Year: 1862

| fOr leaving the capture incomplets to effect
the action OF the British Government
Inc observation upon this point which first
occurs is, that Capt. Wilkes explanations
were not made TO the authorities of the can
tured vessel. If made known to them thew
might have approved and taken the release
upon the condition of waving a judicial in
vestigation of the whole transaction, or they
might have refused to accept the release upon
that condition.


But the case is not one with them, but with
the British Government. If we claim that
Great Britain ought not 10 insist that judicial
trial has been lost because we voluntarily re-
leased the offending vessel out of copsidera-
fion for her innocent passengers, do not see
now she is to be bound to acquiesce in the de-
cision which was thus made by us without
necessity on our part, and without the knowl-
edge of conditions consent on her own
The question between Great Britain and our-
selves thus stated would be a question not of
right and OF law, but of favor TO be conceded
by her to us in return for favors shown by us
TO her, of the value of which favors on both
sides We ourselves shall be the Judge OF
course the United States could have no
thought OF raising such question in any case.


trust that have shown to the satisfaction
of the British Government by very simnIe
and natural statement of the facts, and analysis
OF the law applicable to them, that this Govern
ment has neither meditated, nor practiced. nor
approved any deliberate wrong in the transac.
ton to which they have called its attention
and, on the contrary, that what has happened
has been simply an inadvertency, consisting in
departure, by the naval officer, free from auy
wrongful motive, from a rule uncertainty estab-
ilshed, and probably by the several parties con-
cerned either imperfectly understood or en-
tirely unknown. For this error the British
Government has right to expect the same
reparaton that as an independent State.
q re a., +,
other friendly nation in similar case.


have not been unaware that, in examining
this question, have fallen into an argument
for what seems to be the British side of IL a.
gainst my own country. But am relieved
from all embarrassments that subject l
had hardly fallen into that line of argu-
ment. when | discovered that was really de-
tending and maintaining, not an exclusively
British interest, but an old honored and cher
lshed American cause, not upon British au-'
thorities, but upon principles that constitute a
large portion OF the distinctive policy by which
the United States have developed the resour-
ces of continent, and thus becoming a con-
siderable maritime power, have won the respect
and confidence of many nations. Those prin-
clples were laid down for us in 1904, by James
Madison, when Secretary of State in the ad-
ministration of Thomas Jefferson in instruc-
tions, given 10 James Monroe, our Minister to
England. Although the case before him con-





those who are incidently the subjects of the
present discussion, the ground assumed then
was the same now occupy, and the arguments
by which he sustained himself upon il have been
an inspiration to me in preparing this reply.


"W benever," he says, ''pr0perty found in a
neutral vessel is supposed to be liable on any
ground to capture or condemnation, the rule in
all cases is, that the question shall not be deci-
ded by the captor, but be carried before legal
tribunal, where regular trial may be had and
where The captor himself is liable to damages
for an abuse of power. Can it be reasonable
then, or just, that a belligerent commander
who is thus restricted ,and thus responsible ina
case of mere property of trivial amount. should
be permitted without recurring to anv tribunal
whatever,to examine the crew of a neutral ves-
sci, to decide the important question of their
respective alegiances, and to carry that decis-
ion into execution by forcing every individual
he may choose into a service abhorent TO his
feelings, cutting him off from his most nder
connections, exposing his mind and his person
to the most humiliating discipline, and his
life itself to the greatest dangerf Reason,
justice, and humanity unite in protesting a.
galnst SO extravagant proceeding"


If decide this case in favor of my own Gov
ernment, must disavow its most cherished
principle, and reverse and forever abandon its
essential policy. The country cannot afford
the sacrifice. If maintain those principles
and adhere to that policy, must surrender
the case itself. 1t will be seen, therefore,
that this Government could not deny the JUS
tce of the claim presented to us in this re-
spect upon its merits. We are asked to do to
the British nation just what we have always
insisted all nations ought to do to us.


The claim of the British Government is not
made in discourteous manner. This Govern
ment, since is first organization, has never
used more guarded language in a similar case


In coming TO my conclusion have not for
COTTON that, if the safety of this Union requir-
ed the dete ntion OF the captured persons, il
would be the right and duty of this Govern
ment to detain them. But the effectual check
and wanting proportions of the existing insur-
rection, as well as the comparative unimport-
ance of the captured persons themselves, when
dispassionately weighed, happily forbid me
from resorting to that defence.


Nor am unaware that American citizens
are not in any case to be unnecessarily sur
rendered for any purpose into the keeping of
foreign State. Only the captured persons
however, or others who are interested in them,
could justly raise question on that ground.


Nor have been tempted at all by sugges-
tions that cases might be found in history
where Great Britain refused TO yield to other
nations, and even TO ourselves, claims Ike that
which is now before US. Those cases occur
red when Great Britain, as well as the United
States was then the home of generations which,
with all their peculiar interests and passions,
have passed away. She could in no way SO
effeotIaily disayow any such injury as we think
she does by assuming now as her own the
ground upon which we then stood. 1t would
tell little for our own claims to the character
of just and magnanimous people il we should
so far consent TO be guided by the law of re-
taliation to lift mp buried injuries from their
graves to oppose against what national consis-
tency and the national conscience compel us
to regard as claim intrnsically right.


Puff hob ind ill rooff ms rff