Ashtabula weekly telegraph. [volume] (Ashtabula, Ohio) 1853-1873, 1862-02-01
BY HORACE GREELEY.

4
Summers mastery aud exhaustive encida.
ton OF the Trent controversy, IN bis recent
speech in the Senate, must be tempted tC
regret--not that Com. Wilkes seized the
rebel envoys on board British mail steam
er and brought them into port as prisoners
bat that Gov. Seward, in his able and
clever rerponse to the British demand for
their release, did not concede more tsnphati.
cally and unreservedly the essential Justice
OF that reqnisition. Mr. Snmaer shows
so clearly that Great Britain, in demand.
ing the release Of Mason and Slidell, plant.
ed herself fully aud absolutely on ground
steadfastly maintained by this country
throughout our past controversial with
Great Britain respecting neutral maritime
| rights, that II seems mistake on the part
OF Gov. Seward not TO have responded
substantially thus: you are quite right,
my Lord, in your assumption that beli-
gerent cruiser has no warrant for taking
persons claiming to be ambassadors from
his enemy 10 some neutral state out Of q
neutral vessel; and we very cheerfully, on
that ground, surrender to you the persons
named in yonr demand. Now be pleased
to unite with Us, and with such other
maratime powers as may be willing, in so
clearly defining the rights Of belligerents
and neutrsls respectively as to preclude oil
chance Of mistake or collision hereafter.' -
Such o response would have been less
adroit aud ingenious than that actually
made; but would have surpassed it in frank.
ncss and in true dignity. and in its tend.
eucy to win not merely British but Con.
Iinental goodwill to The cause of the
Union.
That England can still fnd cause of
quarrel with as, is uot credible 1t is quite
| true that many II not most of her inauen-
tial classes and personages seem to have
been inspired with the conviction that our
National disintegration aud downfall would
be her exaltation and triumph-that oil
she lost through George Washington Il
about to be regained through JEFF Davis
1t is true that her hasty recognition Of The
slaveholding rebels as belligereut power
directly after the bombardment of Sumter
aud before our new Embassador had been
| afforded time TO present himself to her
Government, was unfriendly aud offensive
1t is true that the greater portion of her
p ess, as OF her speaking public men, have
seen fit from the first to misconeeive and
mistate the impulses 20 secession and the
influences which have precipitated our
coantry into the abyss Of civil war. II is
true that there have been abundant indica.
tion of dominant British purpose to in.
termeddle 10 our intestine strife on the side
Of the rebellion, and that q palpable vii.
lingness--and even more than Willingness
a "A inf Al a
actual war, has been manifested in intiuen-
tial quarters. Yet il is not possible that
there should be any remaining danger of
actual hostilities. Earl Russell may very
probably intimate dissatisfaction with some
passage or passages in Gov. Stewards dis.
patch--we certainly trust that he may, for
II is eminently ct that this controversy be
kept open until clear and full understand.
ing with regard to the boundaries that sep
arate neutral from belligerent rights on the
ocean be arrived at. The appearance of
Great Britain in the moral character of
guardian and champion of neutral rights,
renders the occasion eminently favorable
for a resettlement Of the whole maritime
code on basis of reason, and Iiberality,
and we trust it may not be allowed to pass
uuimproved.
France, according to the dispatch Of NJ.
ThouVenel5 maintains that only persons en-.
rolled in ihe military or Naval service of O
beligerent, are liable 10 capture by the
cruisers Of the enemy while on board q
neutral merchant vessel. England, If We
may credit the latest indications throug
her boosted l"lesding journal,p inclines to
regard persons as liable to capture while on
board neutral vessel, only in case that
vessel is proceeding from or bound to some
port belonging TO one Of the belligerents
In other words: A neutral ship may with
lmpunity afford substantial and coveted aid
to either beIligereDt. provided her voyage
DO not from or to belligerent port. IL is
only necessary to remark on this that Il
certainly Is not according to the under
etandiHg Of belligerent rights and neutral
obligations under which Her Maiesty's
present Ministers issued their memorable
Proclamation Of Neutrality only last May;
for that Proclamation expressly inteFdicts
the carrying by British vessels Of officers,
soldiers, or dispateies' for either Of the
American belligerents. Had those minis
ters then understood that the Law Of Ma
tions authorised the carrying by neutrals
Of any aud all officers but those In the mill
lary or naval service Of q bclligcrent, aud
the carrying eyen Of these, with ali manner
Of iBimical dispatches. except when the
neutral ship Is proceeding either TO or from
a belligcrent port, II Is not conceivable that
they should not have 90 indicated In the
Royal PFoclamation. Had Com. Wilkes
known nothing whatever Of International
Law, and bad no other guido TO his duty
than that Proclamation, he would have
been justified In assuming that the Trent
bad oullawed herself BY taking on board
the rebel emissaries and their dispatches al
Havana with intent 10 speed them on their
intended way 70 Europe.
The tEne and stable basis Of accord with
regard to Neutral Rights is 10 be found 10
the good old American doctrine Of the