The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1862-01-04


capture resulted from un act of Captain
Wilkes, which would be fault Oh their own
ST lp.
Capt. Wilkes has presented to this Gov
er meat his reasons for releasing the Trcnt
iorbore to seize her. he says, - in con
sequence of my being 50 reduced in officers
md crew, and the arrangement it would
C"!s' innocent persons, there being Il large
h"mbrr OF passengers who would have been
Pat /" great loss and Inconvenience. as well
~ disappointment, from the interruption it
wo1id have caused them in not being able
To JOIN the steamer from st. Thomas to
Europe. therefore concluded to sacrifice
the interest of my officers and crew in the
prize. and suffered her to proceed after the
detention necessary to effect the transfer of
those commissioners, considering | had
obtained the important end had in view,
and which affected the interest of our coun-
r.; and interrupted the action Of that of the
Coliedcratcs.
shall consider, FIRST, how these reasons
o sht to affect the action of this Govern
III at and, secondly, how they ought to he
e p ctcl 10 affect the action of Great Britain.
The reasons are satisfactory to this Gov
mcnt, so far as Captain Wilkes is con
T. ed. 1t could not desire that the San
Jacinto her officers and crew, should be
exposed to danger and loss by weakening
their number to dctach prize crew to go
-, board the Trent. Still less could it disa-
the humane motive Of preventing
rlr nvs.liences, losses and perhaps disas,
tcrs. to the several hundred innocent pas
Mngrrs found ON board the prize vessel
Nor could this Government perceive any
gro' nj for questioning the fact that these
r,tsons. though apparently incongruous,
did operate in the mind Of Captain Wilkes,
and d, trmine him to release the Trent
Human action generally proceed upon min
gel. and sometimes conflicting, motives.
He measured the sacrifices which this
decision would cost. 1t manifestly, how
EVER, did not occur to him that beyond the
sacrifice of the private interests las he calls
them) of his officers and crew. there might
also possibly be Il sacrifice even of the chief
and public object of his capture-namcly,
the right of his Government to the custody
and disposition of the captured PERSONS
This Government cannot ccnsurc him for
this oversight. 1t contcsses that the whole
subject came unforeseen upon the Govern
mcnt, rs doubtless it did upon him. Its
present convictions on the point in question
are the result Of deliberate examination and
deduction now made, and not of any inn
rrcssions previously formed
Nevertheless, the question now is. not
whether Captain Wilkes is justified to his
Government in what he did, but what is the
present view of the Gover,fncrnt as to the
Effect Of what he has done? Assuming now,
for argument sake only, that the release of
the Trent, ii voluntary, involved n waiver of
the claim of the Government to hold the
captured persons, the United States could,
i'll that case, have no hesitation in saying
that the act which has thus already been
taI I,S.t
ed to draw its legal consequence after it
1t is of the very nature Of a gift or a charity
that the givor cannot, after the exercise Of
his bcncvolcnce is past, recall or modify its
benefits.
We are thus brought directly to the qucs-
SION whether we are entitled to regard the
release of the Trent as involuntary, or
whether We are obliged to consider that it
'"as voluntary. Clearly the release would
haze been involuntary had it been made
sol 'ly upon the first ground assigned for
it by Captain Wilhcs-namely, Il want of
efficient force to send the prize vessel
into por for adjudication. 1t is not the
dnty of a captor to hazard his own vessel
m order to secure a judicial examination to
the captured party. No large prize crew,
however, is legally necessary, for it is the
duty of the captured party to acquiesce and
jurisdiction it appeals. If the captured
resistance which the captor cannot with
probable safety to himself overcome, he
may properly leave the vessel to go forward;
and neither she nor the State she represents
can ever afterwards justly object that the
captor deprived her of the judicial remedy
to which she was entitled.
But the second reason assigned by Capt.
Wilkes for releasing the Trent differs from
the first. At best, therefore, it must be
held that Captain Wilkes, as he explains
himself. acted from combined sentiments of
prudence and generosity, and so that the
release of the prize vessel was not strictly
accessory or involuntary.
Secondly. How ought we to expect these
explanations by Captain Wilkes of his rca-
SONS for leaving the capture incomplete to
affect the action of the British Government
The observation upon this point which
first occurs is, that Captain Wilkes expla-
nations were not made to the authorities of
the captured vessel. If made known to
them they might have approved and taken
the release, upon the condition of waving a
judicial investigation of the whole transac-
lion, Or they might have refused to accept
the release upon that condition.
But the case is one not with them. but
with the British Government. five claim
that Great Britain ought not to insist that Il
judicial trial has been lost because we vol
unfairly released the offending vessel out of
consideration for her innocent passengers.
] do NOT see how she is to be bound to
aequiesee in the decision which was thus
made by VS. without necessity on our part,
and without knowledge of conditions or
consent on her own. The question between
Great Britain and ourselves thus stated
would be a question not of right and of law,
but of favor to be conceded by her to us in
return for iavOrs shown by us to her, of the
value of which favors on both sides we our
selves shall be the judge. OF course the
United States could have no thought of
raising such question in any case
trust that have shown to the satisfac-
ton of the British Government, by avery sim
pie and natural statement of the facts, and
ana ysis of the law applicable to them, that
t is Government has neither meditated, nor
practiced, nor approved any deliberate
"'rong in the transaction to which they have
called its attention and, on the contrary,
That what has happened has been simply an
madvertency, consisting in departure by
the naval officer, free from any wrongful
motive, from rule uncertainty established,
and probably by the several parties con.
ccrned either imperfectly understood OIL
-ntirely unknown. For this error the
xt.tish Government has right to expect
! ',c same reparation that we, as an indcpen'
drnt State, should expect from Great
Eritain or from any other friendly nation in
n similar case.
| have not hopn unaware That in eyamin.