The Slidell and Mason outrage.
--We had concluded, at one time, to let the matter rest in the hands of the parties more particularly interested, but it continues to be agitated in the
Northern papers, and the
National Intelligencer, under the immediate inspiration of
Seward, publishes a whole broadside to justify the act. We have, therefore, changed our first resolution, and shall proceed to express still further the views which we have already indicated.
It is plain that the
Yankee Government does not mean to rest its cause upon the absence of instructions to
Captain Wilkes, but that, on the contrary, it intends to back that officer to the full extent of its ability.
According to a generally recognized principle of international law, the jurisdiction of every country over its own waters is perfect.
What are to be considered ‘"the waters"’ of a country — that is, how far the jurisdiction in question extends — is still subject to discussion.
Some writers contend for thirty leagues, some for more, some for less.
On the high sea, each vessel is under the jurisdiction of the nation to which it belongs, and this so entirely writers on international law say it is to be considered, under such circumstances, a portion of the national territory.
Of course, no ship-of-war belonging to any other nation has a right to interfere with it, and all persons, as well as all property on board of it, is under the protection of its flag.
These principles — certainly founded in justice — imply an absolute negation of the right of visit.
They have been often asserted by the
United States, and on one occasion they went to war in defence of them.
They have been affirmed by the courts of these same
United States as often as they have had occasion to take cognizance of them.
The right of visit in time of peace has, in fact, been entirely abandoned in these latter days.
It is never attempted, as far as we know.
But the right of visit in time of war is still asserted, for the very plain reason that, unless it were admitted in some form, there could be no possibility of enforcing another right dependent upon it — the right namely, to intercept contraband of war on its passage to the enemy in a neutral vessel.
This, however, is merely an exception to a general rule.
The question of prize is always decided by the courts of the country making the prize.
The present, however, is a question of a totally different character singularly enough, it commits the
Government of the
United States to a line of action which it always reprobated on the part of
Great Britain.
For, during the wars with the First
Napoleon,
Great Britain assumed and exercised the right to visit American ships, and removed by force, from their decks, all persons found, or even suspected, to have been born British subjects, while the
United States not only denied the right, but went to war rather than submit to its exercise.
Many attemps have been made within the present century to obtain a definitive settlement of the disputed right, but always without success.
The American doctrine is fully set forth in
Mr. Webster's famous letter to Lord Ashburton, and in
Gen. Cass's protest against the ratification of the quintuple treaty.
With respect to the latter, it is well known to have produced a powerful effect in
France, and, backed by a pamphlet written by
Gen. Cass and published in
Paris, to have caused the rejection of the treaty by the
French Chambers.
The ground assumed both by
Mr. Webster and
Gen. Cass, afford no countenance to the new doctrine of
Seward.
The latter more especially would not admit the right of visit, even under the pretext of ascertaining the character of a vessel suspected of being engaged in the slave trade.
He represented so powerfully the evil uses to which the right thus sought might be perverted by a great maritime power, to the ruin of all commerce but its own, as to produce a complete resolution in the public opinion of
France.
The present question is purely a question between the
United States and
Great Britain.
It has no basis either in the law of nations or the obligation of treaties.
International law leaves it in litigation, and treaties are silent on the subject.
The Federal Government and the
Government of
Great Britain have changed places.
Both are in opposition to themselves.
The one does what it has always asserted no Government had the right to do, the other suffers what its adversary always maintained it had no right to inflict.
Seward having shouldered the responsibility, it may be asked, more pertinently than before, what he meant by the act?
Perhaps he meant to abandon the position always heretofore maintained by the
United States.
Perhaps he designed to drive
England to the wall, and compel her claim of right to impress British seamen found on board of Yankee vessels.
Both these suppositions have been put forth, and largely dwell upon.
The act itself certainly is not very encouraging to those visionaries who hope that the period will soon arrive when international morality will be brought to perfection, and when one nation will do unto another even as it would that another should act unto it. It will not, it is to be presumed, make the
British people and Government fall in love with the
Yankees, nor will it arouse any very strong feeling of sympathy or affection on the part of any other European Government.
Seward, when called to account, will say that he arrested
Messrs. Mason and
Slidell because they were guilty of treason and rebellion, and will say that the very fact of their voyage to
Europe in the capacity of envoys from the
Confederate States establishes their guilt.
But this, most assuredly, will not do for
England, who has already recognized the existence of a state of war in this country, acknowledged the
Confederate States as belligerents, and proclaimed her own neutrality, thus giving to Confederates and Federals an equal claim to the protection of her flag, wherever found beneath its folds on land or at sea. This neutrality, thus proclaimed,
England may contend has been shamefully violated, by tearing passengers from a British steamer, belonging to the
West India Line, on its way home, and therefore not possible to be suspected of having contraband articles on board.
She may say, moreover that there is an extradition treaty between her and the
United States, that the class of criminals to be given up and the forms in which the delivery is to be effected, are therein expressly designated That if
Messrs. Slidell and
Mason come within this category, they must first be proved to do so, by a trial in the proper form.
That therefore, under any circumstances, such extradition could not be made at sea, where there was no officer, no court, and no jury.
That moreover the treaty expressly excepted men charged with political offences, and that the alleged offences of the
Commissioners were entirely political.
That they have tacitly abandoned, for the sake of peace, the pretensions which brought on the war of 1812, and that the assumption of them by the
United States, under the present circumstances, is an insult.
That the
British Government might answer, ‘"We know not whether it
will."’
