The New York Herald Newspaper, December 29, 1861, Page 1

THE N WHOLE NO. 9241, EW YORK HERALD. NEW YORK, SUNDAY, DECEMBER 29, 18.1. PRICE THREE CENTS. THE MASON-SCIDELL AFFAIR. Important Decision of the Ame- rican Government. The Rebel Commission- ers Surrendered to England. Arrangement of the Difficulty. THE DEMAND OF ENGLAND. SECRETARY SEWARD’S REPLY. Note from the French Minister of Foreign Affairs. MR. SEWARD’S ANSWER. THE EFFECT OF THE DECISION, &e., &e., &e. ar. Seward to Mr. Adams. DerartMent or Srate, | WasminGron, Noy. 30, 1861. { Cuasres Francis Avaxs, Esq.,&c., &c., &e.s ®m—Your confidential note of the 1th of No- vember, not marked as a despatch, has been sub- mitted to the President, and I hasten to reply to 4 in time for the Wednesday's mail. No minister ever spoke or acted more wisely in crisis which excited deep public solicitude than you did on the occasion of the Lord Mayor's dinner. We are impressed very favorably by Lord Pal- merston’s conversation with you. You spoke the simple fact when you told him that the life of this insurrection is sustained by its hopes of recog- nition in Great Britain andin France. It would perish in ninety days if those hopes should ccase, 1 have never for a moment believed that such a recognition could take place without producing immediately a war between the ‘United States and all the recognizing Powers. I have not supposed it possible that the British gov- ernment could fail to see this, aud at the same time I have sincerely believed the British govern- nient must, in its inmost heart, be as averse from such’a war ae | know this government is. Tam sure that this government has carefully avoided giving any cause of offence or irritation to Great Britain. But it has seemed to me that the British government has been inattentive to the currents that seem to be bringing the two coun- tries into collision. -. & ’, Tinfer from Lord Palmerston’s remark that the British government is now awake to the import- ance of averting possible conflict, aud disposed to confer and act with earnestness to that end. If so, ‘we are disposed to meet them in the same spirit, as a nation chiefly of British lineage, sentiments and sympathies—a civilized and humane nation, a Christian people. Since that conversation was held Captain Wilkes, in the steamer San Jacinto, has boarded a British colonial steamer, and taken from her deck two in- surgents who were proceeding to Europe on anerrand of treason against their own coun- try. This is a new incident, unkuown to, and unforeseen, at least in its circumstances, by Lord Palmerston. It is to be met and disposed of by the two governments, if possible, in the epirit to which I have adverted. Lord Lyons has prudently refrained from opening the subject to me, as, 1 presume, waiting instructions from home. We have done nothing on the subject to anticipate the diseus- sion, and we have not furnished you with any ex- Planations. We adhere to that course now, he- cause we think it more prudent that the ground taken by the British government should be first made known to us here, and that the discussion, if there must be one, shall be hadhere. It is proper, however, that you should know one fact in the case, without indicating that we attach importance to it—namely, that in the capture of Messrs. Mason and Slidell on board a British vessel, Captain Wilkes having acted with- oat any instructions from the government, the sub- ject is therefore free from the embarrassment which might have resulted if the act had been pecially directed by us. I trust that the British government will the subject in a friendly temper, and it may expect nsider | | her. the best disposition on the part of this govern- | ment. Althongh this isa contidenti ebject to your reading it to Bar Palmerston if you deem it expe 1! and Lord Tam, sir, your obedient servant, WILLIAM H. SEWARD. Kart Russell to Lord Lyons. Fonrtox Orvien, Nov. 29, 1961. Tux Lorn Lyons, K. C. B., &e My Lonp—Intelligence very grave nature has reached her Majesty's government. ‘This intelligence was conveyed o} sly to the knowledge of the Admiralty hy ¢ jomunander Wil- Kams, agent for mails on board the contract eteam- er Trent. It appears, from the letter of Commander Wile fame, dated “7; 802, Noveraber that the Tront Jeft Havana on shall not | yol Muil Contract Packet Trent, at | the 7th inst., with her Majesty’s mails for England, having on board numerous passengers, Com- mander Williams states that shortly after noon on the 8th, a steamer, having the appearance of a man-of-war, but not showing colors, was observed ahead. On nearing her, at fifteen minutes past one P. M., she fired a round shot from her pivot gun acrous the bows of the Trent, and showed American colors. While the Trent was approaching her slowly the American vessel dis- charged a shell across the bows of the Trent, exploding half a cable’s length ahead of her. The Trent then stopped, and an officer with a large armed guard of marines boarded her. The officer demanded a list of the paseengers; and, compliance with this demand being re- fused, the officer said he had orders to arrest Messrs. Mason, Slidell, MacFarland and Eus- tis, and that he had sure information of their being passengers in the Trent. While some parley was going on upon this matter, Mr. Slidell stepped for ward and told the American officer that the four rersons he had named were then standing before him. The commander of the Trent and Comman- der Williams protested against the act of taking by force out of the Trent these four passengers, then under the protection of the British flag. But the San Jacinto was at that time only two hun- dred yards from the Trent, her ship's company at quarters, her ports open and tompions out. Re- sistance was therefore out of the question, and the four gentlemen before named were forcibly taken out of the ship. A fur- ther demand was made that the commander | of the Trent should proceed on board the San Ja- cluto; bat he said he would not go unless forcibly compelled likewise, and this demand was not in- sisted upon. It thus appears that certain individuals have been forcibly taken from on board a British vessel, the ship of a neutral Power, while such vessel was pursuing @ lawfal and innocent voyage. act of violence which was an affront to the British flag and a violation of international law. Her Majesty's government, bearing in mind the friendly relations which have long subSisted be- tween Great Britain and the United States, are willing to belicve that the United States naval off- cer who committed the aggression was not acting in compliance with any authority from his government, or that, if he conceived him, self to be so authorized, he greatly misun derstood the instructions which he had received, For the government of the United States must be fully aware thatthe British government could not allow such an affront to the national honor to pass without full reparation, and her Majesty's government are unwilling to believe that it could be the deliberate intention of the government of the United States unnecessarily to force into dis- enssion between the two governments a question of so grave a character, and with regard to the whole British nation would be sure to entertain such unanimity of feeling, Her Majesty's government, therefore, trast that: when this matter shall have been brought under the consideration of the government of the United States, that government will, of its own accord, offer to the British government such redress as alone could satisfy the British nation, namely :— The liberation of the four gentlemen and their delivery to your lordship, in order that they may again be placed under British protection, anda suitable apology for the aggression which has been committed, Should these terms not be offered by Mr. Seward, you will propose them to him. You are at liberty to read this despatch to the Secretary of State, and if he shall desire it you will give him a copy of it. Tam,&e., RUSSELL. Mr. Seward to Lord Lyons. DEPARTMENT OF Srareg, } Wasuincron, Dec. 26, 1861, f Tar Rig#r Hox. Lorp Lyons, &e., &c., &o.2—-- My Lonp—Eavl Russell's despatch of November the 80th, a copy of which you have left with me, at my request, is of the following effect, namely:— That a letter of Commander Williams, dated Royal Mail Contract packet boat Trent, at sea, November 9, states that that vessel left Havana on the 7th of November, with her Majesty’s mails for England, having on board numerous passen which gers. Shortly after noon on the 8th of November, the United States war steam- er San Jucinto, Captain Wilkes, not showing colors, was observed ahead, That steam- ev, on being neared by the Trent, at a quarter past one o'clock in the afternoon, fired a round shot from a pivot gun across her bows, and showed American colors, ing slowly towards the San Jacinto she discharged a shell across the Trent's bows, which ex- ploded at half a cable’s length before her. The Trent then stopped, and an officer, with | a large guard of marines, Loarded | The officer said he had orders to arrest | While the Trent was approach- armed Messrs. Mason, Slidell, MacFarland and Eustis, and had sure information that they were passen. gers in the Trent. While some parley was going on upon this matter Mr. Slidell stepped forward and said to the American officer that the four per- | sons he had named were standing hefore him. The | commander of the Trent and Commander Williams protested against the act of ta @ those four pas- sengers oat of the Trent, th der the But the Sa dred yards dist en being un- British flag. Jacinio was ut this time only two hun. | protection of the -lip’s company at quarters, her ports open. ions out, and so resist. | stion. The persons before named were then forcibly taken ont of the | ance was out of the y ship, <A farther demand was made that the com- mander of the Trent should proceed on board the San Jacinto; but ly id he would not go unless forcibly compelled likewise, and this demand was not insisted upon. Upon this statement Karl Russell remarks that it thus appears that certain individuals have been forcibly taken from on board a British vessel, the ship | sel was pursuing | of a neutral Power, while that v 2 lowful and innocent t of violence which was an affront to the British flag, and a vio- lation of international law. Earl Russell next says that her Majesty's govern- ment, bearing in mind the friendly relations which have Jong subsisted between Great Britain and the | United States, are willing to believe that the naval | officer who committed this aggression was not act- ing in compliance with any authority from his government, or that, if he conceived himself to be so authorized, he greatly misunderstood the in- structions which he had received. Earl Russell argues that the United States must. be fully aware that the British government could not allow such an affront to the national honor to pass without full reparation, and they are willing to believe that it could not be the deliberate in- tention of the government of the United States un- necessarily to force into discussion between the two governments a question of so grave a charac- ter, and with regard to which the whole British nation would be sure to entertain such unanimity of feeling. Earl Russell, resting upon the statement and the argument which I have thus recited, closes with saying that her Majesty’segovernment trust that when this matter shall have been brought under the consideration of the government of the United States, it will, of its own accord, offer to the British government such redress as alone could satisfy the British nation, namely:—The liberation of the four prisoners taken from the Trent, and their delivery to your lordship, in order that they may again be placed under British protec- tion, and a suitable apology for the aggression which has been committed. Earl Russell tinally instructs you to propose those terms to me, if I should not first offer them on the part of the gov- ernment. This despatch has been submitted to the Presi- dent. The British government has rightly conjectured, what it is now my duty to state, that Captain Wiikes, in conceiving and executing the proceed- ing in question, acted upon his own suggestions of duty, without any direction or instruction, or even foreknowledge of it, on the part of this govern- ment. No directions had been given to him or any other naval officer to arrest the four persons named, or any of them, on the Trent, or on any other British vessel, or on any other neutral vessel, at the place where it occurred or cisewhere. The British government will justly infer from these facts that the United States not only have had no purpose, but even no thought, of forcing into discussion the question which has arisen, or any other which could affect In any way the sensi- bilities of the Britieh nation. ; It, is true that a round shot was fired by the San Jacinto from her pivot gun, when the Trent was distantly approaching. But, as the facts have been reported to this govern- ment, the shot was nevertheless intentionally fired in a direction so obvionsly divergent from the course of the Trent as to be quite iis harmless as a blank shot, while it should be re- garded as a signal. So, also, we learn that the Trent was not approaching the Sam Jacinto slowly when the shell was fired acroes her bows; but, on the contrary, the Trent was, or seemed to be, moving under a full head of steam, as if with © purpose to pass the San Jacinto. We are informed also that the boarding officer (Lieutenant Fairfax) did not board the Trent with a large armed guard, but he left his marines in the boat when he entered the Trent. He stated his instructions from Captain Wilkes, to search for the four persons named, in a respectful and courteous though decided manner, and he asked the captain of the Trent to show his passenger list, which was, refused. The Lieutenant, as we are informed, did not employ absolute force in transferring the pas- sengers; but he used just so much as was necessary to satisfy the parties concerned that refusal or re- sistance would be unavailing. So also, wo are informed, that the captain of the ‘Trent was not at any time, or in any way, required to go on board the San Jacinto. These modifications of the case, as presented by Commander Williams, are based upon our official reports. T have now to remind your lordship of some facts which doubtless were omitted by Earl Russell, with the very proper and becoming motive of allowing them to be brought into the case on the part of the Un ted States, in the way most satisfactory to this government. These facts are, that at the time the transaction occurred an insurrec- tion was existing in the United States, which this government was engaged in suppreseing by the employment of Jand and naval forces; that, in regard to this domestic strife, the United States considered Great Britain as a friendly Power, while she had assumed for herself the attitude of aneutral; and that Spain was considered in the same light, and had assumed the same attitude as Great Britain. Tt had heen seitled by correspondence that the United States and Great Britain mutually recog- nized as applicable to this local strife these two ar- ticles of the declaration made by the Congress of Paris in 1856—namely, thatthe neutral or friendly flag should cover evemy’s goods, not contraband of 4 that neutral goods, not contraband of war, war, are not liable to capture under an enemy's flag. These exceptions of contraband from favor were & negative acceptance by the parties of the rule hitherto everywhere recognized as a part of the law of nations, that whatever is contraband is liable to capture and confiscation in all cases, James M. Mason and B. of the Unite? States and residents of Virginia, acParland are citizens John Slidell and George Eustis are citizens of the United State: Tt was well known at Havana, when these par- and residents of Louisiana, ties embarked in the Trent, that James M. Mason was proceeding to England in the affected cha- yacter of a Minister Plenipotentiary to the Court of St. James, under a pretended commission from Jefferson Davia, who had assumed to bo President of the insurrectionary party in the Tnited States, and EB. J. MacFarland was going i | the ¢ase was presented in the statement of it withhim in @ like unreal character of Secretary of Legation to the pretended mission, John Slidell, in similar circumstances, was going to Paris as a pretended Minister to the Emperor of the French, and George Eustis was the chosen Secretary of Legation for that simulated mission. The fact that these persons had assumed such characters has been since avowed by the same Jefferson Davis in a pretended message to an un- lawful and insurrectionary Congress. It was, av we ik, rightly presumed that these ministers bore pretended credentials and instructions, and such papers are in the law known as despatches. We are informed by our Consul at Paris that these des- patches, having escaped the search of the Trent, were actually conveyed and delivered to emissaries of the insurrection in England. Although it is not essential, yet it is proper to state, as Ido also upon information and belief, that the owner and agent, and all the oMicers of the Trent, including the Commander Williams, had Knowledge of the assumed characters and pur- poses of the persons beforenamed when they embarked on that vessel. Your lordship will now perceive that the ease before us, instead of presenting a merely flagrant act of violence on the part of Capt. Wilkes, as might well be inferred from the incomplete statement of it that went up to the British government, was undertaken as a simple, legal and customary belli. gerent proceeding by Captain Wilkes to arrest and capture a neutral vessel engaged in carrying con- traband of war for the use and benefit of the in- surgents. The question before us is, whether this proceed- ing was authorized by, and eonducted according to, the law of nations? It involves the following inquiries :— 1. Were the persons named and their supposed despatches contraband of war? 2. Might Captain Wilkes lawfully stop and search the Trent for these contraband persons and despatches? 3. Did he exercise that right ina Jawful and proper manner? 4. Having found the contraband persons on board, and in presumed possession of the contra- band despatches, had he a xight to capture the peraons? 6. Did he exercise that right of capture in the manner allowed and recognized by the law of nations? Tf all these inquiries shall be resolved in the affirmative, the British goPtrnment will have no claim for reparation. Laddress myself to the first inquiry, namely:— Were the four persons mentioned and their sup- posed despatches contraband ? Maritime Inw 60 generally deals, as its profes- sore say, in rem, that is, with property, and so seldom with persons, that it seems a straining of the term contraband to apply itto them. But Rerwons a4 wellas property may become contra- band, since the, means, broadly, “contrary to proclamation, ibited, illegal, unlawful.” All writers and judges pronounce naval or military persons in the service of the enemy contrabands* Vattel says:—War allows us to cut off from an enemy all his resources and to hinder him from acnding ministers to solicit assistance; and Sir William Scott says:—‘You may stop the ambassador of your enemy on his passage. Despatches are not less clearly contraband, and the bearers or couriers who un deriake to carry them fal) under the same con- demnation,’” A subtlety might be raised whether pretended ministers of a usurping Power, not recognized as legal by either the belligerent or the neutral, could be held to be contraband. But it would disappear on being subjected to what is the true test in all cases—namely, the spirit of the law. Sir William Scott, speak- ing of civil magistrates who were arrested and detained as contraband, says:—‘It ap- pears to me on principle to be but reasonable that when it is of sufficient importance to the ene- my that such persons should be sent out on the public service, at the public expense, it shonld af- ford equal ground of forfeiture against the vessel that may be let ont for a purpose so intimately connected with the hostile operations.”’ I trust that I have shown that the four persons who were taken from the Trent by Captain Wilkes, and their despatches, were contraband of war. The second inquiry is, whether Captain Wilkes had a right, by the law of nations, to detain and search the Trent? | ‘The Trent, thoug)h she carried mails, was a con- | tract or merchant vessel, a common carrier for | hire. Maritime law knows only three classes of vessels—vessels-pf' war, revanue vessels and mer- The Trent falls within the latter class. Whatevgr disputes have existed concerning a right of ‘visitation or earch in time of peace, none, it is supposed, bas existed in | modern times about the right of. a belligerent in | tine of war to capture contraband in neutral and | even friendly merchant’ yessels, and of the | right of visitation and search, in order to | determine whether they are neutral and are | documented as such according to the law or | nations. J ag*yme in the present case what, as FP yead British —_ authorities, is regarded by Great Britain herself as | true maritime iaw—that the ciroumstance that the | Trent was prdgecdirig from one neutral port to another neutraliport does not modify the right of | the belligerent captor. | The third question is, whethor Captain Wilkés exercised the rightof searchin a lawful and proper | manner? If afy dowht-hung over this point, as | chant vessels. adopted by the British government, 1 think it must | have already passed away before the modifications of that statement which I have already submitted. J proceed te the fourth inquiry—namely, having tion and nearch. The principle of the law is that | the belligerent exposed to danger may prevent the contraband persons or things from applying them- selves or being applied to the hostile uses or pur- poses designed, The law is so very liberal in this | execution, respect that when contraband is found on board a neutral vessel, not only is the contraband forfeited, but the vessel which is the vehicle of its passage or transportation, being tainted, also becomes contraband, and ia subjected to capture and con- fiscation. Only the fifth question remains, namely—Did Captain Wilkes exercise the right of capturing the contraband in conformity with the law of nations? It is just here that the difficulties of the case be. gin:— What ia the manner which the law of nations prescribes for disposing of the contraband when you have found and seized it on board of the neu- tral vessel? The answer would be easily found if the ques. tion were, what you shall do with the contraband Vessel? You must take or send her into a conve- nieut port and subject her toe judicial prosecu- tion there in admiralty, which will try and decide the questions of belligerency, neutrality, contra- band and capture. So, again, you will promptly find the same answer if the question were, what is the manner of proceeding prescribed by the law of nations in regard to the contraband, if it be property or things of material or pecuniary value? Bat the question here concerns the mode of pro- cedure in regard, not to the vessel that was carry- ing the contraband, nor yet to contraband things which worked the forfeiture of the vessel, but to contraband persons. The books of law are dumb. Yet the question is as important as it is difficult. First, the belligerent captor has a right to prevent the contraband officer, soldier, sailor, minister, messenger or courier from proceeding in his un- lawful voyage, and reaching the destined scene of his injurious service. But, on the other hand, the person captured may be innocent; that is, he may not be contraband. He therefore has a right to ao fair trial of the ac- cusation against him.” The neutral State that has taken him under its flag is bound to pro- tect him if he is not contreband, and is therefore entitled to be satisfied upon that important ques- tion. The faith of that State is pledged to his safety if innocent, as its justice is pledged to his surrender if he is really contraband. Here are conflicting claims, involving personal Uberty, life, honor and duty. Here are conflicting national claims, involving welfare, safety, honor and empire. They require a tribunal and a trial. The captors and the captured are equals, the neu- tra) and the belligerent State are equals. While the law authorities were found silent, it ‘Was suggested at an carly day by this government ‘that you should take the captured persons into a | eonvoniont port, and institute judicial procecdings thera: to. try the controversy. But only courts of admiralty have jurisdiction in maritime cases, and these courts have formulas to try only claims | to contraband chattels, but none to try claims con- cerning contraband persons. Tho cowts can en- | tertain no proceedings and render no judgment in favor of or against the alleged contraband men. It was replied, all this is you can reach in those courts a % sion which will have the woral weight of a judicial one; by a circuitous proceeding convey the suspected men, together with the sus- true; — but ‘lees pected vessel, into port, and try there the question | whether the vessel is contraband. You can prove it to be so by proving the suspected men to be contraband, and the court must then determine | the vessel to he contraband. If the men are not contraband the vessel will es: cape condemnation. Still there is no Judgment for or against the captured persons, But it was as- sumed that there would result f1om the determina tion of the court concerning the vessel a tainty concerning the character of the men. course of proceeding seemed open to m: tions, It elevates the incidental inferior private legal cer- This y obje terest into the proper place of the main parmount public oue, and possibly it may make fortunes, the safety or the & nation depend on the accidents of a merely personal and pecuniary litigation. More- over, when the judgment of the prize court upoa the lawfulness of the capture of the vessels is ren- dered, it really concludes nothing and binds neither the belligereut State nor the neutral upon the great question of the disposition to be made of the cap- tured contraband persons. That questionis still to be really determined, if at all, by diplomatic ar- rangement or by war. One may well express his surprise when told that the law of nations has furnished no more reasonable, practical and per- existence of feet mode than this of determining questions of | such grave import between sovereign Powers. The regret we may feel on the occasion is, | nevertheless, modified by the reflection that the difficulty fs not altogether anomalous. Similar and cqual deficiencies are found in every system of manicipal law, especially in the system which exisis in the greater portions of Great Britain and the United States. The title to hardly ever be re- without personal property can solved by a court the fiction that the claimant bas lost and the resorting to possessor has found it; and the title to real estate the | captor is interested, prejudiced and perhaps vio- lent—the neutral, if truly neutral, ia disinterested, subdued and helpless. ‘The tribunal is irresponsi- ble, while its jndgment is carried into instant The captured party is com- pelled to submit, though bound by no legal, moral or treaty obligation to ac- quiesce. Reparation is distant and problemati- cal, and depends atlast on the justice, magnani, mity or weakness of the State in whose behalf and by whose authority the capture was made. Out of these disputes reprisals and wars necessa- rily arise, and these are so frequent and destructive that it may well be doubted whether this form of remedy is not @ greater social evil than all that could follow if the belligerent right of search were uni- versally renounced and abolished forever. But carry the case one step farther:—What if the State that has made the capture unreasonably re. fuse to hear the complaint of the neutral, or to re- dress it? In that case the very act of captare would be an act of war—of war began without notice—and possibly entirely without provocation. I think all unprejudiced minds will agree that imperfect as the existing judicial remedy may be supposed to be, it would be, as a general practice, better to follow it than to adopt the summary one of leaving the decision with the captor and relying upon diplomatic debates to review his decision, Practically it is a question of choice between law with its imperfections and delays, and war, with its evils and desolations. “4 Nor is it ever to be forgotten that neutrality, hon- eatly and justly preserved, is always the harbingex of peace, and therefore is the common interest of nations, which is only saying that it is the inter: est of humanity itself. At the same time it is not to be denied that it may sometimes happen that the judicial remedy will become impossible—as by the shipwreck of the prize vessel, or other circumstances which ex- cuse the captor from sending or taking her inta port for confiscation. In such a case the right of the captor to the custody of the captured persons, and to dispose of them, if they are really contra- band, so as to defeat their unlawful purposes, cannot reasonably be denied, What rule shall be applied in such a case? Clear- ly the captor onght to be required to ehow that the failure of the judicial remedy results from cir- cumstances beyoud his control, and without bis fault. Otherwise be would be allowed to derive advantage from a wrongful act of his own. In the present case Captain Wilkes; after capturing the contraband persone and making prize of the Trent, in what seems {to us a perfectly lawful manner, instead of sending her into port, released her from the capture, and permitted her to preceed with He thus ef: fectually prevented the judicial examination which might otherwise have occurred. Tf now the cap: ture of the contraband persone, and the capture of the contraband vessel, ure-to be regarded, not as two separable or distinet transactions under the | Jaw of nations, but as one transaction—one cap. ture only-- thoy it follows that the eapture fn this her whole go upon her voyage, ease was left Whether the Uni | the chief public henctits of it namely, the custody uufuiished or was abandoned Aiates have 2 right to retain | of the captnred pezsons on proving them to be | contraband, will depend upon the prof pinary | qnestion whether the icoving of the transaction un | finished was | sary, and therefore voluntary. Ifit was ne pasary, or whether it wa: ONECES, eaaMLy. | Great Brita eth fal ver | how the United States can insist npen her waiver as we enppose, must eburse and the consequent failure ef the dy. Onthe other hand, it is not seep of that judicial remedy, if the defect of the cap | ture resulted from an act of Captain Wilkes, whieh would be a fault on their own side. n Wilkes has 4 his reasons for releasing the ‘Trent, Capt ented to this goverment “1 fovebore to seize her,” he sa, “in conse: reduced in ofiicers and | quence of my being se crew, and the derangement it would cause inno- cent persons, there being a large number of pas- sengers who would have been put to great lors | and inconvenience, as well us disappointment, from the caused then in not being steamer from have the I therefore voncluded to sacrifice the iutevests of my officers and crew in the prize, and suffered her to proceed after the detention necessary to effect the transfer of those commissioners, considering I had obtained | the important end T had in view, and which affect- | ed the interests of onr country and interrupted the | action of that of the Confederates.” T shall consider, first, how these reasons ough! to | affect the action of this government; and, second- Jy, how they ought to be expected to affect the | action of Great Britain. The reasons are satisfac - tory to this government so far as Captain Wilkes js concerned, It could not desire that the San | Jacinto, her olligers and crew should be exposed ! to danger and loss by weakening their namber to | detach a prize crew to go on board the Trent. Still less could it disavow the humane motive of | preventing inconveniences, losses, and perhaps disasters, to the several”hundred innocent pagsen- gers found on board the prize vessel, | Nor could this government perceive any ground | | for questioning the fact that these reasons, though i interruption it would able to join St. Thomas to Europe. is disputed by real litigants under the names of , apparently incongruous, did operate in the anind of imaginary persons. it must be confessed, how- ever, that, while all aggrieved nations demand, and all impartial ones concede, the need of some form of judicial process in determining the charac ters of contraband persons, no other form than the illogical and circuitous one thus described exists, nor has any other yet been suggested. Practically, therefore, the choice is between that judicial remedy or no judicial remedy whatever. If there be no judicial remedy, the result is that found the suspected contraband of war on board | the Trent, had Captain Wilkes a right to capture | the same? Such a capture is the chief, if not | the only recognized ohfent of the permitted visita the question must be determined by the captor | himself on the deck of the prize vessel. Very grave objections arise against such a course. The The captor if armed—the nentral is unarmed captain Wilkes, and determined him to release the Trent. Human actions generally proceed upon mingled and sometimes conflicting motives. Wa | measured the sacrifices which this decision would cost. Tt manifestly, however, did not occur to hing that, beyond the the private interests (as he calls them) of his officers and crew, there might possibly be | asacrifice even of the chief and public object of | his capture—namely, the right of his goverament | to the custody and disposition of the captured per- sons. This government cannot censure him for this Yt confesses that the whole sabject sacrifice of also | oversight. CONTINUED ON FIGHT PAGE)