New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1863-05-07

Jaw that wss "A very aoIdlnary, and in my opln-
ion a most uuwarrantsbe act. and l cannot con
ceive that 1t can be proper for person holding
diplomatic position in this country to Issue such
permit to q vessel. That is making distinction
between vessels departing from the ports OF TINS
country and giving security to one vessel as ois
tingui,hed from another. ICheers 1t is DOT possi-
be "a it appears 10 me- that lie bestow that Ia
yor one vessel without making an invldious auu
perhaps dangerous distinction as against olhsr .,
sels There can be doubt that the conduos IS
Mr.. Adams is entirely unwarrantaDie, pu' Ill
not think of complaining to Mr.. Auam,. 80 ill.,
bring that conduct before the consideI,'o" ~ ,han,
United States Government. Hear ~ - ~, ::,eI
To cav in what manner such an act shau oe Nio'eo'
lCheersJ Nv noble friend next went OH 10 naluo d
case which he described fairly enough according 70
the facts known to him. But the whole Iac's were
evidently not known to my noos liiehu. ilo pm.
~ ar ;nterviey at the Foreign Office between myself
end eevarai owners of ships ana persons connected
the tsde OF the port VI Lol don, with respect 10
vesseis sailing TO Matamoras. The account of that in
teryie although. generally speaking, falrly given,
nsrsops who came to me complained OF tbs grieN-
apce. They said il might happen that the le'ter
baps that were cent by their vessels by tie POs'-
master. General might contain letters that were
written bv persons connected with and favorable to
the Federal Government, aud those persons iplght
invent story that the ship was conveying stores 10
the Confeierates, that they might put false names
to those letters that those letters might be opened,
and used rs evidence against the vessel, aLd That
there ives not sufficient security against such prac.
tees being resored TO, because they could not avoid
taking the mail bags, in consequence OF shipownen
being liable TO penalty OF 600 if they refused TO
take The letter bags. They therefore complained
that their ships and cargoes might be put In dan
ger by acts of her Majesty's Government
which We're beyond their control. con
si1ered that matter, and also a proposal which
they made TO me that an agent should be put IN
OH NJ tIa ln Qs ia op
packet-sh,ps. Upon consideration, there appeared
to me TO he many objections to my taking such
course. should have fallen into the same error as
bat Of Mr.. Adams; 1 should have singled ont par
ticular vessels and given them protection which
others would not enjoy. AT all events, that should
not lie done without consideration. There was,
however lone obvious redress which could give.
could reply 10 them "You say that you are com
PEELED to take these mail bags and that your ships
and cargoes are put in jeopardy by the act OF the
Postmaster. General. Well will relieve you from
shat danger, and | will ask the Postmaster Ger era
not to oblIge you TO take these mall-bags." 1t sp
pears 10 me that was remedy for the grievance Of
which they complained; but 1t seems to have been
understood Of doors were declaration thai
we would not send mail bags 10 Mstamoras, and
that AZ nv noble friend saws we ale afraid OF the
consequences that might happen What we really did
WIS to say to sh| owners, IL you Ike 10 SEND mali
bags in these vessels you shall be at liberty 10 DO 30,
but will not compel you TO 90 30" have now
in my hand letter written TO the Foreign Office by
the Postmaster enerLl, which states that, Tor the
present, 10 sbip-letter mail shall be put on board
any vessel sailing for Matamoras 3" unless with the
full concurrence OF tue commander" IL Is only
hat we do not use the compulsory power that the
law gives MS In these cases. confess II would have
teen had upon the owners of vessels TO have
refused 10 give them the security for which they
asked. have no doubt there will be many vessels
the commanders Of winch Will be quite ready TO
take thess letters, bat il they do we ought not 10
49,. III bo.. hear mn
the act OF the Government, ought tue law TO DC
put in fosce to their injury. My hon. friend states
truly tha the fears OF the owners OF the Sea Queen
a, d o. her vessels were founded on what had been
done in the case Of the Adelh-nGmely, that tho
United States authorities bad got possession OF her
letter-bags. Now, in the letter Of Mr. Seward,
dated August 8, 1862 there Is the following order:
and nusly. that ofcal iOcis or iasennss Of
foreign authorities in case nor on any present 10 be
ties Of the United states all bags other thing
p such duly aed fssned by foreign author
.. in the discretion OF the United states officer, 70
they come, delivered to the Consul commanding
opened upon the understanding that ~hbtseT coDband
OF important evidence concerning the character Of esp
ster, OF State Ws,hooni such sealed bsgs parcels
may forwarded to lis Department to The end taat
the authorities Of the foreign Government receive
the ZANE without delay The Predent desires specially that
naval officers may be formed that the TACT that suspected
vesse has indicated to them cruising in any limit
which his been prescribed 10 them by the Navy Depsrtmn
does any authorize them to depart from the pis
Tia, is the general direction given by the Secre.
tary Of State ~ the Secretary OF the United States
Navy, to be forwarded by hun TO the officers Of the
4 Union navy. IL may be that complaDts have been
made in this country which are not without founda.
ton; it may be that United States officers have
not observed these rules, but have gone beyond
the directions that they have received; 1t may be
, that they have seized vessels that were really
going to Matamoras or come neutral port without
suficiert evidence that the cargo was OF a contra
band character. But i. does seem 10 me- in spite Of
What MY noble friend Gays, tina. the Government OF
this country Ia bound 70 take calm view OF these
matters, 10 represent them fairly 10 the United
States Government, and not 10 presume that the
Govern nent OF the United States would fail 10 their
duty TO q friendly Power or that they would coun-
tenance outrages which arc against the law OF ma
lions. These representations will be made, and
expect that, if they just, reparation will not be
refused, Hear, hear. l have already said that
what took place at the interview which had with
the shi9owners has not been fully given. One
mistake has certainly been made. 1t is said that
expres,ed surprise at the information that certain
British rubjecs bad been made prisoners and detained
in plase Of confinement, by the authorities OF the
United States. certainly did not express any such
surprisc, for had been reading that very morning
the re- sensations only of consnls but Of
those British subjects themselves who had Oeen so
detained, and detained apparently with great and
unnecessary hardness, the object beng merely 10
detain them in order that they might give evidence
IN the Prize Court. 1t cannot be doubted that there
are precedents showing that when a IL brought
before the Prze Court the master Of the vessel may
Give evidence OF the real character OF the cargo and
the destination of the vessel and he may be detained
for that purpose. But it seems to Inc that the
United Estates authorities have gone beyond
what they fairly bad right to do When we were
belhgerents many cases involving bellgcrent
and neutral rights were brought before very emil
nent Judge, whose decisions are generally AID uni
versally respected; and, though believe he carried
tho principle favorable 10 csptors 10 perhaps rather
a severe length, beyond doubt they We're in con.