The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1896-03-28
LINCOLN'S FORESIGHT
HOW TT WAS ILLUSTRATED IN THE
CASE OF MASON AND sLIDELL.
Law Was on Our Side, but the
OF the Men Could DO No Harm.

tervleW was DaSed on a STATEMENT Hidue oS
Mr.. C~hittenden. and Judge DAILY is called
upon to confirm or deny the truthfulness
of the story. Whether he gave such advice
or not-and as he says he did We must &C
cept 1t as true-or whether the government
acted upon 1t, is more than doubtful. His
statement that the government acted upon
it, and the taking of great honor to HIM
se.f on account thereof after the persons
so advised are all dead. and after thirty
four years have passed away. is of doubt
full propriety. to say the least.
In all the volumes written upon this ques-
ton his name Is not even mentioned; the
most faithful biographies of Lincoln and
Seward make not the slightest mention of
him. But my purpose is not to ommen
OH or deny his statements: the purpose is to
correct what he asserts that he discovered
as the law. and now claims that the law
was with Great Britain in this controversy.
Indeed, many of the new generation, read
ing his statement, would take it for grant
ed that the government of the United States
was in the wrong: that England was
wronged and outraged by the act OF TAX
ing the so-called Confederate ambassadors
into custody. Against this / protest with
all the Indignation felt by every American
who lived at that time who believed in the
integrity of the Union, or who has since
taken the pains to carefully examine the
question. l make the sweeping statement
that our government was justified in appre-
hending these men, that Captain Wilkes
was, under the law, clearly right. and the
surrender of them was because of the ex-
tremity of the government; its representa-
tives yielded because they felt that 1t was
perilous to the country to insist upon what
examine the conduct Of Great Britain from
1855 to 1861 and he will find that its gov
eminent maintained 1t had "the right to
enter the ship of a neutral power in search
and for the seizure of it's subjects. or arti-
cles contraband of war, or things intended
to be injurious to the British nation" Under
tation ever in searching neutral ships. But
conceding that there may be an honest diff
ference of opinion as to the law as an abb
by Mason and Slidell, Lords Russell and
Lyons, and by the Confederate commission
ers who sent to England the protest Of the
She Id have sustained Captain Wilkes. and
it surely would but for the fact that the
cause OF the Union was in a struggle for
Now, as to the facts. Judge DAILY. IL he
were Tor forty years a judge in New York,
ought ws to sb bnST a fnat II nas we ,,p pass up upon f.c the
and know all the facts. and to the facts
peculiar to the case in hand. and we should
apply the law to that case. InfS rule is
SO familiar that no argument is Ueeded upon
1t. Great Britain maintained that Captain
Wilkes took from q neutral vessel certain
faries. Eustis and McFarland-who were
proceeding from a neutral port to a neutral
port in a neutral vessel. This they must
must be lone to insure the protection of
the lawn good faith-or the claim assert
ed by England could not be maintained.
ing to a neutral port, but were they proceed
ing from a neutral or a hostile port? If
from a hostile port. as I say. all agree that
November, 1881, W. L. Yancey, p. A. Post
and A. Dudley Mann, as Confederate COM
missioners, sent a protest to the British gov
eminent regarding the capture of Mason.
Slidell. etc, In which. they said: ut may
be conceded that ambassadors proceeding
from an enemy's country are liable to seizure
Union and Confederate Navies in the War
of the Rebellion, Series l, Vol. /. page 1851
THEY WE'RE FUGITIvES.
True, they had embarked at Havana,
Cuba, but they were fugitives there, and
had gone thither for no other purpose but
to leave the country on any foreign vessel
that would take them away. and they
were merely escaping, and were not leaving
a neutral port in good faith; they had no
intention themselves originally Of making
such pretense. but adopted it after being
apprehended, to bring themselves within
the law, and their letter. of which the fol-
lowing is a copy, shows this beyond a rea-
sonable doubt: This letter IS from Hon. ].
England, to the Secretary of State of the
Confederate States, regarding plans for his
departure from Charleston and reads:
Charleston, Oct. 8. 1861.
formed you thai, pursuant to the authority
given US by the State Department, we have
chartered the steamer Gordon for our
transportation either to Nassau or Havana.
The terms OF the charter party are, for
the consideration Of $1,000 the ship is to
go to either of these ports, or to both.
at our option, with a clause reServing the
right to extend the voyage to any other
of. the West India islands, at the price OF
% S0e per day for the extra service: We do
service, but thought 1t best to provide for
1t In the possible contingency of its becom-
t other nf isianasy 10 10 meet geo e the St Rr,i Hsom s,s.T or
er. 1t Is thought here by those well in
formed that the Gordon is not suh1ciently
Bermuda. Mr.. Trenholm. of the firm of
Fraser & Co.. agrees to pay 5000 Of the
charter money for the benefit of the re-
ers. Thus, should we not extend the voy-
age beyond Hasena (which is not antici-
pateD the cost to the government will be
to be borne by the owners.
Since the arrangement was made they
nave been Dusty engaged In putting her
in complete order for sea and we fully ex-
pect to get or tomorrow night. Her light
draft will enable her to go at any time
and BY hugging close to shore will be en-
abled to escape the observation of the en-
emy's squadron. Our plan Is. in such a
way as may be found most safe and prac-
ticable, to get on board one or the British
steamers OF the mail line between the West
Indies and England. The Gordon is too
fast to be overtaken at sea- Since this
change OF arrangement we have seen moth
ing to dissatisfy us with 1t as the best that
could be adopted.
Ito r.. N. T. Hunter"
This shows beyond all question that they
were proceeding from a hostile port,
Charleston. in a light vessel, hoping to be
picked up by a British vessel Had they
been picked up as they expected. would they
then have been proceeding from a hostile
or neutral port? To state the question Is
to answer II. 1t happened that they did
not fall in with any vessel. either at sea
or at Nassau, as they expected, but pro-
ceeded on to Cuba and there remained IN
hiding until carried of by the Trent, from
which they were afterwards taken.
Mason, in another letter TO Hunter. Of
date Oct. is, 1861 (see Naval Records. ETC..
Vol. !. Series L. on page 15). says that
they had ''eluded'' our blockading squadron
at Charleston. and that they were at
Havana and would remain there or there
abouts until their departure. They then
made no claim that they were proceeding
In good faith from Havana: did not SO
report to their government, but did report