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


by the law Of nations2
II oil these enquiries shall he resolved
in the affirmative, the British Government
viii hive no claim for reparation.
address myself to the FIRST inquiry,
namely. were the four persons mentioned,
and their supposed dispatches, CCntra-
band?
Maritime hw so generally deals, as its
professors say, az rem, that is, with proper.
ty, and 50 seldom With persons, lthath
seems q straiuing of the term conLraband
to apply it to them. But persons, MS well
as property, may become contrabond, since
the word means broadly contrary to pro.
clamatiou, prohibited, Illegal unlawful.
All writer's aud judges pronounce naval
or military persons in the service of the
enemy contrabaud Vatiel saya war al.
lows US to cut of from an enemy all his re.
sources, and to hinder him from sending
ministers TO solicit assistance And Sir
William Scott says you may stop the am.
bassador Of your enemy on his passage
Despatchos,nre not less clearly contraband,
and the bearers or eouriers who undcrta AXE
to carry them fall under the same condem.
nation.
A subtlety might be raised whether pre-.
tend ministers of an usurping Power, not
recognised as legal by either the belligerent
or the neutral, could be held to be contra.
band But it would disappear on being
subjected ,io what is the true test in all
cases namely, the spirit Of the law. Sir
William Scott, speaking of civil mogistra-
les who we're arrested aud detained as CON
trabaud says;
at appears to me on principle to be but
reasonable that when it is of sufficient inn
portance that such persons shall be sent
out on the public service at the public ex-
pense, it should afford equal ground Of for
feiture against the vessel that may be let
out for purpose SO intimately connected
with the hostile operations"
| trust that ! have shown that the -four
persons who were tx n,frorn the Trent by
Captain Wilkes, and their despat ehes, were
contraband of war. 7s
The second inquiry is, whether Captain
Wilkes had o right by the law of nations
to CetaM aad search the Trent.
The Trent, though she carried mails, was
a contract or merchant vcsScl--a common
carriage for hire. Maritime law knows
only three closes Of massachusetts of war
revenue vessels and merchant vessels. The
Trent falls within the latter class. What
ever disputes have existed concerning a
rirht of visitation or search in time of peace
none, it is supposed, has existed in modern
times about the right of q belligercnt il
time of war to capture contraband in neu
trail and even friendly merchant vessels, anC
the right of visitation aud search in order
to determine whether they are neutral an(
and are documentcd as such according tt
the law of nations.
assume in the preseat case, what, as
read British authorities, is regarded b.
|, Great Britain herself as true maritime Law
that the circumstance that the Trent wa
proceeding from neutral port TO anothe
. neutral port does not modify the right Q
the belligerent captor
The third question is, whether Capta
Wilkes exercised the right of search in
, lawful aud proper mannel?
! If any doubt hung over this point, as th
case presented in the statement of it adop
!, cd by the British Government, | think
! ! must have already passed away before th
= notifications Of that statement which
: have already submitted.
proceed to the fourth inquiry, namely
Having found The suspected contraband {
war on board the Trent, bad Captai
7 Wilkes a right to capture the some?
II Such capture is the chief if not tn
only recognised object Of tire permittc
= visitation aud search. Tue principle of th
: law is. that the belligerent exposed to daI
ger may prevent the coutrnband person
or things from applying themselves or b.
:, :, ing applied to the hostile uses or parpos'
u designed. The Law is so. very liberal in th
respect that when coutraband is found o
!, bord neutral vessel not only is the col
Q traband forfeited, bui the vessel, which
" the vehicle Of its passage or transportation
) being tainted, also becomes contrabant
= aad is subjected 10 capture aud cOnfscatio
= Only the &fih question remains, nhmel
= Did Captain Wilkes exercise the right
. capturing the contrabaud in contormi'
=, with the law Of natons2
~ 1t is Just hare that the difficulties Of Il
d case begin. What is the manner whiC
~ law Of nations prescribes for disposing
- the cou,raband when you have fonnd al
70 seized it on board Of the neutral vessel!-
- The answer wonld be easily found if Il
~ question were what you shall do with u
u . contraband vessel You must take or sci
D. her into a convenient port, and subject b
y. y, to Judicial prosecution there in admr'
70 ity, which will try and decide the questio
u: u, of bellgerency, neutrality, conlraband al
20 capture. So, again, you would prompt
VI find the same answer if the question wei
le What is manner of proceeding prescrib
D. by the law of nations In regard to the &C
~ traband if it be property or things of N
Gu torial or pecuniary value?
"a, But the question here concerns the mo
~ Of procedure in regard, not to the YES
40 that was carrying the contraband, nor )
W. to contraband things which worked the f
y, feiture Of the vessel, but to contraband p
:" soBs
oy The books Of law are dumb. Yet I
Co question is as important as it is diliicu
Nv First, the belligerant captor has q right
!" prevent the eoutrabaHd ofseer, soldier, 81
or, minister, messenger, or courier from p
'et ceeding on his unlawful voyage and rear