The Mason-slidell Affair

Dkíabtmknt oí-' State, ? Washington, December SOili, 1851.$ My Lord - Ei ell's drspatch of November the íil'th, a eopy of have left wiib me :it my request, is oí' the , following effect, nnmely : Tht a letter of Commander illiams, dated royal mail contract boat Trfeiit, at sea, Noromber 9th, Btatss tlmt tliat vessei left vana on the 7th of iNovember, with her Majestj's mails fur England, having on board Dumeroua passengers. Sliortly after noon, on tho 8tli of No veniber, tho United Si ates war steamer 8B Jaciuto, Captain Wilkcs, not showiiig coiors, was observed alicad. Tliat steamer, on being neared by tho Tient, at onc o'clock fifteen minutes in the afternoon, fired a round shot from a pivot gun aeross her bow?, and t.howed Amerieau colors. Whilo tho Treut was apprcaching slowly towards tho San Jacinto, sho dkcíiargcd a shell across the Treiií's bows, whieli esploded at half a eablu's length before her. Tho Trunt then stopped, and an offieer with a large anned guard of marines bearded her. The offieer Baid he had orders ío o Mesera. Masón, Slidell, MeFurland and Eustis, and had tara iní'ormation tliat thoy were passengers in the Treut. - Whilo somc parley was going on upon tHis matter, Mr. Slidell stcpped forward and said to the American oflicer that the tour persons he had nauied were standing Jjciore mui. iuü euiiniiüiiuci ui me Trcnt and eorainaDder Williants protested agaiust tbc act of taking these four pushcugcrs out of the Treüt, thcy theu being ucdcr the protcctiou of tbc British flng. But tbc San Jacinto was at tbis time only two liundred yards dwtant, her fcbip's coiupauy at quarters, her ports opea and tompions out, aiid eo resistuncc was out of tbc question, The four persons before namcd werc then forcibly taken out of tho sbip. A farther darnand was made tbat the commander of the Treut sliouid proceed on board tbc Jacinto, but bc said bo would uot go unless foreibly compelled likewise, and tbis demand wag not insisted upon. Upou tbis statomeüt Earl Kussell remarks tbat it tbus appcars tbat certain individuals bave beeu furcibly takeo from on board a British vcssel, the sbip of a neutral power, wbile tbat vessel was pursuing a lawful aud inuocant voyage ; an set of violfince whiob was an affront to the Britisb flag, and a violatioa of international lw. Earl Russcll next snys tbat Her cft)"s governnient, oeanng m imuü tno friecdly relations which have long subsistled bctween Great Britaiu and the LJnitcd States, are wüling to beliove that the naval oificer who committed the aggrossion was not acting in compliance with auy authority from Lis govcruinent, or that if he couceivud to bo so authorized he greatly misuuderstood the Dstructions he received. Earl Russell argües that the United States must be fully aware that the British governmeut could not allow such an affront oq the natioual honor to pass without full repnvation, and they are willing to belïera that it could not be the i:ite ititcntiua of the gover muent of the United States uiiDCcessarily to f'orce into diseussion between the two goveru niunts a cjuestion of so grave a character, and with regard to which the wliolc British natiou would be sure to eutertain guch unanimity of' feeling. Earl liussell, resting upon the statement and the argument which I have thus reeited, closes with saying that her Majesty's government trust tliat, when this matter shall have been brought uuder the eoni-ideration of the governmeut of the United States, it will, of its own accord, offer to the British government Buch redress as alone cou'.d satisfy the British nation, naiucly, the liberation of the four prisoners taken f rom the ïrent, and their delivory to your lordship, iu order that they may again be placed under British protection, and a suitable apology for t!io aggression which bas been committed. Earl Russell fiually instruets you to propoee these terms to me, if I should not first offer them on the part of this governmout. This dispatch has been eubmitted to the President. The British government has rightly coniecturcd, what it is roy dutv to state, tbat Captain 11 ilkcs, in conceking and cxecuting the proceeding in question, actcd upon hit oten mggcstionn of duty, without any direction, or inslruction, or even forehnowledge of it, en the port of this government. JS'o directiom had been given to liim, or any other naval oficer, to arrest the four persons named, or any of tliem, on the l'rent, or any other Brithh vcssel, at lite place wherc it occurred or elscuhcre. Tiie Britifch government will justly infer from these facts that the United States not only have had no purpose, but even do tho'ught, of foreiDg into discussion thequestion whicli has irisen or any other which could affect in any way the ser.sibilities of the British nation. It is truc that a round shot was fired by the San Jacinto, from her pivot gun ■when the Trect was approaching ; but, as the facts have been reported to tliis government, the shot was, novertlielesB, intentionaüy fired in a direction so obviouslydivergent frora the curse of tljo Trent as to bo quito as harmless as a signal. So, also, we learn that the Trent waa not approaching tho San Jacinto slowly wheu the shell was fired across her bows ; but, cm the contrary. tho ïrent was, or secmed to be, juovinw der a full hcad of steam, as if with a purposo to pass tbo San Jacinto. "We are informcd, also, that tho boarding offioer (Lieut. Fairfax) did uot board the Trent with a largo armcd guard, but he left his marinea in his boat wben lic entercd tho Trent. lic stutcd his inslructions froin Capt. Wilkes to scarch for the four persons named, in a respectful and courteous, tbough decided manner, and he askod the captain of the Trent to show his passenger list, waarefused. Tho Lieutenant, as we are informed, did not employ absolute forco in transferring tho psgiengers, but lio used just so much aa was necessary to satisfy the partios concerned that rofusal or resistanca would bo unava;; So, also, we are informed that tho Captain of tho Trent vrag not at a;:y timo, or in any w;iy, roquired to go 0:1 board the San Jacinto. These modifications of tho case, aa presented by Commander Williams, are based upon our official reports. I have now to remind your Lordship of fiome facts wliich doubtlessly were omitted by Earl Itussell with the very proper and bceoimng motive of allovring them to bc brought into tbfl MWé, on part of the United States, in tlio way most gatisfretory to this governnient. These facta are that, at the time tlie vrnl, au insurréetron was existïog in the United States, which tliis governir.cut was eogaged in suppressing by tlio einployinent oí land u;;i naval forces; tlmt in regard to this domeslio strife, the United Staters considerad Great Britain as a fïiemlly power, vv 1 1 i 1 e she h:s Bísumed tbr herself the tl 6f a neutral] and that Spain was en bidercd in tbc eanie üght, and luis assumed the samo attitude as Great Britain. It liad been settled by correyponclence that the United gtátes and GreatBritain mutááíly recognized as applicable to this local strife these two artiolcs of the doclaration nnulo by the Congress of Paris n 1856, namely: That the neutral or friendly flug sho'uld cover eneray's goods not contraband of war, and that neutral goods, not contraband of war, are not liíibla to catitúre ander w enemy's flag. These exceptions of eontraband from favor were a negativo accoptanco by the nartiea of tlie ru!c hitherto evorywhove ïecögriïwd as a part of the hw of nations, that whatcver is contraband is Uable to capturo and eouüscation iu all cases. James M. blasón and McFarland are citizens of tho United States, and residents of Virginia. Johu fclidell and (íeorga Eustis aro citizens of the United States, and residents of LouÍ6Íana. It was well know.1 at Havana, wheh tbese parties erabarkcd ou the Trent, that James M. Muson was proocedir.g to England in the ufl'ected eharaeter of a Ministor Pleuipotoutiary to the Court of St. James, under a pretended comiuissiou from Jefferson Dana, who bad a?sumed to be President of tlie insurrectionary party in the United States, and MeFarland was going with hipa ín a like unreal eharaeter of Secretarj of Lojjation to the pretended mission. John Slidell, iu similar circumstances. was going to Paris as a pretended Minister to Üic Kinperor of the French, and George Eustis was the choêen Secrotarj of Legation for that simulated mission. Tho fact that these persons had assumcJ sueh characters has been sir.ee showed by the same Jeft'erson Davis, in a pretended message to au unlawful aud and insurreetionary Congress. It was, as we think, rightly presumed that these Ministers bore pretended credeutials and instructioas, and sueh papers are, in the hiw, known as diepatches. We aro iuforuied by our Consul at Paris that these dispatches, having escaped the search o: the Trent, wcro atftually conveycd ant delivered to emissaries of the insurree tiou in England. Althougii it is not essential, vet it is proper to state, as I do a'so upon iufor mation and belief, that tho owncr anc , and all the oiiieers of the Trcut ineluding the Commacder, Williams, hac knowledge of the assumed diameter anc purposes of tho persons before uaniei when they embarked on that vcssel. Your Lordship wttl now perceive that the caso before ub, instcad of presenting Li mcreiy uagram uci ui viuujulu uu mu part of Captain Wilkes, as might well be iuferrcd ñ'Oiu the incomplete statement of it that went up to tlio British onvernmer.t, was uudertaken aa a simple, legal, customary and belligereut proceeding by Captain Wilkes to arrest and capture a neutral vessél ebgaged ia carrying contraband cf war for the use and benefit of the insurgents. Tlio question béSom us is, whether thig proeccding was authorized by, and condueted according to the law of nationa. It iuvoives the following inquir-ieg : lst. fero the persons ramed and their suppoüed dispatehes coutruband of war ? 2d. Might Captain Wilkes lawfully stop and searcli the Trcnt for thcEO contraband persons and dispatehes? 3d. Did he eserciso that right in a lawful and proper manner ? Ith. Having fonnd the contrabatid persons on board, and in presuined possession of the contraband dispatehes, had ko a right,to capture the persons? 5th, Did hc cxercise that right of capture in the manner allowcd and recognized bv the law of nations ? If all these inquirios shall be resolved in the affirmative, the British goverament will have no claim for roparátion. I address royself to the lirst inquiry, namely : Were tho four persons raeutioned, and their supposod dispatuhes contraband ? Maritime law so gencrally deals, as its professors say, in rem., that is, with property, and so scldom witii persons, that it seenas a straiuing of the term contraband to apply it to thum. But peraons as well as property may beconie contraband since the word means, broadly, " contrarv to uroclaniation, prohibited, Ilegal, unlawful." Allwritcrs and judgea pro1OUQC6 naval or military persous in tbc service oí tho cneniy con traband. Vattel saya: War allows us to cut off "rom an ouemy all liis resources, aud to l.iin trom gending mini&tcis to solioit assistance. Aud Sir Wilüam Scott sayg : You niay stop tho ambassador of your encniy on Uis pasiage. Do spatches are not lesa clearly contrabaud, and tbo bearers or ooariera wbo uudertako to earry tbein fall undcr tbo same coudemuatiou. A subtlety might be raieod whethcr pretended ministers of an usurping power, not recognized as ltgal by oither the belligeront ür the neutral, could be held to be contraband. Uut it would disappcar olí being aubjected to what is tho trua test in all cases, uamely : tho spirit of tho law. Sir Waltcr Scott, speaking of civil magistrales wbo vere arrested and dotained as contraband, says: ' It appüur.s to me on principie to lm ! but reasonablo tbat when it is' of suffieient importance to tho enemy that such persons ehoald bo eent ont on tho publio Bervice, at tho public eKp it should afford equal grqund of forteiture aga.nst tho vcssel tb: t may bo let out tor a purpose so intimatoly coaaected wjlh the hoStile operationt." I trust that 1 havo shown that the foui' porsonK who wero takon from tbc Trent by Cuptain Wilkffl, and their dispatches, were contrsband of war. Tho second inqtiiry i, whe'.hcr Captaia Wüke.s liad a right by tho law ol .tions to detain ;w;d Besjroh the I Treut? TheTrcnt, thnugfa sho cnrrioü maüs, was a coiilrüi!' or mero;:'.nt vessel, a cornmpn carrier, ior here maritime law knows oaly tbree elaisci of vcssels - 'csscis of war, revenuo vessels and té. Thd Trent fulls vithin the tattsr clasa. Whatever discutes have cxisted üODcernjing b f visitation or search in timo oí neace, lone, it ia eu.ppos&d, haa eSistod in modern tirnea ubnut the righte of a jelligeront in timo of war to captare ontrubnnd in neutral and even iiioudly mcrcbant veesels, and of the rigbt of risitöüon and searph, in o: der to deormino whuther they aro neutral, r.nd 'ocunif.Mitod as such according to tho aW of nati.iüs. I nssuiro in tlio ])resont caso wht, is I read in tlio British authonitwa, is regarden! by Great Britain herself as marifime law, that the cirerrmstnnco that tho Trent was proceediag rom a neutral port to another neutral 3ort does not modify the righta of tho jelligeront power. The third question is whethor Captain Wil!:cH esercisiïd the right of search in a lawíul and proper marmer. If any doubt hung over this point, as tho case was presentod in the statement oí il adopted by tho British government, I thiuk it must huve already passed iiway before tho modificatíons of thát statement wbich I have already submitted. I proceed to tlie fourth nquiry, nameíy: Having found tbO suspeoted contraband of -war on board the Trent, had Captain Wükes a right to capture the enfrie? Suoh a capture is the chief, ii' not tho only rccogni.cd object of tlio perrnittod visitation and eearch. The principie of the láw is, that the beUigerent exposad to daDgcr rnay prevent the contraband persons or thinga from applyiug thamselves, or being appliêd, to tho hoetile uses or purposes dewigiied. 'Jüe law is ao very liberal in this respect that, whoi) contrabatid is found on board a neutral vessel, not only is the contraband forfoited, but the vessel which is tho ehiclö of its passage or transportation, being tainted, also bocomes contrabaad, and is subjcctcd to capturo and coufiscatión. Only tho fiith question remains, nümely : Did Captain Wilkos exercise tho right of oapturing the contrabaad in cobformity wifh the law of nations: It is jast hero that. tho Öifficulties of toe caso begin. Wliut is the maiiuer which the law of nations prescribes for disposing of the contruband vvhcn you l:avo fouad and soized it oü board of tte neutral vessel ? The anewev would bé easiiy found if tho question werè, What Shhll you do willi the contrabaiui vessel ? Yuu must take or sond her into a eonventent port, and subject hor to a judicial proheoution there in ad mimi tv, which will trv and decide the questiona of belligerency, neutrality, contrabatid and capture. So,. ngain, you vrill promptly find the same answer if the queation were, Wliat ia the mannor of proceeding prescribed by tho law of nations in regard to the contrattaad, if it bo properly or thiugs of rnatorinl of peouniary valuo? But the question bere concerns tha mode of procedure in regard, not to the vessel that was carrying the contrrtband, nor yet to tho contraba nd things wliich worked Iho forfeiture of the vessol, but to contraband persons. Tho books of law are dnmb. Yet the quatioJ3 is as important as it is difficult. First, the belligerent captor has a right to prevent the contraband oflicer, soldier, minister, messenger or carrier, ffom procëoding in liis unlawful voyage, nnd reaching the des'.ined óf hiLi iiijurious service. But, on the other hand, íhe person capturad muy be inoocent ; that is, he may not e contcaoana, Ho iherefore has a right to a fair rial of the accusation against him - ho neutral State that has taken him nder its flag is bound to protect him F he is not contrabatid, and is therebre cntitled to bo satisfiod upou that mportant questioo. The faith of' that Stute is pledgcd to his safety, ií inflonnt, as its justico ia pledgod to his urrender, if he is roally oontraband. Here are conflictino; claims involving -icrsonal liberty, liíe, honor and duty. Joro are eonflicting national eJaims nvolving warfare, safoty, honor and empire. They require a tribunal and a trial. The captors and the captüred are equals; the neutral and the belligerent State are equals. Whilo the law authoritiés were found silent, it was suggested at an early day by this govenunent that you should AÍÍU LlIU üll[HUlöU piílMMIS 1!HU U culivcniont port, and instituto! judicial proceedingf, there to try the cnntrovorsy. But only cnurts of admiralty havo urisdiction in maritimo cases, nnd tbeso oourts have formulas to try only claims to contraband chattels, but none to try claims cmcerning contrahand persons. TiiG courts can entertain no proceedíngs and render no jnclguiont in f.ivor or ngainst the allegod contrabatid men. It was replied, all this ïs true ; but yor. can roach in these courts r decisión whioh vvill havo the moral weight of a judicial ono, by a ctrouitoos proceeding cor.vey the suspec'ed men, together with ihe Kuspooted vossel, into port, nnd try thore the quostion whuther tho TOssel is aontraband. Yon can provo it it to bo so by proving tho suspected men to be contraband, and tho court must then dötovmino tho vossel to bo contraband. If the mon aro not contraband tho vesKül will escape condemnation, Slill is thoro no judgment for or against 1 110 oaptnred persons. But it was assumed that there would result from tho dotermínation of the eourt conceming tho reeen] a legal certainty coneerninír tho character of the men. This oourse of procoeding seerned open to many bjectkiDs. It clevates tlio incidental inferior private interest into the proper place of niiiny main paramount puh'ic ones, and possibly it may make tho fortunes, the safety or tho existenoe of n nalion depend on tho accident of a merely personal and pocuniary litigatióD. Morcover, whon tho judffmont of Ihu Prizo Conrt upon the lnwfulness of the capture of tlio vessels is rendered, t real]} concluded nothinw nnd binds nclthor tlio belligercnt Stato nor the neutral upon tho great question of tho dispofition tobe made of tho oaptured oontraband persona. That qucstion is stili to bo really detormined, if at aH, by diplomatic arrangement or by war. One mny -well express hrs (surprise when told that lbo law of nationa has füii:;sho-! no more roasonablo, pra and perfect modo Iharj this of det'ormiwng qoeations of such grave import botween sovereign powere. Theregret we muy foei on lbo occasion is n'eyertheloss m'odified by th.) reflecticn that tlio diílksulty is not altogathor nnomalous. Similar and enual deíkier.cies are found in cvurj' svetem of municipdl !aw, espeeiiilly íb tlie system wliich exists in the ereater portions of Ort Britio and the United StatBü. Tha to persona! property can liaidly over le resolved by a coiirt' without resottiog to the ficüon thnt Iba chiimant bas lost, and the poasessor has found it; and tiie title of reftl estáte ii disputed by renl liíigant under the carnea of ímnginarjr persoiu. It nnist be co.nfeased, however, that, wlnle all Rgrjrieved nations demand, and all impartía! ones concede, the need of som form of judicial process in (leterrn iuing tbe characters of eontraband persons, no form Ü.hu the íltógical and cir eaitous one thu cteseïibed exista, nor has anv othor vet been sugprested. ly," thetüfoie, the choiee is between thnt judicial rsmeJy, or no judicial reraedy ' whatever. ' If thei'fl lo no judicial reinody, the remlt is tli.-.t the queslion nuisl b dètertnined by tlie captor liimself on tlie deck of the prize vesse!. Very grave objeclion ave agiiiit stich n ccurse. The cnptor is arme'd, tho neutral is unarmed. Tbe captor is interuí-teJ, prtJLidiced, and perhapa violent; tlie neutral k truly neutral, is disintere?ted, sutdued and helplesa. The tribunal is irraspöpeible, Wbile is jèdgmcnt is cartiid into instant execution. The captured party is compelled to snbir.it, though bounJ ly uo legal, inora! or treaty of oUigatibo to acquiesce. Reparution is distüiit und problenmlical, fttid dopend at last on the justice, inngnaui uiity or wcüknisi uf the State in wi,u.-.o bolüilf nd by vvhose authority the cpture wus made. Out of tlujse disputes, reprsflls and wars necesaavily nrise, and (hese are so freqtieBt and destructiva that it may wMI be ed uhether this form ot' remedy is uut a preste Boeing evü tl. hu bü that coirfd ful luw il' ih.i belligferent light of seaich were universally repöunced iuid abölüheJ forcvcr. Bnt carry tliu asa ovie step fartbcr. What if the State tbat had imule the Capture uur'asoii!iblv refases to Lear tliy eomplaiot of the öeutral or to rethess il! In lliat cnse the very ct of capture wouU be an iict of war, of war l.egiin without notice, aud poasibly entiroly without prov ocatiou. I think all unprejudiced minda will Lrüe that, imperfect as the exietiivg judicial rcinedy may be aupposed to be, it would be as i general practice, better to fjllow it thun to a.lopt the suinmarv one of leaving tho decisie wilh tbe captor, and telyiog upon diplomatic dtbates to review his decisión, l'ractically it is a qiiestion of choice belweon hnv, with its iroperfectioos and delays, aud war, witb ita evü.s and desulations. Nor is it ever to bo PqrgoUen that neutrality, honostlv au 1 justly pivserved, is always the Laibiqgor of poace, and is therefore the common interests of uaticM, whieh is only sayitig that it is the iutetest nf bnmaniiv itself'. Al the same time it is not t be denied I tliiit it may sometfmes happen tbnt the ] judicial retn&ly w 1 11 become imponible - i as by the sbipttiotít of tbe piize vessels, i or othor eircHmstunccs, whieh excuse the captor fiom sendiiig or ■takir.g her iuto pott fot coufiscHtion. I n such a caso Üie riglit of tle captor to tbe custody of the red persons, and to dispose of tbem, ií' tbey no rñaüv CDiiutrabar.d, bo as to dcjfcftt Uiew uubtwful purpose, eaanot reasonalilv bo denied. WLftt rule lall be nppliecl ín sucli a casa? Cleárly tbe captor ouglit to be required to sliow tliat tbe failure of tbe judicial rpnieily resulta froni circumsUiuces beyoud Lia control and without bis fault. Otberwiee lie would be allowcd to derive advar.tage from a wrongfui act of bis own. In tlie present case, Captain Wilkes, after captiuing tbe contraband persons mè niaking piizj of lbo Treat, in wbat seems to us a perfectlv lswful raatmer, insioad of nending lier into port, released her froia tbe capture, and pennitted bor to pruceeü wiiu nar wuoia cargo upou iir vüvnge. ' Ile thus eflFi'clually prevented the judicial examination whicl) rnight otlierwise have occurred. If, now, the cnpture of the counlrabaod persons, and the capture of the contrabatid vesscl, aie to be regurded, not as two separable or dUtioct transiictions ander the Inw of natioDs, luit as ona íraneactioti, eme captura only, tten it follona that the capture n ihi case was left unfiiiished or wan abandoned. WliethtT the United States have a right to retaiu the chief public botieflts of it, narnely, the captuied persons, on proving thein to be contrabaud, wil] depend npoo the preliminary question whether the laaviug of the Iransaction unfinished was necessary, or whether it was unnecessary, and, thureloro, violentary. If it was neirj, (re:it Britain, as we siipposs, must, of course, wave the dofyet, atn! tha cri,seijiient faiJure of the judicial reroedv. On ilie olher hand, it s no' seen liow (.Lo United States can insist upou her waver of tibat juJioial retnedj, it' the dofcct of the capture resultad froin au aet of Oaptaio Willses which would be a fault on thoir own fiide. (japtaiq Wilkes has prosented to this governtnept h3 reasocs for releasing tho Tror.t. " I forebora to seize lier," ho Rfiys, " in eonsequeaoa of rny being so raduced in officers and crew, and the derangement it wauld causa innocouL persons, tliere being p, hirto number of passengors wlio wonld havo beon put to gieat nss and iuconvenienOB, aa well w tlisappointment from the iritenuption it would have caused thera, in not büing abla to jciu the steuuer frora St. Tilomas to Euroj-e. '' I therefbre conchided to escrifice the interests of ïny officers and crew in tho prize, aml sufi'ered her to proceed, after the dotenfion riecessary to cflecl the transfer of those Commissioners, cousiflerinw 1 had obtaiueil the ttjportant end 1 had in view, and wliich ifircied the interent of our country, aud nterrupteB tbeHclion of tliat of the Confederateï." I sliall considar, first, how tliese reasous ought to affect tlio actipri o thisgovernment, mi; 1, eeeondly, how üiey ouglit oxpcled to atleet tho action of Great Brijtaiii. Tla rehors are satwfoterv to tisis gf:Ví3inmcnt so lar as Captai6 VVilbes is concrted. It cnuld nct dssie tbat tho S.m J cif.t.0, her ofiicers nnd crew, shoul j dangtr and loss Ly wéakéning tlieir tiuitiber toclelaeh a pviae crew lo go cw boaiJ thu Treut. Still lesa eould t disovoy the humane motive of presenting nconVenïencB!, lowes, mui porhnps disasters to the several hundred iüöocent passengers foand on board the piila vessel. Nor couttl this government percaive any grouad for qúestioéing tte fact that tliftaa na, tbougb appatently iöcongrnwio, litd operste n tl Bliod of Cnplnin Wilkee, and detorminei! bim to leleasu llie Trent. Human ctious iiRturnlly pro! ccíd upon miogled urui sometímei confic!ÍnT motives. He rnemtired th scrificva which ti.ii decisión would cusí. It aauifestl, howevcr, dd r.ot occur to liim tlmt bejond the acrifices of tbe prívate intcrests (as lie calla thra), ef Lia ofíicersi and crew, tliere niight, siso, poMÍbty be sncrifices eveo of the chief and public obj.ct of bis capture, oamelj, tb riglit of hi governmeut to tbe custodj aud difcpoBitioti of tbe captured persons. TKi ocirnrnmfiiit pannot censure bim for tbis ovursight. It coufesea tht the wlwle subject carne unforesern upen ttiia povernmeut, as doultlesí t did upon hitn. lts present conviction on the poÍLt in queilioD are tlie results of delibérate exuniiuation anr] deductioii now made, and Dot of aiij' ioiprestiona previously formeel. Nuveillielesí, the rjuesüon co i, uot whctber Cwptain Wilkes is justifiad in w!mt lio di(!, but what is t)e proscnt vii;w of the governirent as to the effect of what he fraï done. Assuraing now, for arpu meut'a sake only, thüt tli re!cae of l'ií Trent, if voluntnrily, invoUad a wavor 91 the duim of the governraent lo hulJ tt.c capturad pcrsous, tlia United State cuuld, ii l'.at caso, have no besiluliun in síying that the act, which has thus alieady bfc!n approved by tho governmeut, must he itilüweil to draw its U'gul cotuequencea after it. Il is of tho very nature of n gift or a chaKtv that the giver cauuut, after the exorcise of liis benevoience in past, reca!! oí' modify its benefits. W' mo thus brouglit directiy to tho questioo whttbsr wo are entitled to iegïud the release of the Trent as tarv, or whuther wo ai ob'igfPU to conder tbat t was voluntar. ClearJj, the rwlenso wouM havo been iuvcluutiuy had it been made solely opon the firtt grouód sssígned for it by Captain Wilkès, cauiel_v, a want of siifticitjul forco to send Üi jjrÏM vossel iuto port for ii'ijuJicaüon. It is not the duty of a to Lszaril l.is iiwd veasel in order to.èsónre a judi cial cxaminatioa to the ctipttired party. No large prize crew, Lowever, is Ugslly uecessary, for it is iha July of tlie captined party to Sequile and go willingij befurt tko tribunal to-wbosa jurisdiciion it appaals. If the csptOffcd party indicatod proposes to etnploy tnennsof rosislauce vhich the captor eanuot, with probable safcty to himaelf, overeóme, lie may propriy lcav tho vewl to go forward, and ueitber she nor the State she representa can ever after wurda justly object that the captor dej.rived lier of the judicial reiueJy to which she wal entitled. Butthosccond reason asaignedby Capt. Wilkes for releasing tbe Trent dift'eis fiom the first. At best, tbeiefure, it umst te held tlmt Osptain Willjes, as he explaius bimelf, acted from canrbiued entiuints of prmlence ik! generosi'y, and so that Ibe release of the prize veasei was not stricllj noce4È!ir' ur ii.voluntnrly. Sacfindlj - How ouglit we lo cxpect ibése explaaations y OapUin Wilke of liis owti K'i8o:is for Ieaviug (Le capturo iBCOrnpk'to to fttt'éCt tbo actioD oí t Lio Britisb governioenti Tbe obiervation upon tbis poitit nhich fiist occius ia, thfit Capt. Wilkes' explanatioD8 türe uot made to the authonuea of the cuptured vessel. If made known to them, they ruight lnive approïcd atid taken tho release, upon tbe conctition of waving a judicial investí oaiiuu ui' the wliola tiausactioD, or tbe)' migbt Lave refusad to sccept the release UDon anv condition. But the eafce is one not with tliera, but with the Biilish Govtrnment. If we claim tlint Great Brituin ought uot to iasist Üiat a judicipl trial ha been lost bocause we voluotarily reieased the utfoiiding vessel, out of cousideration for her innocent pasSengrri, I do not see how alie is to be bouud to acquieseoiu the decisión wbich was time made by us without necesfiity on onr part, and without knowledge of conditions or cons:t on her owu. The queslioo between Great Britaio and ouvselves, tlais slatod, would be a qucstion not of righl and of law, but of favor to be coöoeded by her to in in rsturn for favora ahown by us to her, of tho valne of which favor on both iides we ourseivea shull be tho judge. Of cours the United Stiieseould have no thought of raisiog such a quetion in any casa. 1 trust I hare ahown to tlie Katisfaction of tlie Britixh Government, bj a very simple and natural statement of tlie fnets and anulysis of tlie law applicatie to thew, tbat thisgovcrnment has neither meditated uur practicad nor approvoil auy delibérale wrong in ti lo tranwotion to whiih they have called ta altention; and, on tlie coutrary, that wliat ha liappcned has been BÍmply an nadvertericy, ooniitting u a deiarturo by tlie naval ofllcor, free from any wrongful inotivc, frora a rule uncertainly establiahed, aud piobably by the several parties concerned either impeifactly mdevstood or eiitiivly uukuown. For this error the British govaimcent has a riglit to expect the sanie reparation that vp, a an independent State, should expect from G ret Britain, or from any other friendly naliou, in a similar case. I h:ive iiot been unaware tlmt, in ox ftimning this questioü, I lmv fallen into in argument for wht seems lo be the Britisli side of it an;ainst my own country. Bul I ara relieved f(om nll euibanassinent on that suljtict. 1 had BCüicely fallen into that line of argument, hen í discovered that I wsa rü.'illv defendiog aad mRiataiuing iiot an BclusiV3j British inteiest, but an oíd i Iionoroil bb3 eherished American cnuae, not upon Brili.:l ai}tliorities, but upo:i principies that coiMtituta a large portion , of tlie ('stiiH'üve policy by wbich the i United Stalsa lmve dsvelopptl tU) ! cor of a continent, rvA thus, bccoiuing ni conai'lerable maritiine powor, bsvo won the repect and confiJence of mtry r. tions Tb'se pvincipioR wnro lai'i lovn f.r u iri 180-1, ly Jninn Mudison, whon Storetary of State in tbe au.iiinistraüon of Thonifís JefTereon, in ntruetioi)8 given to Jamas lonrof, our Mitiistar tu Englf.ii'i, Allliougll Üj c-fise boforí )iim concern cd n deícription of person ! iíl'arent l'roin tbosa wlio rq incideutlr the snbjects ot' i))o iisc-nt cliscassibn, the groiidd he n?sumeil t!ian was tli ame 1 now ocoupr, nr.il tho nrgatnents hj wbich he anstainad himaelf iipon it hnve beenan inspiration to ms in preparing tb reply. " Whenever," lie says " property'found in a neutral, is aupposed to be üablo on any ground to cvptnrc and condcmoktioo, tho rule in nll cases i., ttiiit the qinition hall uet be decicleil b_v the captor, but b carried beforo legal tribunal, when a regulnr trial niav ha liad,nd wliere the captor liimsKlt' is Hallo to damages for an abuse of li is power. " Cn it be rensonable then, or just, that a belligerentcommanrler, wlio is tlnis reetricted, aid thus reeponaible n a cn?e of mere property, of trivial miount, s!ioul.i be permitted, without recurring lo any tiibunal whatever, to examine the error óf a neutral vessel, to decide the important question cf their respective allegiancea, and to c.irry tliat decisión into execution by forcing eYery individual he may choose into a SBivice abhorred to bis (wünffs, ting him offfrom his most tender concisaion, exposing hia mind and Lis ptrson to the most humiliating discipline, and liis lifc itwlf to the greatest dangera ? Reaison, jiutice anü humanitj uuite in protestmg agninst so extravagant a proceeding." If I decide this case iu favor of my own governrnent, I nuist dWílotr its tnot cherished principies, and raveise and forever abandon it.s essential polioy. The country cannot afford tlie sacrifice. If I ïr.aintain these principies and aaltere to tluït policy, I imist surreuder tbe ca6e itself II will 1 seen, Üierefore, tlial this gov(■inmt-tit could not deny ihe juslice of the claim presented to ua in tliis respect upon ila inerita. We are asked to do to the British rution just what we have always insisted ui! naüoris ouglit to do to us. Tbo claim of the British government ia not made in a discourleous manner. ïhis government since its first organization, bas never used more qualified In comÍDg to my conclusión, I have not fotgolten tliai, if the safety of this Union ivquiied the detention of the capturpd persons, it would be the right (md duty of this goveniment to detain hem. Bul the tffectual check aud waning proporlions of the existfng nsurrection, as ell hs the comparative unimportance of (lio captured persons tbemselves, when dispiibsionately weighed, hn) pily forbid me fruni resorliog to that dcfenca. Nor aio I aware that American citizeu8 are not in nuy case to be punèceBaritj surrendered for atiy pnrpose into the kping of a foreign State. Ooly the captured persons, however, or olhcrs who are inttiostcd in thom, could joiutlv raise a questisn ou lliftt giouud. Not have I boen templed at all by snggesüom that cases Hi%ht be fouud in hñtory where Groat Iï itain rofused to yicld to other nations, and even to ourselves, claims like that vvhich ia now befrwa na IL-i c ua. These cases occurred when Great Britiiiu, us well as the Uailod Stntes, was the home of generatioiis Licli, with all tlieir peculiar iuiarests aud passiou?, havo pas'ed away. She could in r,o otlier way so effoctually disavow anv such inquirios, rs we Üiiük bho does now, by ifsuming, as der own, Iho ground iipoif which we stood. It would teil liule for her claims to the charaeter of a juat and magnanimous peopip, f vo should so fnr consent to be guided by Üie law of retaliatinu a& lo lift up huiied ii.juvy frora their graves to opposi agaiust whatcationa! consistency and ihe natiunal fotiscience eo.mpel us to regard as n claim inti infically right. Putting bohind me all tuggetions of this kiud, I prefer to express my Batiafiiction tliat by the adjustment of the j)resent case upoo principies confessedly American, and vet, as I trust, niulually satist'aclory to both of tbe nations conceiner!, a question vvaa flnally and rigbtly settled betweeo theni whicb heretoforu extiausted rot only all forras of peaceful discussion, but also ibe arbitrament of war itself, for inore than half a centiiry alienated the two countries f rom each other, and perplexed wilh fears and ajiprobensions all tli3 other nations. Tlio foor persons in q nest ion are now held in military custody at Fort Warren, in the Stale of Massachusetts. ïhcy will be cheoifully liberated. Your Lordship will pWase indioate a time and place lor recaiving thein. I avail mysolf of ihia occasion to offer to your Lordship a rspetud asuirance of uiy very high con?ideration. WILLIAM II. SEWARD.