The New York Herald Newspaper, January 10, 1862, Page 1

THE NEW YORK HERALD. WHOLE NO. 9252. NEW YORK, FRIDAY, JANUARY 10, 1862. PRICE TWO CENTS. NEWS FROM WASHINGTON. Speech of Mr. Sumner in the Senate on the Trent Affair. The Position of England and the United States as Regards the Law of the Ocean. Great Britain Pledged to the Mari- time Code of America. The Secretary of the Navy Roughly Handled in the Senate. The Financial Operations of Morgan ana Cum- mings Under Consideration, IMPORTANT ARMY BILLS BEFORE CONGRESS. Arrival of the Released Prisoners from Richmond, &e., &e., &e. Wasamaton, Jan. 9, 1862. MR. SUMNER’S SPEECH ON THE TRENT AFFAIR. ‘The speech of Mr. Sumner in tho Senate to-day; on the Trent affair, was a masterly and conclusive exposition of the triumph of American principles as applied to interna» tional law. In alll bis arguments and illustrations he lef, ‘Our respected mother England ‘‘out in the cold.”” He de- tonstrated that by all other leading European Powers the American doctrine had been recognized and admitted for many years, and that England alone bad opposed ft. The inconsistency of the present position of Mngland, with her policy in all the past, was ad- qirably illustrated, and the conclusion, that Great Britain |* is now stopped from any future assertion of her doctrine ia reference to the right of visitation and search, was brilliant and effective. The speech was impressively de- livered.. The galleries of the Senate were densely crowd- ed.” Notwithstanding the inclemency of the weather, the ladies’ gallery was filled to overflowing. Mrs. Vice Pre- ident Hamlin and a party of her friends occupied seats ga the diplomatic gallery, which was also filled. Secre- taries Chase and Cameron occupied seats on the floor of the chamber, where were also the French, Russian, Austrian, Prussian, Danish and Swedish Ministers. Lord Lyons was not present, as eti- quette required that he should not be there on such an occasion. The speech was listened to with fixed atten. tion by Senators Bright and Powell and ex-Senator Green: M. Mercier, the French Minister, occupied a seat next to Mr. Bright, and exchanged salutations with Mr. Sumner @at the conclusion of the speech, as did also most of the other foreign dignitaries. ‘Mr. Sumner’s speech has created a marked impression on the public in regard to himself. It has removed much prejudice that existed against him, and added greatly to his reputation as s profound statesman. The impression prevailed that, with all his learning, his extraordinary ‘acquirements, and splendid talents, he could not avoid qhe introduction of his peculiar views in reference to slavery; and on account of the strong anti-slavery pro- clivities of England hitherto, and the sympathy hereto- foro from this cause existing bet ween leading English poli- tictans and our own anti-slavery men of Mr. Sumner’s class’ ft was apprehended by many that he would be inclined vo lean towards Great Britain in this controversy. His ‘course to-day was, therefore, an agreeable surprise. The ‘absence of any allusion in his speech to the negro ques- tion demonstrated his ability and willingness to rise superior to the one idea attributed to him, andthe ‘scathing exposition of British inconsistency in regard to the right of search, and tho dignified rebuke he ad. ministered to England, exhibited his capacity to regard public affairs with the eye of a genuine stateeman. ‘The applause accorded to this really great production is universal and unqualified. GENERAL STONE AND THE RENDITION OF FUGITIVE SLAVES. Some three weeks since, it was announced that General Stone, commanding a brigade in General Banks’ column, was tickling the rebels by returning fugitive slaves, that he compelled Massachusetts soldiers in his com- mand to perform that service. This announcement not unly aroused the indignation of Governor Andrew, of that State, Dut that of the Senators and most of the representatives from Massachusetts. Senator Sumner, afew days after- ‘wards, in commenting in his place in the Senate upon the order of Gen. Halleck concerning the disposition of slaves that camo within his lines, took occasion to allude to Gon. Stone's course in returning fugitives, the facts con- cerning which I understand Mr. Sumner fully satisfied himself about, The Senator's notice of Gen. Stone was brief, but pointed. A few days afterwards Sena- ‘or Sumner received a letter from Gen. Stone, the contents of which are the subject of street comment, and do not reflect creditably upon General ‘Stone, who, it is said, employed language towards the Massachusetts Senator which is characterized by those who have read the letter as being unbécoming a soldier, much less an officer of the distinction and position of General Stone. Mr. Sumner treats tho letter with con- tempt. The whole subject is in the hands of Genoral McClellan at present; but it is the determination of several Senators to bring the subject before the Senate. DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN GENBRAL MANSFIELD AND GENERAL WOOL. General Mansficid, who is at present in command at Newport News Point, is pressing = demand for removal t© some other position, on account of an unpleasant disagreement between himself and General Wool. It appears that on the recent occasion, when @ body of the rebels crossed New Market Bridge, General Mansfield wont out with a force to repulse them. There was a group of houses on each side of the creek. Those nearest to the federal fortifica- tion afforded shelter to our soldiers, and those on the other sido wero used for protection by the rebels. the skirmishes that occurred at that point, the rebels in retiring bnrnt the houses that shel- tered our troops, and Gencral Mansticld, to deprive the rebels of the advantage they had, burned these on the other side. For this he was severely censured by Gen. Wool, who, in general orders, characterized the act as a pieco of Vandalism. This public censure, for doing what the deemed a duty in exercising a precautionary care for tho safety of his troops, has rendered Gen. Mansfield’s Position peculiarly disagreeable, but bis request for a cbange has not yet been granted. IMPORTANT ARREST. aA Mr. W. T. Smithson, a prominent banker of this city, ‘was arrested yesterday afternoon, upon the charge of treasonable correspondence with the enemy. He is a Vir- ginian, and bas never made any sceret of his sympathy with the rebels. Many of the leaders of the rebellion ‘were his most intimate associates. He was a zealous and influential member of the Methodist Episcopal church South, and his friends are unwilling to believe that ho been guilty of any improper conduct, INDITION OF GENERAL MCLELLAN AND ORNERAL MARCY. Neither General McClellan nor General Marcy were out ‘w-day, the incletmency of the weather rendering their ‘exposure imprudent. ALL QUIRT ALONG THE LINE. Everything has been quiet to-day along the lines of the army. THE REPORTED BATTLE AT ROMNEY. ‘So far as any conflict or skirmishing with the enemy is concerned, nothiug of official of the fight at Romney, an nounced to-day, has been received at hoadquaters. ARRIVAL OF THE PRISONERS FROM RICHMOND. The Richmond prisoners arrived this afternoon. They ‘will receive their pay, and those enlisted for three years are ordered back to their regiments, They complain that 09 ration allowance ie granted, alleging that they were obliged to expend money to keep themselves from starving. The prisoners number one hundred and ninety, and were comfortably cared for at the Government Voluntary Receiving House, near the railroad station, Dr.A. Tripp: of Scranton, Penn., is among the arrivals. The remain- der of the party either went home after arriving in Balti" more from Old Point, or are detained there at the govern- ment hospitals, owing to their wounds breaking out THE CONDUCT OF THE WAR COMMITTEE. The joint committee appointed on the 19th of Decem- ber, to examine into the conduct of the war, have assi- duously applied themselves to that duty. They have ‘been in session nearly every day since, and have obtained much valuable information. Senator Wade, the chair, man, is 80 industriously engaged that he is seldom seen in the Senate, and then only when important votes re- quire bis presence. A BILL TO PUNISH FRAUD AND BRIBERY. In the House to-day Mr. Harris introduced « bill to pre- vent fraud in the public service and punish bribery in eertain cases. This bill makes it a high misdemeanor, and a subject for indictment in any United States court. having criminal jurisdiction, for any one to promise, offer or give, directly or indirectly, anything to any officer or public agent, either before or after his election or ap- Pointment, to influence his vote, decision or action in any Proceeding, or in the discharge of any duty, or to induce him to neglect or omit the perfor- mance of any duty, or to use his influence to Procure any appointment or emolument, or allowance, or Payment. The penalty fixed is a fine of not less than tho value nor more thap three times the value of the thing offered or given or accepted, and imprisonment in the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than ten years, and disqualification forever from holding any office under the United States. The same penalty attaches to the officer convicted of receiving any such bribe, and tho terms ‘‘officer”’ and ‘‘public agent’’ are made to include all who are performing any service for the United States, ‘The bill also provides that any disbursing officer or agent to make contracts or purchases for the government, who shall directly or indireetly accept a present or reward, shall forfeit his office, and be promptly removed. AFFAIRS ON THE LOWER POTOMAC. There is considerable ice in the Potomac, but the iron clad steamer King Philip keeps the communication open. ‘The steamer Stepping Stones came from the lower flotilla, past the batteries, last night, to the flagship of the upper flotilla. Nothing new had occurred down the river. The rebels are thought to be reserving their strength to at- tack the Pensacola when she goes to sea. THE ARMY. Colonel Friedman, of the Cameron Dragoons, received a despatch to-day from Governor Denniston, of Ohio, tender- ing him the command of a regiment of cavalry, to be as- signed to Kentucky. Robert J. Ballestior was to-day appointed Second Lieu- tenant in Captain Mott's old battery. He was at Bull run, where he acquitted himself gallantly. First Lieutenant Stewart, of Captaig Mott's battery, ‘who was severely injured some time since at drill, to-day reported himself for duty. All of Captain Mott’s officers have been promoted from the ranks. The Captain is determined to admit of no other appointments if he can help it, and the men under him, knowing this determination, work with # hopeful zeal and courage. First Lieutenant W. G. Mitchell, of the Forty-ninth Pennsylvania regiment, has been appointed Aid-de-Camp on the staff of Brigadier General Hancock. PAYMENT OF THE TROOPS. All the muster rolls are nearly completed, and arrange- ments about perfected for paying our troops across the Potomac. Major Ritter today paid off the Forty-third New York Volunteer regiment, Colonel Vinton. ATTEMPT TO BLOW UP A HOSPITAL AT ALEXANDRIA. An attempt was last night made to blow up the Man_ sion House in Alexandria. This was formerly occupied as a hotel, but now as @ hospital. A barrel had been se- creted in the cellar filled with powder and projectiles, and a fuse was found extending from there to the stabie. In proximity to the combustibles lucifer matches and Chinese crackers had been plentifully distributed. The fuse end at the stable had actually ignited; but the act was fortunately discovered by the guard, and the pro- gress of the slow fire extinguished. But for this watch. fulness and prompt action, not only would several bun- drod lives probably have been lost, but other casualties Fesulted. NOTICE TO APPLICANTS FOR APPOINTMENTS IN THE NAVY. Applicants for situations as master’s mates in the Navy Yard are required to accompany their papers with recom mendations from their last employers, and must have seen three years sea service, and not be over thirty years of age. Acting masters are similarly appointed, with the exception that they must not be over forty years of age. MONETARY AFPAIRS, ‘Treasury notes are four per cent discount. Exchange cn New York 34 per cent. THE NEW GRANADIAN MINISTER. It is implied in a recent publication that General Herran consented to act as Minister of the legitimate government of New Granada when he was made aware that he would not be received as the representative of Mosquera. This is not correct. It well known here that immediately after General Herran’s arrival at New York our govern- ment was informed that he would proceed to Washington to act on his former credentials, and before any opinion in that respect could have been expressed by our govern- ment. SENATOR BRIGHT NOT TO BE EXPELLED. ‘The Senate Committee on the Judiciary have come to the conclusion, six to one, to report against the expulsion of Senator Jesse D. Bright, of Indiana, the question involy- ing his loyalty having been referred to them. THE PRESIDENT AT THE CAPITOL. ‘The President, accompanied by his private secretaries, ‘was at the room of the Vice President im the Capitol to-day, attending to public business. NOT A DESERTER. ‘The name of Mathian Spoo, of tho Fifth Wisconsin regi. ment, appeared among the list of deserters published in the Hernan. General Hancock assures me that Spoo is not adeserter. He was subject to attacks of insanity, and while suffering from one of these attacks is supposed to have wandered outside of our lines and to have been captared by the enemy's pickets. Aside from Spoo and another crazy soldier, who is now in an msane asylum, there has not been a desertion from General Hancock's briga: THE UNITED STATES AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY. ‘The United States Agricuitural Society to-day re-elected President Hubbard, Secretary Poor, Treasurer French, and nearly all the old Vico Presidents. The Executive Committee was reorganized, and consists of Marshall P’. Wilder, of Massachusetts; Fredk. Smyth, of New Hamp- shire; Isaac Newton, of Philadelphia; Chas. B. Calvot, of Maryland; Legrand Byington, of Towa; J. H. Sullivan, of Ohio, and M. Meyers, of California. President Lincoln's recommendation of the establishment of an agricultural and statistical department was warmly commended, ‘and ho was elected an honorary member. The sugges. tions of the President's address were debated and en- dorsed, and a large edition was ordered to be printed. ‘The establishment of ap agsicultural department was dis- cussed aud recommended. Thero was a decided expres. sion of opinion against national exhibitions, unless they can be held at Washington. THIRTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS. FIRST SESSION. Senate. Wasmnator, Jan. 9, 1862. ‘THE DEAD LETTER OFFICK. Mr. Contamen, (rep.) of Vt., from the Post Office Com- mittee, reported back the bill to promote the efficiency of the Dead Letter Office, ‘Tho bill provides that all dead lotters be returned tothe writers instead of being destroyed. After a long discussion the bill was postponed till to- morrow. RXIPULMON OF WALDO II. JOBNSON, OF MIRBOURI. Mr, Tacuovi, (rep.) of Ml., reported from the Judi- ciary Committee in favor of the resolution to expel Waldo Hi, Johnson,.of Mistouri, MILITARY AFPAIRA, RIC. Mr. Winaow, (rep) of Mass. reported a bill to provide for the Signal Department of the army. Also @ bill for the organisation of the staff of the di- visions of the army. Also @ bill to increase the clerical force of the office of the Adjutant General, Mr. Suxaman, (rep.) of Ohio, from the Select Committee on Compensation, &c., in the departments, reported a bill. Also ® bill to regulate the compensation of officers of the army. Mr. Cowan, (rep.) of Pa., presented a petition from the homeopathic surgeons and physicians employed in the army. Also a bill in relation to the appointment of chaplains in the army, and to allow Jewish chaplains. ALLEGED GREAT FRAUDS BY ARMY AND NAVY CONTRACTORS. Mr. Haus, (rep.) of N. H., presented # petition from citizens of Pennsylvania, which states as follows:— Whereas, great frauds have been perpetrated on the Trea- su the ay tment 3 zi a Put gt Mosca at Wal, Sette: tment’ of Mr. Morgan by fore ask atatut enacted to preve ‘appoint- Ment of persons without the siatuie therefor. : PUNISHMENT OF FRAUDS ON THE TREASURY. Mr. Hate also introduced a bill to punish fraud on the ‘Treasury. The bill provides that any person obtaining Money fraudulently be punished with a fine to the amounvof money and imprisonment at hard labor for not more than ten years. If any officer of the government do it he be discharged and punished, and ever after held in- eligible for any office. Referred. REPORT OF THE SANITARY COMMISHION. A communication was received from the War Depart- ment transmitting the report of the Sanitary Commission. - THE TARIFF ON SUGAR AND COFFEE. The House resolution in regard to bonded coffee and sugar, laid over yesterday, was taken up and.passed by yeas 28, nays 15. SPEECH OF MR. SUMNER ON THE TRENT AYFAIR. ‘The communication from the Secretary of State in re- gard to the Trent affair was taken up. Mr. Scans, (rep.) of Mass. , said—Mr, President, every principle of international law, when justly and authorita- tively settled, becomes a safeguard of peace and a land- mark of civilization. It constitutes a part of that code which isthe supreme law, above all municipal laws, binding the whole commonwealth of nations. Such a settlement may be by a general congress of nations, as at Munster, Vienna or Paris; or it may be through the gene- ralaccord of treaties; or it may be by a precedent es- tablished under such conspicuous circumstances, with al nations as assenting witnesses, that it shall at once ‘become in itself a commanding rulo of international con- duct. Especially is this the case, if disturbing preten- sions long maintained to the detriment of civilization, are Practically renounced by the Power which has maintained them. Without any congress or treaties such a precedent has been established. Such a precedent ought to be con- sidered and understood in its true character. In under- taking to explain it, I shall speak for myself alone; but I sball speak frankly, according to the wise free- dom of public debate, and the plain teachings of history on the question involved, trusting sincerely that what I say may contribute something to elevate the honest pa- ‘triotism of the country, and perhaps secure that tran- quil judgment which will render this precedent the herald, if not the guardian; of international harmony. Two old men and two younger associates, recently taken from the British mail packet Trent on the high seas, by order of Captain Wilkes, of the United States Navy, and after- wards detained in custody at Fort Warren, have been liberated, and placed at the disposition of the sritish government. This has been done at the instance of that governusent, courteously conveyed, and founded on the ‘assumption that the original capture of these men was an act of violence which was an affront to the British flag anda violation of international law This is a simple outline of the facts. Butin order to appreciate the value of this precedent, there are other mat- ters which must be brought into view. These two old men were citizens of the United ‘States, and for many years Senators, One was the author of the Fugitive Slave bill, and the other was the chief author of the filibustering system. which has disgraced our national name and disturbed our national peace. Oc- cupying places of trust and power in the service of their country, they conspired against it, and at last the secret traitors and conspirators became ‘open rebels. The pre- sent rebellion, now surpassing in proportions and also in wickedness any rebellion in history, was from the begin- ning quickened and promoted by their untiring energies. ‘That country to which they owed love, honor and obedi- ence, they betrayed and gave over to violence and outrage. ‘Treason, conspiracy and rebellion, each in successivn, haveacted through them. The incalculable expenditures which now task our national resources, the untold de- rangement of affairs, not only at home, but also abroad, the levy of armies almost without an’ cxample, the de- vastation of extended regions of territory, the plunder of peaceful ships on the.ocean, and the slaughter of fellow citizens on the murderous battle field—such are some of the consequences ie, directly from them. To carry forward still further the gigantic crime of which they, were so large @ part, these two old men, with their two pe a associates, stole from Charleston on board & rebel steamer, and, under cover of darknevs and storm, Tupning the blockade, and avoiding the cruise:s in that neighborhood , succeeded in reaching the neutral tsiand of Cuba, where, with open display and the knowledge of the British Consul, they embarked on board the British mail packet, the Trent, bound for St Thomas, whence they were to embark for knguand, in which kingdom one of them was to play the part of embassador of the rebellion, while the other was to play the same part in France. The original treason, conspiracy and rebellion of which they were so heinously guiity , were ail continued on this voyage, which became @ prolotigation of the original crime, destined to still further excess, through their embassadorial pretensions, which, it was hoped, would array two great nation: st the United States, and oulist them openly in bebalf of an accursed slaveholding rebellion. While on‘their way tho embassadors were arrested by Captain Wi.kes, of the United States steamer San Jacinto, an accomplished officer, already well known by his scien- tific explorations, who, on this occasion, acted without instructions from his government. If, in this arrest, he forgot for & moment the fixed policy of the republic, which has been from the beginning like afrontiet between the eyes, and transcended the jaw of nations, as the United States have always declared it, bis apology must be found in the patriotic impulse by which he was in- spired, and the British examples which he could not for- get. ‘They were the enemies of his country, embodying in themselves the triple essence of worst enmity—trea- son, conspiracy and rebellion—and they wore a pretended embassadorial character, which, as he well Ww, BC. cording to high Hritish authority, rendered them liable to be ai |. If, im the ardor of an honest nature, Cap- tain Wilkes erred, he might well say: Wh be wise, ter eiafiain Gentes? som ‘The expecttion of my violent love Outran the pauser reason, Who could refrain ‘That had a heart to love, and in that heart Courage to make his love Kaownt If this transaction be regarved oxclusively in the light of British precedents; if we foliow the seeming authority Of the British Admiralty, speaking by its greatest voice; ‘and especially if wo accept the oft repeated example of British cruisers, upbeld by the verument against the oft repeated protests of the United States, we shall pot find it difficult to vindicate it. The act becomes questionable only when brought to the touchstone of those liberal principles, which, from the earliest times, has openly avowed and which “other Eu. except. by now’ adopting rinel- ples; and xhould we undertake to vindicate tho net, it can be done only by repudiating these identical prnicipies. Onr two cases will be reversed. In the struggle between Laertes and Hamlet, the two combatants exchanged rapiers; so that Hamlet was armed with tho rapicr of Laertes and Laertes was armed with the rapier of Hamlet, And now cn this sensitive question a similar exchange has occurred. Great Britain is armed with American princi ples, while to us is left only those British principles which, throughout our history, have been constantly , ce! berate ly, and solemnly rejected. Lord Russell, in his despatch to’ Lord Lyons, communicated to Mr. Seward, contents himself by saying that ‘‘it appears that cortain individuals have been forcibly taken from on board a British vessel, the snip of a neutral Power, while such veel was ing ‘act of violence which was positive assertion that the ship, no- t riously having on board the rebel omisearies, was pursu- ing a lawful and innocent voyage; but there is no speci- fication of the precise ground on which the act in ques- tion is regarded as a violation of international law. Of course it is not an affront, for an accident can never be an affront to an individual or toanation. But public report, authenticated by the concurring testimony of various authorities, English and Continental, forbids us to continue ignorant of the preclko ground on which this act is presented as a violation of international law. It ‘was admitted that a United States man-of-war, meeting a British mail steamer beyond the territorial limits of Great Rritain, might subject her to visitation and search; also that the United States ship-of.war might put a prize ¢rew on board the British steamer, and carry her off to a port of the United States for adjudication by a prize court there; but that she would have no right to remove the omiesaries, who were not apparently officers in the military or naval rervice, and carry them off as prisoners, leaving the ship to pursue her voyage, inder th» circumstances , in the excercise of a belligerent rignt, the British steamer, with all on board, might have been ‘captured and carried off; but according to the British Inw officers, on whose professional opinion the British Cabinet has acted, the whole procecding was vitiated by tho failure to take the packet into port for condemoation. This failure has been the occasion of much unprofersional objurgation; and it has been em- pbatically repeated that it was impossible to consent that the custody of the individuals in question should be de- termined by anavy officer on his quarter deck, so as 10 supersede the adjudication of a prize court. ‘Thin has deen confidently stated by an Engiteh writer, assuming to put the case for his government, as follows :— tonpie Searre opis gromms a tows, What we sony ite , s Nights a naval ificer to tend in place of a prise court, nad hic judicate, sword in hand, with a ai volo sicjubeo on the vel aca wales i's part of our territory. Thus it appears that the present complaint of the British government is not founded on the assumption by the American war steamer of the belligerent right of search; nor on the ground that this right was exercised on board a neutral vessel between two neutral ports; nor that it was exercised on board a mail steamer , sust by @ subvention from the Crown, and officered ia part the royal navy; nor that it was exercised in a case where the penalties of contraband could not attach; but itis jimply and precisely on the idea that per- sons other tffin apparent officers in the military or naval service, cannot be taken out of a neutral shipat themere will of the officer who exercises the right of search, and without any form of teial. “Therefore, the law of nations has been violated, and the conduct of Captatain Wilkes must be disavowed, while men, who are traitors, con- spirators, and rebels, all in’ one, are allowed to go free. Surely, that criminals,’ though dyed in guilt, should go free, is better than that the law of na- tions should be violated, especially in any rule by which war is restricted and the mood of peace is enlarged; for the law of nations cannot be violated without overturning the protection of the innocent as well as the guilty. Ou fis general Principle there ‘can be no question. It is but an illustration of important maxim, recorded in the Latin of Fortescue, -‘Botter that many guilty should es- = than = ae man pair wilde this rence, Present case afew guilty escape, while the innocent everywhere on the sea obtain new security. And this security becomes more valuable as & triumph of civilization, when it is considered that it was long refused,even at the cannon’s mouth. Do get, sir, that the question involved in this ry is strictly a question of law—precisely like a of tres- pass between (ote Fog Tbe British began Proceedings by taking the opinion of thel ad- visers, precisely as an individual begins proceeeings in Bssuit at law by taking the opinion of his attor- ney. To make su ens that war is a proj of deciding it, is simply to re- vive, in colossal pro the led ordeal by battle, and to imitate eages w en such proesed- ing was openly dec! be the best and most honora- ble mode of deciding even an abstract point of law. “It was a matter of doubt amd dispute,” says an early histo- rian, ‘whether the of 4 son ought to be reckoned among the children of the family, and succeed equally happencd to die while with their uncles, if father thoir grandfather was alive. An assembly was called to deliberate on this pointyand it was the general opinion that it ought to be to the examination and de- cision of judges. But the Emperor, following a botter course, abd desirous of dealing Bonorably with | his People'and ‘nobles, appotnted the matter to be decided yy battle between two champions.” In similar has it been latterly proposed, amidst amazement of the civilized world, ‘to with, draw the point now raised’ by Great Britain, from 1 adjudication and submit it to trial by combat. But tho frrational anachronism of such a pre ition becomes t from the inconsistenc, Ite for it cannot. be forgotten identi int of law, Great that of the party which that in times past, on | Britain persistently ‘an opposite ground from which she now takes. British complaint seems to have been narrowed down to asingle point; but it is not to be disguised that there are yet other points on which, had the ship been carried into port for adjudication, con- troversy must bave arisen. Not to omit anything impor- tant, let me say that the three following points, among others, bave been presented in the case:— 1. That theseizure of the rebel emissaries without taking the ship into port, was wrong, ax a navy ofhcer ts not entitled. to substitute himself for a judicial tribunal. 2. That had the ship been carried into port, it would nothave been liable on account of the rebel emissarics, inasmuch as neutral ships are freo to carry all perscos not upparently in the military or naval service of the enemy. 3. Are despatches cont of war, 80 as torender the ship liable to Delsneal . ‘These matters I shall consider in their order, giving special attention to the first, which is the pivot of the British complaint. If im this discussion I shall expose grievances which It were botter to forget, bo assured it is from no willingness to awaken the s.utubering animosi- ties they once 80 justly aroused, but simply to exhibit the proud position on this question which the United States eiirly and constantly maintained, A question of inter- national law should not be presented op any mere argu- mentum ad hominem. It would be of little value to slow that Captain Wilkes was sustained by British authority and practice, if he were condemned by international law as interpreted oy his own country. It belongs to us nowg-tay, let it be our pride, at any cost of individual “pre ions or transitory prejudices, to uphold that law in all its force, as it was often declared by the best men in our history, and illastrated by national acts; and let us seize the present occasion to consecrate its positive and unequivocal recognition. In exc for the prisoners set free, we receive from Great Britain a practical assent, too long deferred, to a eee early propounded by our country, and standing forth on every of our history. The same voice which asks for their liberation, renounces in the same Dreath an odious scourge of peaceful Grent Britain throughout her municipal history bas practically contributed to the establishment of freedom beyond all other nations. There are at least seven institutions or principles which she has given to civilization: first, the trial by jury ; second- ly, the writof habeas corpus; thirdly, the freedom of ss; fourthly, bills of rights; fifthly, the represen. tative system: sixthiy, the rules and ordors of debate, constituting parliamentary law; and seventhly, the prin: ciple, that the air is too pure for asiave w breathe— Jong ago declared and first inad ate for glorors ou No other nation can show But while thus entitled to our gi tributions to municipal law, we turn with dissent and forrow from much which she has sought to fasten upon international !aw. In municipal questicns Great Britain drew inapiration from her own native common law, which was instinct with freedom; but especially in maritime questions arising ender the law of nations this Power reoms to have acted on that obnoxious principle of the Roman law, positively discarded in municipal questions, Quod principi placuit legis vigorem habet, and too often, under this inspiration, to have imposed ‘upon weaker na tious her own arbitrary will. The time has been when she pretended to soveroignty over tho seas surrounding the British isies, as far as Cape Finistierro to the south, and Vanstaten, in Norway, to the north, But, driven from this protension, other pretensions, less’ local, but hardly jess offenstve, were avow: The boast of “Rulc, Britannia, rule the waves,” was practically adopted by Fritish courts of aid- miralty, and universal maritime rights were sub- Jected to the special exigencies of British inwrests. In ‘the consciousness of strength, and with a navy that auld pot be oppowed, this lower hus pat chains upon the sea, The commerce of the United States, as it began to whiten the ocean, was cruelly decimated by these arbitrary pretensions. American ships and cargoes, while, in the language of Lord Russell, **pursuiog a law ful and innocent voyage,” sutlered from the British admiralty courts more than from rock or tempest. Shipwreck was leas frequent than confiscation; and when it came, it wae caster to bear, But the lors of roperty stung Jess than the outrage of impressment, by whieh foreigners, under the protection of the American flag, and also Amorican citizens. withoutany form of trial, ‘and'at the mere mandate of a navy officer, who for thi moment acted as a judicial tribunal, were dragged tS from the deck which should have been to them a sacred altar. ‘This outrage, which was feebly vindicated by tho municipal claim of Great Britain to the services of her own subjects, was enforced arrogantly and perpetual ly on the high seas, where municipal law is silent and international law alone prevails. Tho belligerent right of ‘search, derivea from international iaw, was employed for this purpose, and the quarter-deck’ of every British cruiser was mado a floating judgment seat. The practice eontinucd constantly; nor did it ‘among ite victims. It is mentioned by Mr. Jefferson, and repeated by a British writer on interna- tional law, that two nephews of Washington, on their way home from Europe, were ravished from the protection of the American flag, without any judicial proceedings, and placed as common seamon under the ordinary discipline of British shipe-of-war. The victims were counted by ds. Lord Castlereagh himseif admitted, on the floor of the House of Commons, that an inquiry institu. ted by the British government had discovered in the British fleet three thousand five hundred men ciaim. ing to be improssed Americana. At our Department of State six thousand cases were recorded, and it ‘was estimated that at leust as many more might have occurred, of which no information had been re- ceived. Thus, according to this official admission of the British Minister, there was resson to believe that the juarter-deck of a British man-of war had been made a oating judgment seat three thovsand five hundred times, while, according to the records of our own State Depart: ment, it had been made a tioating judgment veat six thou- sand times and uj is, and each time an American citizen had been taken from the protection of his tag without any form of trial known to the law. Ifa preten- sion so intrinsically lawless could be sanctioned by pre- cedent, Great Britain would have succeeded in interpolat- ing itinto the law of mations. Protest, argument, nego. tiation, correspondence, and war itself—unhappily the last reason of republics as of kings—were all employed in vain by the United States to procure @ renunciation of this intolerable pretension. Tho ablest papers in our diplomatic history are devoted to this purpose, and the only serious war in which we have been engaged, until summoned to encounter this rebel- lion , was to overcome by arms this very pretension which would not yield to reason, | Beuivning th the last cen" “y., the correspondence is at last closed by the recentio y of Mr. Seward to Lord Lyons. The long-continued ...a- sion of conflict is now happily removed, and the proven- sion CCK Ree take its place among the curi- onities the past. Buti do not content myself with asserting bp meee ‘ition of the American gov- ernment. It to the argument, that I should ex hibit ae ore and the precise ground en which it was p) being identical with that now adopted bj And here the testimony is complete. if you will kindly follow ou shall see it from the be- inning in the public lite of our ony oe jn the an- Senuie records of our government. This British proten- sion aroure’, star the admmistration of Washing- ton, and t. # en ot Mr. Jefferson, his Secretary of State, was enliste. against it, Ina leiter to Thomaa Pinckney, our Minister at London, dated June 11, 1792, he eaid:— ‘The simplest rule will be that the verve! being American shall be evidence that the seamen on board her are such. In another letter to the same Minister, dated October he calls attention to ® case of special outrage, copy of & letter from Mesars, Blow and nis of Virginia, complaining of the taling eoast Of Africa by the commander many instances of this kind ‘Tho same British pretension was put forth under tho administration of John Adams,and was again encoun- tered. Mr. Pickering, at that time ‘Secretary of State, in a letter to Rufus King, our Minister at London, dated June 8, 1796, after repoating the rule proposed by Mr. Jeffer- son, says:— But it will be an important point gained, {/ on the high seas ¢ those hate ‘nation who shall sail unter Aa taaehattall” wala atten, omer plead.—State Papers, vol. 3, p. 674. Sciam And again, at a later day, during the same admin! 7 tion, Mre Mafthall, afterwards the venerated Chief Jus tice of the United States, and at the time Secretary of State, in bis instructiens to Rufus King, at London, dated September 20, 1800, says:- The impressment of our ses n ig an injury of very seri- Qus magnitude, which deeply affects the feelings and the honor of the nation. * + * — Alienseamen, not British subjects, engaged in our merchant service, ought to de equally exempt withcitizens. Britain has no pretext of Hight to thelr persons or tothelr seavice. | Ty tear them from our possession le mame an insult and an injury. ‘an act of violence for which there exists no palliative. —State Papers, vol. 2, p. 489. ‘The same British pretension showed itself constantly under the administration of Mr. Jefferson. Throughout the eight years of his Presidency the ted outrages of British cruisers never for a moment allowed it to be forgotten. Mr. Madison during this full period wasSecre- tary of State, and none of the varied productions of his Pal are more masterly than thoge in which he ex] tyranny of this pretension. In the course of this discussion he showed the special hardship found in the fact that the sailors were taken from the ship at the mere will of un officer, without any form of judicial pro- ceedings, and thus early presented against the pretension of Great Britain the ‘objection which is now pecoies by her. Here are his emphatic words, in his celebrated instructions to Mr. Monroe, at that time our ‘Minister at London, dated January 5, 1804: en, justice Say ibe tanie of this practice, it indef le, it ives the dearest rights of '@ regular trial, to which the most inconsiderable ‘Property captured on the high seas is entitled, and eaves x detiny to the will of an ofliee, sometimes rs rant, ‘and generally interested, by want of mai ferein' b's own dechions., Whenever property found in neutFal vessel is sup] to be Hable, on any ground, to capture and condemnation, the rule in all cases tx, that the uestion shall not be decided by the captor, but be carried -efore a legal tribunal, where a regular trial may be had, and where the captor himsef is lable to damages for an abuse of his honor. Can it be reasonable, then, or just, that a ihgerent commander who is thus re- Btricted, and thus responsible {n acnse of mere pro- perty of trivial amount, should be permitted, without recur- ring to any tribunal whatever, to examine the crew of a neutral {rev to nates the tm ceed eg rep ent leyiances, and to cat that decision into execution r4 every individual neeay, choose invo a service abhorrent to his feelings, entting him off from his most tender connec- tions, exposing his mind and bis person to the most humil- ating discip ine, and his life itself to the greatest danger? Ki 1) jus ‘and humanity unite in protesting against 80 extravagant a proceeding.—State Papers, vol. 8, 0. 84. Negotiations, on this principlo, thus distinctly declared, were intrusted at London to James Monroe, afterwards President of the United States. und to William Pinckney, the most accomplished master of prize law which our country ‘has’ produced. But they were unsuccosaUl, Great Britain persisted. In @ joint lotter dated at Lon- don, September 11, 1806, the plenipotentiaries say:— ‘That it was impossible that we should acknowledge in favor of any foreign Power the claim to auch jurial on board our vessels found upon the main ocean, as this sort of im- pressment implied—a claim as plainly inadmissible in its principle, and derogating trom the unquestionable rights of Our sovereignty, as it Was Yexatious in its practical conse- po uae 4 ‘Papers, vol. 8, p. 134. In another joint letter dated at London, November 11, 11906, tho same plenipotontiaries say :— The right was denied the Britush comm! who Piacy eprpceerpte tan tu seize the on tok neutral merchant eens on the Mg sane, and who also urged that the relinqmshment of it at this time would go far overthrow of their naval power, on which the safe piate exsentially de} ‘State Papers, vol. 3. P- In still another lotter, dated at London, April 22, 1807, Moesrs. Monroe and Pinkney say of the British commis- sioncrs:— ‘They stated that the prejudice of the navy and of the country generally was so st ‘in favor of their pretens that the ministry could not encounter it in a et form; and that in truth the support of Parliament could not have been relied on in such a case.—State Pupere, vol. 3. p. 160. ‘The British commissioners wero two excellent per- sous—Lord Holland and Lord Auckland; but though triendiy to the United States in their deciara- tions, and liberals in politics, they were powerless. At home, in the United States, question con- tinued to be discussed by able writers. Among those waose opinions were of the highest authority, was the late President, John Adams, who, from his retirement at Quincy, sent forth a pamplilet dated January 9, 1800, in which the British pretension was touched to tho quick; and again the precise objection was presented which is now urged by Great Britain. Pepicting the scene when one of our ships isencountered by a British cruiser, he says:— ‘The lieytenant is to be the judge, the midshipman, is to be ler! ant the boatswain cediaree marshal. het * impossible to figure to ourselves, in imagination, this n tribunal and venerable judge without smiling, ull of on: comes our thot is end u interrupts the sense of ridicule by the tears of grief or Vengeagee.—John aidame Works, vol 9, Py $22, - At last all redress through negotiation was found to be impossibie; and this pretension, ag- gravated into multitudiious tyranny, was openly announced to be one of the principal reasons for the de- ciaration of war against Great Britain in 1812. In his message to Congrees, dated June 1, of that year, Mr. Madisen, who was now President, thus exposed the offen- sive character of the pretension; aud his words, directed Agaiust a porsistent practice, are now echoed by Great Britain, in the single instance whicb has accidentally occurred :— Could the seizure of British subjects in such cases be ithin the exercise of @ beiligerent right, the ‘ar, Which forbid am article of cap- without a regular investi, fore acynpetent tribunal, woukl imperiously demand eat treat where the sacred rights of persona were ut isaue. An place of euch a trial, these righta are subjected to the wt Of every tpetty communder.—Sttatesman's Manual, Vol. 1, p. While the war was waging the subject was still dis- cursed. Mr. Grundy, in the Houso of Representatives, in & report from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, said:— A subsltery or any other officer of the British Navy ought not io be archer Iu-such case. The liberties und. lives of American sought not to depend on the will of auch @ party.—State Papers, vol. 3, p. 608. ‘Such was the American ground. The British pretension was uphesitatingly proclaimed in the declaration of the Prince Regevt, afterwards George IV., given at the palace of Westminster, January 9, 1813:— President of the United States bas, itis true, since 'd to Great Britain an armistice; not, however, on the that the cause of war hitherto relied on was re- ‘but on condition that Great Briain, as a preliminary step, should do away a cause of war now brought forward as fuck far the iret tne—namely, that she shyulil uinandon the ex ereive of her UNDOUBTED MIGHT Vf xearch ty lake From American tuerehant ceseels British samen, the natural bora auijects of his to the ot the ts voyed Highness can never admit that, in the exercine of the UxDOURTED und hitherto undinputed viyht of searcht neutral merchant vessels in time of war, the impreement of Britis reunen, When (ound therein, can be deemed any civlation of a neutral flag. Neither can be admit that the taking of such Searnen from on board such vessels cin be considered by any neutral State as @ hostile measure or @ justifiable cause of war. ‘The war was cloted by the treaty at Ghent; but por- vorsely the British preteosion was net renounced. Other negotiations in 1818, under President Monroo; in 1823, algo under Monroe; and again in 1827, under Jobn Quine: adams, expressly to re ite renunciation, were all unavailing. At inst, in 1842, at the treaty of Wash: ‘ Mr. Webster, calm!y setting aside all idea of further ne- gotiation on this pretension, and wit even proposi any stipulation with regard 'to it, deliberately annou the principle irrevocably adopted by our government. It was the principle carly announced sit the beginning of the republic by Mr. Jefferson. ‘This despatch is one of the most memirable in our history, and it bears directly on the existing controversoy when, in exposing the British pretension, it says:— -of-war, having necessity for ind hin decisions. wilt ange hin ows 1U0 as »| mn wants aud hisown oF the erat ice of the case.—Webster p. 323. ter day still, on the very eve of recent events, 1 Casa, ax Secretary of State, in his elabo- tour Ministers in Europe, dated 27th rate inst 7 Jno, 1559, deciaring nee which may properly con- trol the present question. He says:— It is obvions, from the temper of the age, that the ia no ale time to assert and entoree pretensions on the part of belligerent Powers aiteeting "he interest of nations at pence, uniees auch ps etensivns are clearly justified by the lave ee Tue stopping of ch wens, their forcible entrance, mination ot thelr resent and th» overhauling welrare of thelr freight, 4 Los a foreign rruption o: their voyages by compelling’ them to TF (o ReUK FedregM; aNd, above ‘eso prome to accompany Ue exercise of talimited power, Where responsibility is remove; these are, Indeed, serious obstructions, litle likely to be submitted to in the present state of the world without a formidable effort to prevent them. Such |s an authentic history of this British protension, and of the manner in whieh i. has been met by our gov- ernment Av! now tho special argument formerly di- rected by us against this p eve: sion is directed by Great Britain against the preteution of Captain Wilkes to take two rebel emissarirs from a Brivieh packet ship. If Cap- tain Wilkes is right in this prete.sion, then throughout all theso internativnal debates, extending over at least two generations, we have been wrong. but it has been sometimes eaid tie steam packet having on board the rebel em isearies was on this account Hable to capture, and therefore the error of Captain Wilkes in taking the emissaries was simp.y an ertor of form aud not of sub. stance. 1 donot stop to consider whether an exercise of summary power egainst which our government has 80 constantly protested can be under any circum. stonces*an e:ror merely of form; for the policy of cut govertment, most positively declared in ite diplomacy, and a'eo attested in numeroun treaties, leaves no room to doubt that a neutral ship with belligerent passengerr—not in the military or naval rervice—is not liable to capture, and jore the whole proceeding was wrovg, not only because the passengers ttly the abuses vel were taken from the ship, but also because the ehip, how- souver gulity morally. wus not guilty legaily in recsivi such passengers on board. If this question were ar; on English authorities it might be otherwise; but, accord. ing to American principles. the ship was lecally innocent. course, I say nothing of the morsel guilt forever indelli- bie in that ship. In the middie of the last century, the And this curt praposition, though in some resp: cts inde- finite, has been often repeated since by writers on the law of nations. On its face it leaves the question unset- ted, whether the emissaries of an unrecognized govern- meut can bontopped. But there is another case in which the same British judge, who has done so much to illu trate international law, has used language which seems embrace not only authentic embassadors, but also pre- tenders to this character, and all others who are public agents of the enemy. Says this eminent magistrate:— It appears to me on to be but reasonable that whenever it is of sufficient importance to the enemy that uch person be on the and at the should be sent out Pp it should afford, equal ground of forfeiture Mately connected with howile operations. The’ Orowanlo, Robingon Rp. 434. Lacan Admit that the emissaries of an unrecognized govern- ‘ment cannot be recognized as embassadors with the lia- bilities as well as immunities of this character, yet, in the face of these words it is difficult to see how a govern- ment bowing habitually to the authority of Sir William Scott, and regarding our rebels as ‘+belligerents,” con as- sert i pense,’? was, Russell, “pursuing a least, in this assertion, this government secms to turn its back again ypon its own history; or it sets aside tho facts so openly boasted with regard to the public cra- racter of these fugitives. On this question British policy may change with circumstances, and British prece ents may be uncertain, but the original American policy is u.- changeable, and the American precedents which illustrate it are solemn treaties. The words of Vattel, and the judgments of Sir William Scott, were ‘well known to the statesmen of the United States; and yet, in the faco of these authoritics, which ‘have entered so largely into this debate, the Ame- rican government at an early day deliborately adopted a contrary policy, to which, for half a century, it has steadily adhered. It was plainly declared that only sol- diers or could be , thus positively excluding the idea of stopping embassadors, or emissaries of any Kind, not in the military or naval service. Mr. Madison, who more than any other person shaped our national po- licy on maritime rights, has stated it on this question. In his remarkable despatch to Mr. Monroe, at London, dated January 5, 1804, he says:— The article renounces the claim to take from the vessels of the neutral party, on the high seas, pel ever not in the military service of an enem mit to come within the law of traband of war. With this Hom,” toe flag onthe high seas as a safeguard to’ thove ‘State Papers, vol. 3, p. 83. Then again, in the same despatch, Mr. Madison says:— Great Britain, then, must produce an exception in the law of nations in favor of ht she contends for. In what Written and received authority will she ind i? In what consider @ net ailing under tt.— rity usage except her own will it be found? * But nowhere will she find an exception to this freedom of the seas and of neutral flags, which justifies the faking away of any person , not an enemy in military service, fidul on bard atleumal ventas Oe And then, again, in the same despatch, he say: ‘Whenever a belligerent clam against persons on board a neutral vessel is referred to in treaties enemies in military service alone are excepted from the general immunity of per- fons in that situation; and this confirma the im- munity of those who are not included in it.—Tbid., p. 84. It was in pursuance of this principle, thus dearly an- and re inatrue! nounced that Mr. Madison ited Mr. Monroe to propose a convention between the United States and Great: in, containing the following stipulation: — whatever shall, upon the high seas and without the jurisdiction of either party, be demanded or taken out oF ted pacha Ce'the publis ot privaic armed shize belonging ie or private armed a 01 fooridthescrvice of the other, unless guch person be ab the ne tm the military versie of an enemy of such ther party.— hs De Mr. Monroe pressed this stipulation most earnestly upon the British government; but though treated courteously, he cou!d get no satisfaction with regard to it. Lord Har- rowby, the Foreign secretary , in one of his conversations, “expressed a concern to find the United States wo Great Britain on certain great neutral questions in favor of the doctrines of the modern law , which he termed no- veltics.”” (State Papers, vol. 3, p. 99.) Aut Lord Mul- grave, who succeeded this accomplished nobleman, per- severed in the same dissent. Mr. Monroe writes, date of 18th of Ocwber, 1805:— On a review of the conduct of this government towards the United States I am inclined to ghink that the delay which has been so studiously sought ts part of awystem, and thatit te intended, as circuimstances favor, to subject our comme presentand hereafter to every ‘restraint ia their po State Papers, vol. % p. 07. Afterwards Mr. Monroe was joined by Mr. Pinkney in the mission to Londen, and the two united in presenting this same proposition again to the British gevernment. (State Papers, vol. 3, p. 137.) It was rejected, although the ministry of Mr. Fox, who was then in power, seems to have afforded at one time the expectation of an agree- ment. While these distinguished plenipotentiaries were pressing this principle at London, Mr. Madison was main- taining it at home. In an unpublished communication to Mr. Merry, the British Minister at Washington, bearing date 9th April, 1805, which T extract from the files of the State Department, he declared:— The United States cannot accede to the claim of to take from their vessels 0 the high wens any dese persons, except soldiere ib the actual service uf the enemy. In areply, bearing dyte 12th April, 1805, this principle was positively repudifited by the Britisa Minister—so that the two governmonts were ranged unequivocally on opposite sites. The treaties of the United States with foreign nations are in harmony with principle so energetically proposed pheld by Mr, Madisop, In the treaty of commerce with Fiance, in 1778, it is ex- preesly*provided that:— Envmies to both or either party are not to be taken out of the slfd ships, wileas they are madiers aud tn actual service of the enendea.—Statutes at Large, vol. 8, p. In the treaty with the Netherlands. in 1862, the excep- tio is confined to ‘military men actually in the service of an enemy,” (Ibid., p. 38;) and this same exception will algo be found in’ the treaty with Sweden, in 1782, Ibid., p. 64;) with Prussia, in 1785, (Ibid., p. 90;) with pain, in 1795, (Ibid., p. 146:) with France, im 1800, p. 184;) with Coiurabia, in 1824, (Ibid., p. 312;) Tid. (ith Contral Aiserica, in 1825. "(Ibid. ,p. 998:) with Bra- zil, in 1828, (Ibid., p. 393.) with Moxleo, in 1831, (Ibid., p. 416:) with Uhile, in 1892, (Ibid., p.436:) with Vene- zuela, in 1888, (Ibid., p. 472;) with Peru-Boli (Ibid. p. 4003) with’ Kouador, in 1830, (bid... p. 540: with New Granada, in 1846, (Statutes, vol. 9, p. 888 with Guatemala, in 1849, (s.abutes, vol. 110, p. 890; with San Saivador, in 1850, (ibid., p. 894;) and in the treaty with Peru, in 1861, (ibid., p. 986.) "Such is the unbroken testimony, in the most solemn form, to the policy of our government. In some of the treaties the exception is simply *‘soldiers,’’ in others it ts “-othcers oF soldiers.” It is true that among these treaties there is none with Great Britain; but it is als true, that this is simply Decause thix Power refused its asveat when this priuciple was presented by our govern doubted part of international law wh! contirm by treaty. Clearly and beyoud all question, ac- cording to American principles and practice, the ship was not liable to capture on account of the presence of emissaries, ‘not soldiers or oilicers;”? nor could such emissaries be legally taken from the ship. But the completeness of this authority is increased by Bince the peach of Utrecht, in 1713, the poliey of the osu: pence of Utrecht, in 1713, the policy ‘con. Uinental States has refused to sanction the removal of enemies from a neutral ship, unless military mon in active servic-. id now, since this debate has com- menced, we hav. ihe post testimony of the French geyerument to tho same principle, given with special Sforeace tothe preneas cise. BM. Thrayenel, the Beials- ter of the Emperor for Foreign Affairs;“in a recent letter to Mr. Seward, published with the papers now before the Senate, earnestly insists that the rebel emissaries, not being military persons actually im the service of the enemy, were hot subject to seizure on beard @ neutral ship. Tleave this part of the subject with the remark that it is Great Britain whore position on this question can be brought into doubt. But still another question occurs. Beyond ail question, there were ‘‘deapatches”’ from the rebel bel rents on board the ship—such ‘despatches’ as rebels write. Public report, the statement by pe on board the ship, and the boastful decliration of Jefferson Davis in a public document, that these emissaries were pro- ceeding under an appointment from him—which appotnt- ment would be a ‘despatch’ of the highest charactor— seem to place this fact beyond denial, Assuming this fact, the ship was liable to capture and to be carried off for adjudication, according to British authoritics; unless the positive judgment of Sir William Scott in the case of the Atalanta, (6 Robinson R. , p. 440), and also the Queen's preciamation at the commencement of this rebellion where “despatches” are enumerated among contraband a-ticles, are treated as nullities, or so far ified in their application as to be words, and nothing more. But how- ever binding nud peremptory theso authorities may be in Great Britain, they cannot be accepted to reverse the standing poticy of the United States, which here again leaves no room for doubt. In order to give precision to the rights which it claimed and at the same time accord- ed on the ocean, our ¢g°ornment has sought to explain in treaties what it mean ®) contraband. as early as 17065, in the treaty with S).in, after specifying contraband articles, without includig despatches, it is declared that:— Free goods are all other merchandise and which are not comprehended and particularly mentioned im the fore- solng enumeration of contraband goods.—Statutes at Large, vol. By pe In other treaties, subsequent to the judgment of Sir William Scott, recognizing despatches as contraband , and therefore practically discarding it, after enumerati contraband articles, without specifying ‘despatches,’ the following provision is introduced :— All other merchandises and (hinge not comprehended in the classified ax articles of contraband explicitly enum ‘above, shall be held Ang conaitiered. na free.--Jlid, p. Si; Treaty, with Columbia and later treaties passim, Thus we have not only positive words of enumeration without mentioning “despatches,” but also ponitive words of exclusion, so that despatches cannot be con- sidered as contr |. These treaties constitute the conclusive record of our government on this ‘And here let me remark that, while decisions Admiralty Courts on ail these matters are cited, no decisions of our Supreme Court are cited. cour: @, if any oxisted, they would be of the highest value, But there are none, and the reason is ovvious. These matters could not arise before our Swiss professor, Vattc!, deciared that on the breaking out of war wo cease to be wader any obli of leaving the enemy to the free enjoyment ot bis rights ; and thie ciple he applied loesely to the transit of am! ore. (Vatioi, book 4, cap. 7, sec 86.) Sir William Soot, quoting this authority, at’ tho beginning of the century, let fall these Words = barsador of the enemy on ‘ebinoon Ne p44 preseut bell vt th nin psonghect he anaemia, 8 and beyond all hl concurring te.timony of continental of the French government, in the recent {CONTINUED ON EIGHTH PAGE.)