[
246]
‘These principles were laid down, for us, by James Madison, in 1804; when Secretary of State, in the administration of Thomas Jefferson, in instructions given to James Monroe, our minister to England.’
These instructions had relation to the old dispute, between the two Governments, about the impressment of seamen from American ships, and were as follows:—
‘Whenever property found in a neutral vessel is supposed to be liable, on any ground, to capture and condemnation, the rule in all cases, is, that the question shall not be decided by the captor, but be carried before a legal tribunal, where a regular trial may be had, and where the captor himself is liable for damages, for an abuse of his power.
Can it be reasonable then, or just, that a belligerent commander, who is thus restricted, and thus responsible, in a case of mere property, of trivial amount, should be permitted, without recurring to any tribunal, whatever, to examine the crew of a neutral vessel, to decide the important question of their respective allegiances, and to carry that decision into execution, by forcing every individual, he may choose, into a service abhorrent to his feelings, cutting him off from his most tender connections, exposing his mind and person to the most humiliating discipline, and his life, itself, to the greatest danger.
Reason, justice, and humanity unite in protesting against so extravagant a proceeding.’
Mr. Seward after thus quoting, continues:—
‘If I decide this case in favor of my own Government, I must disavow its most cherished principles, and reverse, and forever abandon its essential policy.
The country cannot afford the sacrifice.
If I maintain these principles, and adhere to that policy, I must surrender the case itself.
It will be seen, therefore, that this Government could not deny the justice of the claim presented to us, in this respect, upon its merits.
We are asked to do to the British nation, just what we have always insisted, all nations ought to do to us.’
That is ‘coming down with the corn,’ now, handsomely, but in view of the antecedents of the question, and of the ‘seven days’ pressure under which
Mr. Seward's despatch was written, one cannot help pitying
Mr. Seward.
We not only pity him, but he absolutely surprises us by the fertility of his imagination, in discovering any resemblance between the
Madison precedent, and the case he had in hand.
The British Government was not insisting that
Mr. Seward should send the
Trent in for adjudication.
It did not mean that there should be any adjudication about the matter, except such as it
