Ashtabula weekly telegraph. [volume] (Ashtabula, Ohio) 1853-1873, 1862-01-04


posed to danger and loss by weakening
their number 10 detaeh prize crew to 20
on bonrd the Trent Still less could II dis
avow the humble motives OF perverting n-
conveniences losses. and perhaps disasters,
to the several hundred innocent passengers
found on board the prize vessel Human
actions generally yproceed upon minegld, and
sometimes conflicting motives It maifest.
ly, however did not occur to him that be
yond the sacrifice Of the private interests
(as he calls them) of bis officers abd crew,
there might also possibly be a sacrifice even
Of the chief and public object OF his capture
namely, the right of this Government to
the custody aud disposition Of the captured
persons This GOyerunlent cannot censurc
him for this oversight, II confesses that
the whale qnstion came Unforeseen upon
the government qs doubtless il did upon
him. Its present convictions ON the point
i'm question and the result OF the deliberate
examination and deduction now made and
not of any impression preventing formed.
| Nevertheless, the question now is, not
whether Captain Wilkes is justified TO his
! Government in. what be did, but what is
| the present view of the Government as to
! the elect OF what he has done. Assuming
now, for arguments sake only, that the
release of the Trent, il voluntary, Involved
a waiver of the claim Of the Government TO
hold the captured persons, the United
States could 10 that case have 10 hesitation
ia saving that the act which has thus al.
ready been approved by the Government
must be allowed to draw its legal conse.
uueuce after it. / is OF the very nature of
gift or charity that the giver cannot, after
the exercise of his beneyolenee is past, recall
or modify its benefits.
We are thus brought directly to the ques-
ton whether we are entitled 70 regard the
release Of the Trent as Involuntary, or
whether we are obliged to consider that it
was voluntary Clearly the release would
have been involuntary had it been made
solely upon the first ground assigned for IL
by Capt. Wilkes, namely o want of suf-
fieient torce to Send the prize vessel into
port for adjudication. 1t is not the duty
ofa captor 10 hazlrd bis ownyessel n order
to secure a judicial examination to the cap
tured party. No large prize crew, how
ever, is legally necessary for it is the duty
of the captured party to acquiesee aud go
willingly before the tribunal to whose
!
party indicate purposes to employ meaus
Of resistance which the cnplor 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 tue Trent differs from
) the FIRST. AT best, therefore, it must be
held that Cap. Wilkes, as he explains him
self acled from combined sentiments of
!, prudcuce and generosity, and so that the
Il release Of the prlze vessel was not strictly
e necessary or Involuntary.
s Secondly. How ought we to expect
i these explanations by Capt. Wilkes OF his
t reasons Tor leaving the capture incomplete
n TO affect the action Of the British Govern
n ment?
t The observation upon this point which
d FIRST occurs is that Capt. Wilkes expluna
c tions were not made to the aulhofitles o.
i the captured vessel ii made known t.
c them they might have approved aud take[
0. the release, upon the condition OF waving
,fI judicial Investigation OF The whole trau
Il saction, or they might have refused &c
j. accept the release upon the conditions
BatIhe case is Que not with thee, bui
c with The British GovVrulaeat. II We clalu
shat Gresl -Biltaln ought not to insist tha
IS judicial trial has been lost because W.
Il voluntarily released the offending vessel GU
e of consideration tor innocent passengers,
n do not see how she IS 10 be oouGd 10 acqu
B. esce in the decision which was thus Gad'
= by US withoIl necessity on our pas, ah'
D. without knO ledge OF condldolls ol oonssn
S. on her Own. The question OttweeG Grea
IL Brilain aud ourselves thuo stated would b
is question not Of right and Of law, out q
le favor TO be conceded by her 10 us n.reur
Iy for favors shown by us to her, OF the raiu
" Of which fayors on both sides we oafselvr
shall be the judge. OF course The Gnne
ID States could have no thought Of raising sue
u. aqnestion in nuy case.
as trust / have shown to the sa atisactio
b. of the British Goycrnment, by n very simpl
or aud natural statement of facts, aud anulys
or Of the law applicable to them, that tn
OF Government has neither meditated, nc
ed practifed. nor approved any dehberaI
re wrong in the transaction to which the
n have called it's attention aud on the cOntrar
e. that what has happened has been simpI
ch an inadYerleucy. consisting in a departur
be by the naval officer, free from any YrongfI
o. motive from rule uncertainty establishes
es and probably by the several parties col
cerned either imperfectly understood or .er
nd tlrely unknown For this error the BJitis
nd Government has right to expect the san
,p- repsration that we Ms nn independent Stat
lw should expect from Great Britain
lp- any other friendly nation IN a similar cas-
ire | have Dot been unaware that, in examiniI
,as this question, have fallen into an argument f
n what seems to be the British side of it again
of my own country. But am relieved from
-. embarrassment on that subject, had falen in
y that line Of argument, when discovered thai
lu' was really defending and maintaining not
on exclusively British interest, but an oldhonor
ln- aod cherished American cause, not upon Br
'as ish authorities, bat upon principles that cons
If tute large portion of the distinctive policy
lp. which the United States have developed I