Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1862-01-02
MAson AND s11pE1L suRRrNpERrp.

lage Saturday evening by telegraph, and it is
perhaps needless to say that it created con-
siderable surprise. From the premonitory
symptoms that had been observable several
days few entertained any doubts that it would
come to this result at last, but so early an
adoption of that conclusion by our govern
ment led TO an almost feverish anxiety on the
part of all to see the correspondence in detail.
That correspondence is now before the public,
and, although the question is decided it is for
the people to judge of the correctness of the
decision. For our part we can see no grounds
for doubting the wisdom of the course pursued
by the administration, nor for questioning the
conclusions to which it has arrived. The de-
mand was made in q courteous manner by the
British government, in letter from Earl Rus
sell TO Lord Lyons, dated Nov. 30th. After
detailing history of the Trent affair as derived
from the officers of that vessel, he says
1t thus appears that certain individuals have
been forcibly taken fro n British vessel. the
ship of a neutral power on lawful an innocent
voyage, an act of Violence which was an affront
to the British flag, and violation Of interna-
tional law. Her majesty's government are
willing to believe the act was without authority
and resulted from a misunderstanding, as the
government of the United States must be fully
aware that the British government would not
allow such AN aifront to her national honor to
pass without full PREPARATION, and the British
government is unwilling to believe the United
States deliberately intended, unnecessarily to
force discussion of so grave q question be-
tween the two governments. Her majesty's
government trusts that the government of the
United States will, of its own accord, offer
such redress as alone could satisfy them, name
ly, the liberation of the four persons, and their
delivery to Lord Lyons, that they may again be
placed under British protection, and suitable
apology for the aggression committed. Should
these terms not be offered by Mr.. Seward you
will propose them to him.
In his reply Mr.. Seward after capituating
the points of Earl Russell's letter gives the
American version of the affair." from which he
proceeds to argue the case as follows:
Your lordship will now perceive that the case
before u.s. instead of presenting a merely fa-
grant act of violence on the part of Capt.
Wilkes, as might well be inferred from the in
complete statement of it that went up to the
British government, was undertaken as a sim
by Capt. Wilkes. to arrest and capture a neu-
trail vessel engaged in carrying contraband of
war for the use and benefit OF the insurgents.
The question before us is, whether the proceed
ing was authorized by and conducted according
to, the law of nations. 1t involves the follow
ing inquiries =
|. Were the persons named, and their sup
posed dispatches, contraband of war?
2. Might Capt. Wilkes lawfully stop and
search the Trent for these contraband persons
and dispatches?
3. Did he exercise that right in lawful and
proper manner?
A. Having found the contraband persons on
board and in presumed possession of the con-
traband dispatches, had he a right to capture
the persons?
8. Did he exercise that right of capture in
the manner allowed and recognized by the law
of nations?
If all these inquiries shall be resolved in the
affirmation the British government will have nc
claim for reparation. The Secretary then pro
ceeds to consider them separately and finds af
firmatve answers to the first four. The fifth
question contains the points at issue. Tn,
great question is. "What is the manner which
the law of nations prescribes for dsposing o
the contraband when you have found and sezeC
it on board of a neutral vessel?" If it is tn,
vessel or freight it must be sent into a con
venient port and be tried and decided by al
admiralty court but in relation TO contrabant
persons the law and authorities are silent
Here are conflicting claims which require
tribunal and trial The captors and captures
are equal the neutral and belligerent state ar
equals.
In further argument on this important:ques
ton Mr.. Seward says:
While the law authorities were found silent,
was suggested at an early day by this govern
ment that you should take the captured person
into convenient port, and institute judicia
proceedings, there to try the controversy. Blu
only courts of admiralty have jurisdiction i
maritime cases. and these courts have formula
to try only claims to contraband chattels, bu
none to try claims concerning contraband pei
sons The courts can entertain no proceeding
and render no judgment in favor of or agains
| the alleged contraband men. 1t was replied
all this is true but you can reach in thos
courts decision which will have the mora
weight of judicial one by circuitous pro
ceeding. Convey the suspected men, togeth(
with the suspected vessel, into port, and II
there the question whether the vessel is contr,
band. You can prove it to be so by provin
the suspec ed men to be contraband, and III
court must then determine the vessel to
contraband. II the men are not contraban
the vessel will escape condemnation. Sti
there is no augment for or against the capture
persons. But it was assumed that there woul
result from the determination of the court cor
| cprnino tho Spl n lpUnl certainty COncernln