Latest News,
by
special express.
Through a special source we are in possession of Baltimore and Washington papers of the 24th ult. Our latest files from these cities were to the 21st.
We have already published New York Intelligence of the 25th, which, however, old not comprehend the news we now subjoin, to any material extent:
[from the Baltimore Sun. Sept. 23d.]
Decision of a Prize Question — Important Opinion of Judge Giles--The Seceded States Declared to be Belligerents. In the United States District court on Saturday Judge Giles filed the following important opinion. Judge Giles prefaced the reading of his opinion with the remark that the questions involved in the case were of the most interesting and important character, and in a manner new, the Court not having been called upon to decide upon questions of prize for forty years and upwards, or since the war of 1812. The Court also paid a high compliment to the State's Attorney and the counsel for claimants, (A. S. Ridgely, Esq.,) for the which they had exhibited in the argument of the case. In the District Court of the United States for the brather of Maryland, September Term. -- The United States vs. the Schooner F. W. Johnson. This is a libel filed on behalf of the United States to for felt the schooner F. W. Johnson as a prize of war. The bill alleges that the said schooner was captured by a vessel-of-war of the United States about twenty-five miles to the southward of Cape Henry, in the Atlantic ocean, having on board at the time about twenty-eight tons of railroad iron.--That the said cargo of railroad iron was saved by the said schooner for the use of the Norwegian bark Albion, which had been cast away about the 1st of May last at the spot where the capture was made. That the said schooner belonged to the port of Norfolk, in Virginia, and was owned by citizens of said State--a State at that time claiming to have separated from the United States and, with other Southern States then waging open war the United States by the various modes of warfare usual among hostile nations, and that the said schooner left her ports Virginia bound to some port South of Maryland, with intention to discharge her cargo in such Southern port. Before I discuss the facts of this case as presented to the courts in the pleadings, answers to the interrogatories in preporterio, and other evidence in the case, I will state what I believe to be the law of nations in reference to the first question which has been so ably argued by the learned counsel. It has been contergaled by the counsel for the claimants that in the present unhappy division in our country the Government at Washington has no power, either under the Constitution of the United States or by the recognized principles of the law of nations, to treat the inhabitants of the States which claim to have acceded as enemies, and to exercise in reference to them those belligerent rights which all concede belong to parties engaged in a public war. And by a public war is here meant a war between independent sovereign States. Now, I am sitting in this case, in Prize Court, and the Supreme Court said, the case of the Rapid. S Cranch's reports, 155, and the schooner Adeline and cargo 9 Cranch, 264, ‘"that the law of prize is a part of the law of nations."’ And I am, therefore, to decide this question by the principles of that universal law to which all civilized princes and States acknowledge themselves to be subject. In the first place let us see what is the character of the present contest in this country, and in what light it has been regarded by the executive and legislative departments of the Government. In the face of all that is passing around us, it needs no argument to show that a civil war of gigantic dimensions is sweeping over the land. We are almost within sound of the cannon of two of the largest armies that have ever been marshaled in hostile array against each other on this continent. More than one-third of the Confederacy has claimed to separate from the rest, and they are now fighting about the construction of the organic instrument of the Government--one side alleging that under a true construction of the Constitution each State has a right to withdraw from the Union whenever its people so determine; the other that no such right exists, and that to attempt to secede is rebellion, and not the exercise of any constitutional right. And in the States which have claimed the right to withdraw there are now open no courts of the United States, and the laws of the United States cannot now be executed in those States by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings. Is this not civil war? and has it not been so regarded by the executive department of the Government. This is clear from the proclamations of the President of the 15th of April. of the 19th of April, of the 27th of April, of the 2d of May, and of the 10th of May--all recognizing the fact that the power of the Government is no longer capable of enforcing the laws, and calling to its aid the power intended to be provided by the acts of 1795 and 1867, and, also, using the power of blockade, a war power belonging only to belligerents either in a civil or foreign war. And the legislative department has also recognized this contest as a war. For, during the lost session of Congress, it not only did so by the laws which it passed for the raising of armies and providing means for their support, but in express language, on (four) different occasions, as will be seen in reference to the laws of the extra session of July last, pages 268, 274, 315 and 326. And the last law (page 326,) to which I refer, not only recognized a war as existing, but it approved and sanctioned all the proclamations of the President, thereby, making valid the blockade declared by the President in his proclamations of the 19th and 27th of April, if the President alone, ‘" as Commander-in-Chief of the army and navy of the United States,"’ did not possess this power under the existing circumstances of the country. The Supreme Court, (Chief Justice Thiney delivering the opinion,) in the case of Lether Borden and others, (7 Howard, 45,) says: "Unquestionably a State may use its military power to put down an armed insurrection too strong to be controlled by the civil authority. The power is essential to the existence of every Government, essential to the preservation of order and free institutions, and is as necessary to the States of the Union as to any other Government. The State its if must determine what degree of force the crisis demands, and if the Government of Rhode Island deemed the armed opposition too formidable, and so camifined throughout the State as to require the use of its military force, and the declaration of martial law, we see no ground upon which the Court can question its authority. It was a state of war, and the established Government resorted to the right and wedges of war to maintain itself and overcome the unlawful opposition. Now, what say the writers on the law of nations: Vattel says, in book 3d, is page 42½ "When a party is formed in State are who no longer obey the sovereign, and are possessed of sufficient strength to oppose him, or where, in a republic, the nation is divided into two opposite factions, and both sides take up arms, this is called a civil war. Some writers confine this term to a just instruction against their sovereign, to distinguish that lawful resistance from rebellion which is open and resistance. ‘"But what appellation will they give to a war which arises in a republic form by two factions, or in a monarchy between two competitors for the crown? Custom appropriates the term civil war to every war between the members of our and the same political society."’ And Wheaton, in his great work on international law, says, on page 365, ‘"a civil war between the different members of the same society is what Grotius calls a mixed war.--It is, according to him, public on the side of the established Government, and private on the part of the people restating its authority. But the general usage of nations such a war titling the contending parties to all the rights, of general against each other, and even as respects neutral nations."’ Judge Chase, of the Superior Court in the case of Ware vs. Hilton and others, Dallan , speaking of the effect of the act of the Virginia Convention in June, 1778, and the Declaration of Independence by Congress on the 4th of July following, says: ‘"Before these acts of separation from the crown of Great Britain, the war between Great Britain and the Colonies, instantly, on that great and ever memorable event the war changed its nature and became a public war between independent Governments; and immediately thereupon all the other rights of an independent nation attached to the Government of Virginia."’ Whether the learned Judge be correct in his that the war became a public war after the Declaration of Independence--a view he may be excused from taking, if wrong, as big own name was appended to that imperishable document — we have the of his great name to the doctrine that to such a contest there belonged all the rights of war. I am, therefore, clear is the opinion that as a blockade is an acknowledged belligerent right under the law of nations where was exists, the blockade of the Southern ports was lawfully proclaimed by the President. In the discussion of this question, I have and nothing in reference to the sovereign rights of the Governments whether it may not at the same time exercise both sovereign and belligerent rights. Such a question does not arise in the case. I have confined myself to the examination of the existence or not of belligerent rights by the Government in reference to the present unfortunate state of the country. And Phillemore, in his commentaries on international law, (vol. 3, P. 740,) gives us a simple rule by which to determine this question. He says: "In the case of a civil war, be English law furnishes a good criterion as to whether the country is to be considered at peace or at war — that whenever the king's courts are open it's a time of peace, in judgement of law. Judged by this standard, then, as the Federal courts are closed in the Southern States, United state of civil war. And the Government is to is to be exercised in with those maxine of humanity, moderation, and honor which the law of nations has prescribed to be observed by both in every civil war. Sitting in a court of the captors, adjudging a question to decide whether this and charge to be condemned upon either of the around alleged by the district attorned. He contends that the ship and cargo are to be condemned as enemy's property, and if not such, to be condemned because there was committed a preach of blockade. Now, as both these ground is involve questions of fact, as well as questions of law, let us see what are the facts of the case as presented in the pleadings and evidence. The schooner F. W. Johnson is owned by a certain Holder Army, a resident and citizen of the State of Rhode island. That he has been for the last five years largely engaged in the business of wrecking along the Atlantic coast, owning some other and was frequently called by his business to Portsmouth and Norfolk, in Virginia. That he married a lady in one of those places, and as his business permitted, passed much of his time but left there for his home in Rhode Island about the time of the bombardment. Fort Sumter. That he purchased the F. W. Johnson in Norfolk some five years since, and caused her to be eroded in Norfolk on the 5th of July, 1856. and losing the of that enrollment he carolled her again at the same port on the 29th of September, 1856 under which she has been sailing since. The last costing license, which recites the enrollment of 18 was taken our at Norfolk on the 2d of March last. In the enrollment Holder Almy is mentioned as ‘"of the city of Norfolk, State of Virginia,"’ but he only swears ‘"that he is a citizen of the United States,"’ The said schooner was at the time of her capture sailing under the flag of the United States, and her captain that crew were all citizens of Massachusetts or Connecticut. These are all the facts in reference to the question of ownership. The District Attorney contenda inasmuch as the chroliment recites Holder Almy as of Norfolk, Virginia, he cannot contradict it, so as to receive his vessel from condemnation as enemy's property. Now, when this emolument was made, Holder Allay was for a temporary purpose at Norfolk, where he purchased the vessel, and where it was perfectly regal for him to enroll her, if he was not absolutely required to do so by our registry and enrollment acts, [See act of 31st December, 1792, section 11, and act of 18th February, 1793, Section 2.] Norfolk was then a part of the United States, acknowledging its allegiance to the Government, and where the offices of the Government granted the license and made the enrollment which have been given in evidence in this case. Now, Is an enrollment anything more than prime evidence of ownership or of the residence of the owner? May not the true state of facts be shown by the evidence — the question being, was the council of the owner at the time of the capture in an enemy's country? and not that may have been his residence at any former period. It is true, the owner who makes the oath in the custom house, to enable him to obtain the chroliment, would not be heard in a court of justice to dispute the facts he had sworn to, but he could show any facts not inconsistent with the oath he had taken. For instance, he could show that, although he is named as site owner, the equitable interest in a moiety of the vessel is in other parties, [see case of Wenton vs. Penniman, I Mason, 317] or that since the enrollment the council has been changed. In the case of the ship Resolution and cargo, in the Federal Court of appeals in 1781, that Court (in 2D Has, 23) says, (speaking of the ship's papers,) "that every commercial country has directed by its laws that its ships shall be furnished with a set of papers called the ship papers. And this criterion the law of nations adopts in time of war to distinguish the property of different powers when round at sea; not, ended, as conclusive, but evidence only. Bills of lading, letters of correspondence, and all other papers on board which relate to the ship or cargo, are also considered as prima jacic evidence of the facts they speak.--They say again, ‘"if the papersafirm the ship and cargo to be the property of an enemy, there most be a condemnation, unless they who contest the capture can produce clear and unquestionable evidence to prove the contrary,"’ It will be found, of reference to the case of ‘"The Superior"’ I Newberry Rep., 176, that Judge Leavits (of the U. S. District Court of Ohio) held that as the ‘"superior"’ had been enrolled at Buffalo, the enrollment was face evidence that she belonged to the port of Buffalo at the time of her registry. He says: "It is true, in controversies between the owners of a vessel involving a question of title merely, the enrollment is not even prima aris evidence. When offered to show title in the person making it, it is wholly inadmissible as evidence, for the reason that it is proof only of his action, and cannot be received against other parties.--But upon an incidental question, not affecting the title of the parties, it is competent evidence, and unless contradicted by clear evidence, will be held conclusive as to the port or place to which the vessel belongs."--In the case of the United States vs. Brune. 2 Wallace, jr., Judge Grier decided that in a criminal prosecution against the of crew of an American vessel, the registry was not ever prima facis evidence of ownership, to show the American character of the vessel. I therefore am of the opinion that in this case the enrollment and license were only prima facie evidence that Holden Almy, the owner of the said schooner, was a citizen of Virginia. As further authorities on this question, see the following cases: Bradbury vs. Johnson, 41 Maine Rep., Brooks vs. Minturn, I California, 482; Stoke vs. Carne, and others, 2 Campbell, 340. New, as I said before, the domicil of the owner at the time of the capture of the vessel determines its character as hostile or not. In the ease of the ‘"Ocean,"’ 5 C. Robinson, 91, Sir Wm. Scott decided that a British merchant settled in Holland, at the breaking out of hostilities, but taking early measures to remove, was entitled to restitution of his property seized as enemy's property. And the same doctrine was maintained by the Supreme Court in the case of the ‘"Venus,"’ 8 Cranch, 203. Justice Washington, in delivering the opinion of the Court, says, speaking of a domicil acquired in a foreign country: "But this national character which a man acquires by residence may be thrown off at pleasure by a return to his native country, or even by his turning his back on the country in which he has resulted, on his way to another. To use the language of Sir Wm. Scott, it is an adventitious character gained by residence and which ceases by non-residence. It no longer adheres to the party from the moment he puts himself in motion, bona fide, to quit the country, sire animo rescrunde Now, tested by these decisions, this vessel belonged at the time of her capture to Rhode Island, for Captain Stoddard swears, in his claim and answer, that Holden Aliny left Norfolk about the time of the bombardment of Fort Sumter, and returned to his home in Rhode Island. And there is nothing in the case to cast the slightest suspicion on this statement. The cargo belonged to certain underwriters of the city of New York, to whom it had been abandoned by the Baltimore and Ohio. Railroad Company. There cannot, therefore, be any condemnation of either the vessel or cargo as enemy's property. Now, as to the other ground of condemnation alleged by the District Attorney, the breach of blockade. What are the facts in reference to this question? It appears that some time previous to the 1st of last May, upwards of six hundred tons of railroad iron were shipped from England in the Norwegian bark Albion, bound to this port, and consigned to the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, the purchasers thereof, and who had caused it to be insured in the New York insurance offices.--That the said bark, while proceeding on her said voyage, was, about the 1st of May, wrecked on the Atlantic coast, about thirty miles south of Cape Henry, and lay there about one-fourth of a mile from the shore.--Under these circumstances the railroad company abandoned it as for a total loss, and James Carey Coale, the agent of the New York underwriters, entered into a contract with Captain Baker, the mate, of said schooner, to send her down to the wreck to save as much of the iron as possible. That the said schooner F. W. Johnson about that time came up to the port with a cargo saved from a wreck near smith's Point, in the Chesapeake, and left here about the truth of May to fulfill said contract, so made with the agent of the underwriters. That they went first to New Inlet for a harbor, and reached the wreck of the Albion about the 1st of June, and found it in a most exposed siltation, liable to go to pieces in the first storm. That they proceeded to take iron from her, and had succeeded in getting 27 tons on board when they were captured. That they intended to land said iron, as fast as they could get it out, at New Inlet, being the nearest land on which they could safely deposit it, until it could be removed to Baltimore, to which port they intended to bring it, as it was important, from the sed condition of the vessel, to remove the iron from it as fast as possible. That ‘"New Inula"’ is an uninhabited part of the coast, one of those small inlets between the ocean and Punilico Sound, and about twenty miles from the main land and seventy miles from the nearest post of entry, Edenton, in North Carolina. These distances I learn from an examination of the map of that Stape. It is at the North end of the Chickponacome bank, that long ridge of sand thrown up by the Atlantic, and which separates it from Pamilco Sound. On a map exhibited in court during the trial, the water in New Inlet was marked 2½ feet deep, through which there is no passage for vessel into the sound, and I suppose it is gradually closing up by the sand washed up from the ocean, as I find, on examination of the map of North Carolina, that two North of ‘"New fulet,"’ ‘"Currituck Inlet"’ and ‘"Roanoke Inlet,"’ are now closed. Now, it is perfectly clear from all the evi- dence in the case that there was no intention to violate the blockade by duly party connected with the F. W. Johnson. They went there in good faith to save the wrecked property of loyal citizen, and every witness examined the idea that there was any intention to carry this iron of any part of it into North Carolina. Now, the purpose of a blockade is to present all commercial intercourse with the later dieted port. Sirs Phillemore, 3d vol., page 232: ‘"The object of a blockade is to prevent exports as well as imports, and to cut of all communication of commerce with the blockaded place."’ News to the facts of this case show any breach of a blockade, as thus Certainly it would not have been contended that any breach of the blockade had been if the and seamen of the barle Albron had, on their being wrecked, with their small boats made the effort to save the cargo, and to enable them to do so, had carried it to the nearest place of safety with the intention of removing it to the port of destination, Baltimore. Now, how is this case altered, when, instead of the ship's crew, the effort to save the cargo is made by professional wreckers employed by the owners! Is it not such a ease of necessity as excuses the national offence? Says Phillemore, 3d vol., page 61, speaking of a decision of Lord Srowell; ‘"The law of cases of necessity,"’ he observes, ‘"is not likely to be furnished with precise rules, and whatever is reasonable and just in such cases is likewise legal. It is not to be considered as a matter of surprise, therefore, if much instituted rule is not to be found on the subject. A clear necessity is a sufficient justification for everything that is done fairly and with good faith under it."’ Now, tested by this standard, is it not reasonable and just that the owner of goods, cast upon the shores of a blockaded country by a storm of the ocean, should be permitted to make every exertion to save them for the purpose of carrying them to the destined port? The principle of excuse from necessity, will be found to have received the tion of the Supreme Court in the case of ‘"The Mary,"’ (O Cranch, 125) Chief Justice Marshall, (and I can name no higher authority,) in delivering the opinion of the court, says: "The Mary war forced into Waterford by irresistible necessity, and was detained there by the operations of causes she could not control. Had her departure been from a neutral port, and she had been thus forced, during the voyage, into a hostile port, would it to alleged that she had incurred the liabilities of a vessel sailing from a port of the enemy? It is believed that this negational could not be sustained, and that it would not be made. The same principle was captained by Sir W. Scott in the case of ‘"Charlotta,"’ Edwards, Ad. Rep., page 202. That was the case of an American ship on a voyage from Boston to St. Petersburg, putting into the Texel in distress and for repairs, Texel then being under blockade. That learned Admiralty Judge, on being satisfied that there was a necessity for her going into the Texel, restored the ship and can go. He also maintained the same principle in the case of ‘"The Fortune"’--5 C. Robinson, 27. I think that principle covers this case, and. I will sign a decree restoring the vessel and cargo to the claimants upon the payment of the costs of the case. I charge them with the costs, because the enrollment, which was the only evidence the boarding officer had at the time, recited that the schooner belonged to a citizen of Virginia, and justified her capture and her being sent into a prize court for adjudication.Charges of Treason.
[from the San's Local Column.]
Presented for Treason.--Richard Price.
Esq., lumber merchant, East Falls avenue, was arrested yesterday, the grand jury having presented him for treason, in giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the Government.
He was arrested by Deputy Marshals Downs and Gruver, and gave bail in $40,000. Twenty thousand dollars was given upon his own recognizance; Messrs. David E. Thomas and David E. Thomas, Jr., became his security in $23,000.
The bail in this case, as in the other cases of presentiment for treason, was given to await the further action of the grand jury in the District Court.
Should the jury find a true bill of indictment, the court will require the ball to be renewed, conditioned upon the appearance of the accused at the November term of the U. S. Circuit Court.
Arrest of the Secretory of the Round of Police Commissioners.--Mr. Willem F. McKewen, the Secretary to the Board of Police Commissioners of Baltimore, now in Fort Lafayette, was taken into custody yesterday afternoon, at his dwelling.
No. 1st Hanover street, by the Provost Marshal's police, by order of Gen. Dix, and taken to the marshal's office.
From here Mr. McKawen was permitted to communicate by telegraph with the commander of the military department, and the result was has release on parole to appear at the marshal's office at four o'clock this afternoon to await the further disposition of his case.
The particular charge alleged against him consequently did not transpire yesterday.
Arrest of the Speaker of the House of Delegates. Hon. E. G. Kilbourn, Speaker of the Maryland House of Delegates, was arrests yesterday, at his home, Jesson's Cut.
Anne A county, by a detachment of the Massachusetts Regiment, Stat ed near that point.--The charges against him are presumed to be the some on which the members of House were taken, and are now Mr. Kilbourn was taken to Annapolis last evening, and it was supposed would be sent to Fort Lafayette with the others.
Released on Bail.--John Bosley, presented for treason was yesterday released on bill for in the U. S. District Court.
Ramsey Mellency, Esq., became his security for $20,000, and he was taken in his own recognizance for $20,000.
Session of the U. S. Grand of odd fellows, in Baltimore.
The Grand Lodge had a protracted session yesterday, with a view to close up the business and adjourn. Representative Escavaille, of Maryland, offered the following preamble and resolutions, which were adopted: ‘ "Whereas, the very spirit of Odd-Fellowship — the life it would breathe over all the world — the profession is makes everywhere, and at all times recognizing but one nation — the earth; but one family — the race of man. This is one of its boasts--one pillar of its strength: and whereas its universal adaptation to the wants of man in the demonstration that its principles are Despiced — its doctrines divine, and whereas the trouble, discord and faction that so often and so prevail in and between the various associations, of the day, entering into the portals of Odd-Fellowship; and whereas the bickering, the jealousies, the strifes for place and power, the spirit of aggrandizement, the thoughts of self, the contests of sections and of party, which pervade society, embitter friendships, and occasionally even desecrate the sanctuary, have cast no shadow within our Lodges; and whereas, to cement more strongly the that bind us together, and to renew our vows and devotion upon the sacred altar of Odd-Fellowship: Be it, therefore. "Resolved. That the perpetuity of Odd Fellowship, and its beneficial influence, can only be maintained and exercised by a rigid adherence to its ritual and fundamental laws. "Resolved, That the members of this Grand Lodge will employ every means, and will endeavor to impress upon the minds of their constituents, the necessity of so doing, to cultivate and practice these sentiments and principles, which will be best calculated to preserve our beloved order intact, wherever its benign influence has spread, wherever the banner of Odd-Fellowship has been unfurled. "Resolved, That it is the duty of every good Odd-Fellow, at all times, so to act and so to speak that their words and deeds may give no just cause of to these whom circumstances have, for the time being, cut off from friendly and social intercourse with us. "Resolved, That this Grand Lodge hopes, and will continue to hope, that the trying difficulties now existing, and which have shaken our common country to its very foundation — causing distrust and estrangement between brothers and friends — may be speedily and amicably settled, and that the storm which is now raging in the breasts of the people of this once peaceful and happy land may be assessed, and the clouds which have darkened the hopes and blighted the prospects of a whole nation may be swept away, giving place to a cloudless sky, a bright and generous sunshine, shedding peace, harmony, and joy over and throughout this wide spread land." ’ The question of the selection of a place for the next meeting of the body was taken up, and it was decided, by a vole of against to 23 for, not to hold it at Indianapolis.--Baltimore and Syracuse, N. Y., were named, which led to an acrimonious discussion.--Baltimore was stigmatized in unmeasured terms; one member declaring that it should be destroyed; that the present meeting was only under the protection of a Provost Marshal. The good name of Baltimore was ably defended by representative Wm. H. Young; but it was finally decided by a vote of one majority to hold the next meeting at Baltimore. A resolution was subsequently adopted authorizing the Deputy Grand Sire, in his discretion, if he deems them unsafe in Baltimore, to remove the archives of the Grand Lodge to Philadelphia or New York.Details of Sews from Washington.
We copy the following from the Washington Star, of Saturday evening: ‘ Yesterday afternoon the Rescue towed up to the Navy-Yard the schooner Martford, of Baltimore, found by the fictilia without papers, with a cargo of wheat and tobacco. She was loaded at Port Tobacco and Pope's Creek, and was captured near these places with six men on heard, She was placed alongside the receiving ship Anacostia, under guard, where she will await the investigation into her case. The Reserve also brought up two contrabass, picked up along the river. The steamer went down again last evening and joined the flotilla. The steamer Mount Vernon arrived this morning from Old Point, with shell for the Arsenal and several sick gunmen from the blockading fleet, to be placed in the naval hospital. She reports all quiet at Fortress Monroe and along the Potomac. Com. Stringham had been superseded in command of the blockading fleet at Hampton Roads by Capt. Goldsborough, who entered upon his duties a day or two since. The President has appointed Col. E. D. Baker, of Oregon, now Colonel of the New York First California Regiment, and acting Brig. General, to be Major General of Volunteers. This forenoon, Major Gen. McClellan and staff, escorted by a squadron of cavalry, proceeded to the position of Major General McCall's division, where a grand review of ten or twelve thousand troops took place. Many distinguished and other civilians went there also, as well as the Precede Joinville and the titled gentlemen who accompanied him to this city. ’A haul in Charles county, Hd., &c.
Upper Marlboro, Prince George's co., Md., Sept. 20, 1861.--On the day before yesterday, Col. Cowdin's First Massachusetts regiment, now doing duty on the peninsula, made a haul of two wagon leads of military clothing, arms, &c., destined to be smuggled across the river for the use of disunion troops. The capture was made near Fredericktown, about 15 miles from Leonardtown.Blath-Plack of President Lincoln.
President Lincoln will undoubtedly have a special interest in the conflict now going on in Kentucky between the Unionists and Secessionists in the vicinity of ‘"Rolling Forks,"’ near Muldrows Hill, as he was born in that neighborhood.Letter from Mr. Seward--the American correspondence of the London times.
Department of State, Washington, September 21, 1861.
Many intelligent and patriotic citizens have applied to me by memorial, asking the attention of the Government to what they represent as treasonable matter contained in a letter bearing the date of Washington, August 10th, published in the London time and they express their convictions that the statements made in that communication are untrue, and that it is the design of the writer to bring the credit of this Government into disrepute in foreign countries.
It has been a habit of the Government of the United States to take no notice of representations, however obnoxious, made by the press of foreign nations, or even injurious utterances made by ministers or other agents of foreign Powers in the ordinary transactions of their own affairs.
The Government, on the contrary, has hitherto recognized as worthy of its observation only the language and the action of the Executive organs of Foreign States.
For myself, I confess I have not read the publications complained of, and I am quite sure that it has not arrested the attention of any of the members of the Administration, engrossed as we all necessarily are with earnest public duties and cares.
However erroneous the facts or the information of the writer may be, they nevertheless stand on his own Individual authority, while the whole patriotic press of our own country is free, and is interested to refute them.
The Government of the United States depends not upon the favor or good will of foreign writers or papers, or even of foreign nations, but upon the just support of the American people.
Its credit and its fame seem to me now, more than ever heretofore, safe in their keeping.
If it be assumed that the obnoxious paper may do harm here, is it not a sufficient reply that probably not fifty copies of the London Times ever find their way to our shores?
And if it be said again that the obnoxious communication has been widely published in the United States, it seems to me a sufficient rejoinder that the censure of a magnanimous vote in that case ought so fall on those of its own citizens who reproduce the libel, rather than on the foreigner who wrote it exclusively for remote publication.
Finally, interference with the press, even in the case of an existing insurrection, can be justified only on the ground of public danger.
I do not see any such danger in the resent case.
Even if our foreigner does pervert our hospitality to shelter himself in writing injurious publications against us for a foreign press, a hundred other foreigners, as intelligent, as virtuous, as respectable as he is, are daily enrolling themselves in the army of the United States, to defend and maintain the Union as the chief hope of liberty in all countries and for all ages.
Could there be a better illustration of that great fundamental truth of our system, ‘"that error of opinion may safely be tolerated when reason is left free to combat it."’ William H. Seward.
