other friendly nation in a sim
liar case
| have not been unaware that, in examining
this question, | have fallen into 40 argument
for Eha, seems to be the British side OF it
against nv own cOuLtry. But | an relieved
from all embarrssSments on that subject. /
had hardly fallen into that line of argument.
when discovered that | was really defending
and maintaining not az exclusively British ia
terest, but an old, houor-d aud cherished
American cause, not Upon British Authorities,
bat upon principles tbat constitute q large por-
ton Of the distinctive policy By which the
United States nave developed he resources Of
continent, and TINS becoming considerable
maritime power, aad WOO The respect and con.
6dence of many nations. These principles we're
laid down for Us in 1904, BY James Madison.
uhen SaorefsFv nf State in tha adrnin;e,ra,;oo
of Thomas JeftTsoa, 10 Instructions given to
l.. u l.