Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1862-01-09

It could not desire that the San Jacinto, her
officers and crew, should be exposed to
danger and loss by weakening their number
~ detach a prize crew to go on board the
Trent. Still less could it disayow the hu-
name motive Of preventing inconycniences,
losses and perhaps disasters, to the several
hundred innocent passengers found on board
the prize vessel. Nor could this Govern.
mcnt perceive auy ground for questioning
the fact that these reasons. though appar-
emily incongrupus, did operate in the mind
Of Captain Wilkes aud determine him 10
release the Trent. Human actions general
~ proceed upon mingled, and sometimes
conflicting, motives He measured the
sacri,ice' which this decision would cost. 1t
ranifestly, however. did not occur to him
that beyond the sacrifice Of the private inter-
eats las he calls them of his officers aud
crew, there might also possibly be sacrifce
even Of the chief and public object Of his
capture the right of Ais Govern.
fnent to the custoly and disposition Of the
captured persoiis. This Goyernmant can
not censure him for this oversight 1t con-
fesses that the whole subjec: came nnfore-
seen upon the Government as doubtless it
the point in question are the result of de-
liberate examination and deduction now
Aade, and not Of any impressions previous
I ly formed.
| Nevertheless, the question now is. not
whether Captain Wilkes i. iustifel TO hi.
Government in what he did, but what is the
present view of the Government a, TO the
effect of what he has done Assuming now.
for arguments sake only, that the release
of the Trent, Involuntary, involved waiver
Of the claim OF the Government to hold the
captured persons, the United States c1ali
in that case have no hesitation in saying
that the act which has thus already been
approved by the Government must he allow
ed to draw its legal consequence after it. 1t
is Of the very nature Of gilt or q charity
that the giver cannot, after the exercise of
his benevolence is past recall or modify its
benefits.
We are thus brought directly to the 1ues-
ton whether we are entitled to regard the
release of the Trent as involuntary. Or
whether we are obliged to consider that il
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, want of sufhci.
ent force to send the prize vessel into port
for adjudication. 1t is not the duty of q
captor to hazard his own vessel in order Il
secure judicial examination to the captur
ed party. No large prize crew, however, i.
| legally necessary, for it is the duty of tht
captured party to acquiesce and go Willingly
{ before the tribunal to whose jurisdiction i
appeals. IF the captured party indicate
purposes to employ means of resistance
which the captor cannot with probable safet,
| TO himself overcome, he may properly eav
, the vessel to go forward; and neither sh
n nor the State she represents can ever after
= wards justly object that the captor deprivet
D her of the judicial remedy to which she wa
: entitled
n But the second reason assigned By -esp,
/ Wilkes for releasing the Trent differs iron
s he first. At best. therefore, it must b
held that Capt, Wilkes, a. he explains him
self. acted from combined sentiments o
prudence and generosity, and so that tn
release of the prize vessel was not strictl,
.. necessary or involuntary.
| Secondly How ought we to expect thes
E explanations by Capt. Wilkes of his reason
$ for leaving the capture incomplete to affec
the action of the British Government?
r The observation upon this point which
r first occurs is, that Capt Wilkes's explana
, tions were not made to the authorities of tn
captured vessel. If made known to then
e they might have approved and taken tn,
: release, npon the condition of waving
judicial investigation of the whole transac
? ton, or they might have refused to accsp
0 the release upon that condition.
y But the case is one not with them, bu
: with the British Government IF we CLAIM
e that Great Britain ought not tn insist tba
a iudicial trial has been lost because we yo,
UNFAIRLY released the offending vessel out o,
r con sidaration for her innocent passengers.
: do not see how she is to he bound to acoui
S esce in the decision which was thus made b.
: ms witbnut necessary ON onr mart and with
out knowledge of conditions or consent OF
r her own. The question between Grea
: Britain and ourselves thus stated would be
, ouestion not of right and of law. but 70
favor TO be conceded bv her to us in retnT,
/ for fsyors shown by us to her. of the valu
of which fayors on both sides we our,elve
= shall be the iudre. OF course the Unitet
f states could have no thought of raising sucI
6 a question in a1y case.
) ,,,,, ,b., 7 have show, ~ rho s.,ise,c
sion trF W ,be Rrt;'h Gorarnmsnt R bv ',,"r wor
0 son " anj . n.,,r.J st,ta,nan, ~ 10 e,o,.
s,uipo dni naf of ,bo low an,l;cabla nv ~ ,hsn
.ho, a H. E',nrn,nent hos nn;thar med;,ataJ
.na' aSt;soJ ,n'o nor annroysJ % nnr JeI;harat
HUI H. mU' 20 wh;ob thav a.
a WIuhS III 'uo ue"sa"'n W "n,oh t"oy nav