hide Sorting

You can sort these results in two ways:

By entity
Chronological order for dates, alphabetical order for places and people.
By position (current method)
As the entities appear in the document.

You are currently sorting in descending order. Sort in ascending order.

hide Most Frequent Entities

The entities that appear most frequently in this document are shown below.

Entity Max. Freq Min. Freq
United States (United States) 42 0 Browse Search
Missouri (Missouri, United States) 28 0 Browse Search
Price 17 7 Browse Search
McCulloch 17 5 Browse Search
Tennessee (Tennessee, United States) 16 0 Browse Search
Lincoln 16 0 Browse Search
John Charles 16 0 Browse Search
John B. Floyd 15 1 Browse Search
William J. Hunter 14 0 Browse Search
John A. Dix 14 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in The Daily Dispatch: November 25, 1861., [Electronic resource].

Found 1,300 total hits in 601 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 ...
may stop its enemy's Ambassador anywhere; but it must take the consequences. If the arrest be made upon neutral territory, the Power to whom such territory belongs will have a right to resist it even to the point of war. It is probable that Seward will not rest his cause upon any such foundation as this dictum His journals already indicate the policy he means to adopt. They say that Wilkes proceeded on his own authority. Seward may disavow the act, and apologise to the British GovernmentSeward may disavow the act, and apologise to the British Government. Perhaps he will affect to punish Wilkes. But whether the British Government will or will not be satisfied with this apology, without the restoration of Messrs. Mason and Slidell, remains to be seen. Certainly, if that Government considers the act an outrage, complete atonement cannot be made without their restoration; and if the British Ministry be satisfied with such an amende as leaves them where they are, it may be taken as conclusive evidence of their utter indifference to the Southern
may if he passes through your territory, or if he be found in a ship of your enemy on the high seas. But is it expressed or implied that you may seize him on neutral ground, or in neutral ships? Can Lord Stowell really have meant to aver that Lincoln could seize a Commissioner from the Southern Confederacy in the streets of Quebec, or on the shore at Havana? Undoubtedly, any power may stop its enemy's Ambassador anywhere; but it must take the consequences. If the arrest be made upon neutrail it was plain they did not need it — that when the world was satisfied of this, it would recognize our Government, and tender its good offices to our people. Nevertheless, it is important to know how far our citizens are protected by a neutral flag on sea or land, and whether there is enough force in that clause in the extradition treaty between England and the United States which excepts from arrest fugitives for political offences, to shield them from the pursuit of Lincoln's emissaries.
The case of Messrs. Slidell and Mason. --The Enquirer, in a long and well considered article in its issue of Saturday, settles, we think, beyond further cavil, the question of right on the part of the Yankee Government to arrest our Commissioners on the deck of a British vessel at sea. The Charleston Mercury, founding its opinion upon a dictum of Lord Stowell, in the case of the Carolina, (6 Rob. Adm. Rep., p. 468,) that a belligerent "may stop the Ambassador of an enemy on his passage,"ty. Seward may disavow the act, and apologise to the British Government. Perhaps he will affect to punish Wilkes. But whether the British Government will or will not be satisfied with this apology, without the restoration of Messrs. Mason and Slidell, remains to be seen. Certainly, if that Government considers the act an outrage, complete atonement cannot be made without their restoration; and if the British Ministry be satisfied with such an amende as leaves them where they are, it may be
territory belongs will have a right to resist it even to the point of war. It is probable that Seward will not rest his cause upon any such foundation as this dictum His journals already indicate the policy he means to adopt. They say that Wilkes proceeded on his own authority. Seward may disavow the act, and apologise to the British Government. Perhaps he will affect to punish Wilkes. But whether the British Government will or will not be satisfied with this apology, without the restoWilkes. But whether the British Government will or will not be satisfied with this apology, without the restoration of Messrs. Mason and Slidell, remains to be seen. Certainly, if that Government considers the act an outrage, complete atonement cannot be made without their restoration; and if the British Ministry be satisfied with such an amende as leaves them where they are, it may be taken as conclusive evidence of their utter indifference to the Southern Confederacy. We have always contended that our people would rely on their own strong resolution and energy to secure their independence — that t
William Powell Mason (search for this): article 1
The case of Messrs. Slidell and Mason. --The Enquirer, in a long and well considered article in its issue of Saturday, settles, we think, beyond further cavil, the question of right on the part of the Yankee Government to arrest our Commissioners on the deck of a British vessel at sea. The Charleston Mercury, founding its opinion upon a dictum of Lord Stowell, in the case of the Carolina, (6 Rob. Adm. Rep., p. 468,) that a belligerent "may stop the Ambassador of an enemy on his passage,"his own authority. Seward may disavow the act, and apologise to the British Government. Perhaps he will affect to punish Wilkes. But whether the British Government will or will not be satisfied with this apology, without the restoration of Messrs. Mason and Slidell, remains to be seen. Certainly, if that Government considers the act an outrage, complete atonement cannot be made without their restoration; and if the British Ministry be satisfied with such an amende as leaves them where they
Quebec (Canada) (search for this): article 1
tions of peace and amity in maintaining which all nations are in some degree interested." "You may stop the Ambassador of your enemy on his passage." Certainly you may if he passes through your territory, or if he be found in a ship of your enemy on the high seas. But is it expressed or implied that you may seize him on neutral ground, or in neutral ships? Can Lord Stowell really have meant to aver that Lincoln could seize a Commissioner from the Southern Confederacy in the streets of Quebec, or on the shore at Havana? Undoubtedly, any power may stop its enemy's Ambassador anywhere; but it must take the consequences. If the arrest be made upon neutral territory, the Power to whom such territory belongs will have a right to resist it even to the point of war. It is probable that Seward will not rest his cause upon any such foundation as this dictum His journals already indicate the policy he means to adopt. They say that Wilkes proceeded on his own authority. Seward may
United States (United States) (search for this): article 1
ent considers the act an outrage, complete atonement cannot be made without their restoration; and if the British Ministry be satisfied with such an amende as leaves them where they are, it may be taken as conclusive evidence of their utter indifference to the Southern Confederacy. We have always contended that our people would rely on their own strong resolution and energy to secure their independence — that they should look nowhere for assistance — that assistance would never be tendered until it was plain they did not need it — that when the world was satisfied of this, it would recognize our Government, and tender its good offices to our people. Nevertheless, it is important to know how far our citizens are protected by a neutral flag on sea or land, and whether there is enough force in that clause in the extradition treaty between England and the United States which excepts from arrest fugitives for political offences, to shield them from the pursuit of Lincoln's emissar
Havana (Illinois, United States) (search for this): article 1
maintaining which all nations are in some degree interested." "You may stop the Ambassador of your enemy on his passage." Certainly you may if he passes through your territory, or if he be found in a ship of your enemy on the high seas. But is it expressed or implied that you may seize him on neutral ground, or in neutral ships? Can Lord Stowell really have meant to aver that Lincoln could seize a Commissioner from the Southern Confederacy in the streets of Quebec, or on the shore at Havana? Undoubtedly, any power may stop its enemy's Ambassador anywhere; but it must take the consequences. If the arrest be made upon neutral territory, the Power to whom such territory belongs will have a right to resist it even to the point of war. It is probable that Seward will not rest his cause upon any such foundation as this dictum His journals already indicate the policy he means to adopt. They say that Wilkes proceeded on his own authority. Seward may disavow the act, and apolog
William N. Kelly (search for this): article 1
and dealers, but seized upon a large amount of personal property, consisting of faro tables, &c., a considerable sum of money, and checks for money, and bore the whole off in triumph. The persons arrested have been indicted for misdemeanor, and their cases are now pending in Court; and the property is held by the authorities, to be hereafter destroyed as the law directs. With a view to test this matter, the counsel for John A. Worsham have instituted a suit in the Hustings Court against Wm. N. Kelly, of the police, for trespass, laying the damages at $5,000. This will bring up the question as to now far a man may be protected in his own domicil, and the decision will be looked forward to with much interest. In addition to the property above mentioned, there is a sum of money, which the Mayor has determined to retain, and has pronounced his judgment final, allowing no appeal. To meet this, a mandomus has been applied for in the Circuit Court, and this opens another interesting quest
John A. Worsham (search for this): article 1
rties of police officers, who not only made arrests of proprietors and dealers, but seized upon a large amount of personal property, consisting of faro tables, &c., a considerable sum of money, and checks for money, and bore the whole off in triumph. The persons arrested have been indicted for misdemeanor, and their cases are now pending in Court; and the property is held by the authorities, to be hereafter destroyed as the law directs. With a view to test this matter, the counsel for John A. Worsham have instituted a suit in the Hustings Court against Wm. N. Kelly, of the police, for trespass, laying the damages at $5,000. This will bring up the question as to now far a man may be protected in his own domicil, and the decision will be looked forward to with much interest. In addition to the property above mentioned, there is a sum of money, which the Mayor has determined to retain, and has pronounced his judgment final, allowing no appeal. To meet this, a mandomus has been applie
1 2 3 4 5 6 ...