Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1862-01-03


Thas he bas done. Assuming now. for srgu-
nents sake only, that the release Oh the lrens; "
( voluntary. Involved waiver Of tne c'alm ~
Iho Government TO bold The captured peIsOns,
'he United States could in that case have no
ncsitatiof, In saving that the act which has thus
.lready been approved by the Government
must be allowedto draw It's legal consequences
lfter IL. 1t ls the very nature OF gitt o.
charity that the giver cannot, alter the exercise
Of his beneyolence is past, recall or moaiiy i's
We are thus brought directly to the question
whether we are entitled to regard the release
Of the Trent as involuntary, or whether wei
are Obliged to consider that it was voluntary
Clearly the release would have been involun-
tary had it been made solely upon tho nrst
ground assigned for 1t by Capt. Wilkes, name
", want Of sufficient force to send the prize
vessel into port for adjudication. Il isnot tue
duty OF a captor to hazard his own vessel IN
order TO secure judicial examination 70 tne
captured party, No large prize Grew, however
10 legally necessary, for II is the duty OF .ne
captured party to acquieece and 60 willingly
before the tribunal to whose jurisdiction 1t sp-
peals. If the captured party indicate purposes
10 employ means Of resistance, which the captor
cannot with probable safety to himself over
come, he may properly leave the vessel to 90
forward; and neither she nor the State she rep
resents can ever afterward justly object that the
captor deprived her of the judicial remedy 10
which she was entitled. -
\, Bit the second reason assigned by Captain
Wilkes for releasing the Trent differs from the
first. At best, therefore, 1t must be held tnat
Captain Wilkes, as he explains himself, act q
from combined sentiments Of prudence and
generosity, and 80 that the release OF the prize
vessel was not strictly necessary or involun'
tary.
Secondly. How ought We to expect these ex.
plantations by Capt. Wilkes Of his reasons for
leaving the capture incomplete to affect the
action Of the British government
The observation upon this point which hret
occurs is, that Capt. Wilkes's explanations were
not made to the authorities Of the captured
vessel. II made known to them, they might
have approved and taken the release, upon
the condition of waving judicial invesiiga-
tiou of the whole transaction, or they might
have refused to accept the release upon that
condition.
But the case ia one not With them, but with
the British Government. IL we claim that
Great Britain ought not to insist that judicial
trial has been lost because we voluntarily re.
leased the offending vessel out Of consideration
for her innocent passengers, do not see now
she is to be bound 10 acquiesce IN tue decision
which WAS thus made by US without necessity
on our part, and without knowledge OF condi-
tions or consent on her own. The question be-
tween Great Britain and ourselves thus stated
would be q question not OF right and OF law,
but of favor TO be conceded by her to us In re-
turn for iavors shown by US 70 her, Of the value
of which favors on both sides We ourselves
shall be the Judge. OF course the United States
could have no thought of raising such squeFtion
in any case.
the British Government, by very simple aud
Datutal statement Of the facts and analysis OF
law applicable to them, that this Government
has neither meditated, nor pracnced, nor ap-
proved any deliberate wrong in the transactions
to which they have called its attention; and on
the contrary, that what has happened has been
simply an inadvertency, consisting in depart
ure By the naval officer, free from any wrongful
motive, from q rule uncertainty established,
and probably by the several parties concerned
either impeffectly understood or entirely m
known. For this error the British Government
has a right to expect the same reparstion that
we as on independent State, should expect from
Great Britain, or from any other friendly nation
in similar case.
Ihave not been unaware that in examining
this questian have fallen into an argument for
what seems to be British side Of it, against
my own country, but am relieved from all
embarrassment on that subject ] had hardly
fallen into that line Of argument when discov-
cred that was really defending and MAINTAIN.
ing, not exclusively British inter e5ts, but nod
honored and cherished American eause-n0t up
on Britieh authorities, but upon principles that
constitute large portion Of the distinctive pol
Icy by which the United States have developed
| .he resources Of a continent, and thus become q
considerable maratime power have won the re-
spect and confidence of many nations. These
principles were laid down for US in 1904, by
James Madison, when Secretary of State in the
| Administration Of Thomas Jefferson, In instruc-
tions to James Monroe, our Minister to Eng
| lard. Although the case before him concerned
a description of persons different from those
who are incidentally the subjects OF the present
discussion, the ground he assumed then was the
same now occupy, and the arguments by which
he sustained himself upon it have been an in
spiraton to me in preparing this reply.
"Whenever,'" says, property found in q
neutral vessel is supposed to be liable on any
ground to capture and condemnation, the rule
in all cases ia, that the question shall not be de-
cided by the captor, but be carried before le-
gal tribunal, where regular trial may be had,
and whsrethe cHptor himself Is liable TO DANA
ges for an abuse of his power. Can it be rea
sonable, then, or just, that belligerent COM
mander who is thus restricted, and thus respon.
sible in case Of mere property of trivial
amount, should be permitted, without recurring
to any tribunal whatever, to examine the crew
of a neutral vessel, to decide the important
question of their respective allegiances, and to
carry that decision into execution by forcing
every individual he may choose into service
abhcrrent to his feelings, cutting him of from
his most tender connexions, exposing his mind
and his person to the most humiliating discp-
line. ana his life itself to the greatest danger
Reason, Justice and humanity unite in protest.
ing against 90 extravsgant a proceeding"
If i decide this case in favor of my own
Government, i must disavoWits most cherish
ed principles, and reverse and forever aban-
don it's essential policy The country cannot
afford the sacrifice. If maintain those prin-
ciples, and adhere TO that policy, must eur
render the case itself, 1t will be seen, there
fore, that this Government could not deny the
Justice of the claim presented to US ip this re-
spect upon its merits. We are asked to 90 to
tie British nation just what we have always in
sisted all nations ought TO do to US.
The claim Of the British Government is not
made in discourteous manner. This Govern
ment, since it's first organization, has never used
more guarded language in similar case.
In coming 10 my conclusion, have not for
gotten that, If the safety of this Union required
the detention of the captured persons, it would
be the right and duty of this Government to
detain them. But the effectual check and
waning proportions OF the existing insur
i Jion, aa we'll as the comparative unim-
portance OF the captured persons themselves,
when diauassionateiy weighed, happily forbid
me from resorting to that defense. g..