Year: 1861

THE QUESIlUN Win s44NO0ANO'


In the excitement aud Indignation reused
bv the belligerent news from England, some
of us probably have overlooked the real char
acter of the issue raised by the English gov
ernment in the Trent case. If the statement
of the London Times may be taken as correct,
the English government does not call in ques-
finn the right of an AHerican manot.war to
hiring TO and search the Trent, but makes up
the case as follows


"The right of the federal government, act
ing by its officers, was confined 70 We VtS'"Y
and The searching of the mail packet; If any
men or things believed to be conirabanA OF war
had been found on board OF her, the proper
course was 10 take her into port and su5md me
question to the prize court, which would hear EVIL
dence and argument on both sides, and would
have decided the case according 10 precedent
and authorities.


This is the form in which Lord Lyons is IN
structed to make complaint at Washington. II
Capt. Wilkes had taken the Trent into port
for adjudication, it is not likely that the out
cry in England would have been less noisy
than al present, nor that the British govern
ment would have failed to make complaint in
some other form. Nevertheless, we have to
deal with the question only in the form now
presented Was it in accordance with inter
national law for Capt. Wilkes to seize Mason
and Slidell, and thus settle a doubtful contra
band question himself? Or should he have
taken the Trent into port to have the contra
band question settled by prize court! That
linn llor nd
therefore not in conformity with public law
England insists that it was. Our government
has not yet declared itself on this question.
The secretary of the navy, while approving
the course of Capt. Wilkes i'll searching the
British mail steamer, intimated that he should
have seized the vessel and taken her into port.
Beyond this there has not been a word either
from the president or any member Of his cabi-
net to indicate their view OF the point raised
in England The New York Times thinks
that our government will concur in opinion
with that OF Great Britain; perhaps it will,
but no one is authorized 10 say what ground
it will take.


The English government might have said -
"You do not recognize the confederate states
as belligerent power You see there nothing
but armed rebels and traitors seeking to de-
stroy the American Union. To you Mason
and Slidel were nothing but escaping rebe
leaders, and in seizing them on board British
vessel. you violated that right of asylum
which international law required you to hold
sacred" And that government would un-
doubtedly take this view Of the case, if it had
not recognized the contederates states as
belligerent power. This recognition, which
we on our part repudiate, cuts of Great Brit
ain from putting the complaint in that shape.
She must abide by that recognition and all it
implies, even though we do not always act in
strict conformity with our representation to
foreign governments that it is rebellion and
not a war we are dealing with, and that we
recognize nothing in our rebeIlious states but
an armed and very reasonable conspiracy.
If England could consistently complain that
we have violated the fright Of asylum" for
political refugees, we could not very well
deny the charge without giving up our dsclara
tion that the Confederate states" are not a
belligerent power. France would not claim
right 10 take one of her political refugees
from an English vessel at sea, nor would
Austria have been tolerated in taking Kossuth
or any other Hungarian refugee from On
American vessel


We Americans have not been trained to
war. We are new 10 the business, and have
much to learn. Our self reliant freedom, de-
veloped in the course af a long experience Of
peace and material prosperity, has not shown
us very clearly the reasons for a nice observ-
ance of the prophecies of international law.
This defect in our education is likely to be cor
rected The signs indicate that we shall have
more to do with war, hereafter, and we may
as well begin at once to acquire all the pecu-
liar knowledge and accomplishments necessary.
Let us in the present case consider something
more than the satisfaction Of having Mason
and Slidell in our power, and realize, that
if the seizure of those men was made in
violation of public law they ought to be given
up, and thatif it was entirely proper we should
not give them up under any menace what
ever. There should be no persistence in an
unwarranted act, aud no degrading submission
to injustice. We have entire confidence in
the wisdom and moderation of the administra-
ton. The president will not be in haste to
give US more than zone war at time"


Moreover, if England should now provoke
our resentment by her manner of pursuing this
negotiation, we can well afford to maintain
selfcontrol. Such resentment will keep un.
til we have disposed of this wicked rebellion.
Other days will come after this, and they will
bring their opportunities. 1t is not very long
since the English press, filled with apprehen-
sion by the political condition of Europe. was
calling on us for sympathy and support. If
England should now win our hatred by her
injustice, perhaps that call will charm us when
we hear it again.


1.-THE FANGs OF THE DEsTRoYER."-Th
destruction of large quantities of cotton and
other products of the rich plantations near
Beaufort has been reported by telegraph and