Charles Sumner: his complete works, volume 08 (of 20)

by Charles Sumner · English · Gutenberg #48170 · 743,729 chars · public domain (US)

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Charles Sumner: his complete works, volume 08 (of 20)

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: Charles Sumner: his complete works, volume 08 (of 20)

Author: Charles Sumner

Release date: February 5, 2015 [eBook #48170]
Most recently updated: October 24, 2024

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/48170

Credits: E-text prepared by Mark C. Orton and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team (http://www.pgdp.net) from page images generously made available by Internet Archive (https://archive.org)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CHARLES SUMNER: HIS COMPLETE WORKS, VOLUME 08 (OF 20) ***

Note: Project Gutenberg also has an HTML version of this
file which includes the original illustration.
See 48170-h.htm or 48170-h.zip:
(https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/48170/pg48170-images.html)
or
(https://www.gutenberg.org/files/48170/48170-h.zip)

Images of the original pages are available through
Internet Archive. See
https://archive.org/details/completeworks08sumnuoft

[Illustration: A. W. Elson & Co. Boston: JOHN A. ANDREW]

Statesman Edition VOL. VIII

CHARLES SUMNER

HIS COMPLETE WORKS

With Introduction by Hon. George Frisbie Hoar

[Illustration]

Boston
Lee and Shepard
MCM

Statesman Edition.
Limited to One Thousand Copies.
of Which This Is
No. 565

Norwood Press:
Norwood, Mass., U.S.A.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME VIII.

PAGE

REVISION AND CONSOLIDATION OF THE NATIONAL STATUTES. Resolution
and Speech in the Senate, December 12, 1861 1

DENIAL OF PATENTS TO COLORED INVENTORS. Resolution and Remarks
in the Senate, December 16, 1861 6

THE NATIONAL ARMIES AND FUGITIVE SLAVES. Resolution and Remarks
in the Senate, December 18, 1861 7

EXPULSION OF TRUSTEN POLK, OF MISSOURI. Resolution and Remarks
in the Senate, December 18, 1861 12

EMANCIPATION AND THE PRESIDENT. Letter to Governor Andrew, of
Massachusetts, December 27, 1861 14

THE TRENT CASE, AND MARITIME RIGHTS. Speech in the Senate,
on the Surrender of Mason and Slidell, Rebel Agents, taken
from the British Mail Steamer Trent, January 9, 1862.
With Appendix 15

OFFICE OF SENATOR, AND ITS INCOMPATIBILITY WITH OTHER OFFICE.
Remarks in the Senate, on the Case of General Lane, of Kansas,
January 13, 1862 105

EXPULSION OF JESSE D. BRIGHT, OF INDIANA. Speeches in the
Senate, January 21 and February 4, 1862 114

ANSWER OF A WITNESS CRIMINATING HIMSELF. Remarks in the Senate,
on the Bill relating to Witnesses before Committees, January
22, 1862 152

LIMITATION OF DEBATE IN THE SENATE. Remarks in the Senate, on
a Five Minutes’ Rule, January 27 and 29, 1862 155

INDUSTRIAL EXHIBITION AT LONDON. Speech in the Senate, on the
Joint Resolution providing for Representation there, January
31, 1862 157

ORDER IN BUSINESS: EACH QUESTION BY ITSELF. Remarks in the
Senate, February 6, 1862 161

STATE REBELLION, STATE SUICIDE; EMANCIPATION AND
RECONSTRUCTION. Resolutions in the Senate, February 11, 1862.
With Appendix 163

TREASURY NOTES A LEGAL TENDER. Speech in the Senate, on the
Clause making Treasury Notes a Legal Tender, February 13,
1862 181

LOYALTY A QUALIFICATION REQUIRED IN A SENATOR. Speeches in the
Senate, February 18 and 26, 1862 208

HELP FOR MEXICO AGAINST FOREIGN INTERVENTION. Report from the
Committee of Foreign Relations upon the Draught of a Convention
with Mexico, February 19, 1862 227

NO RECOGNITION OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE BILL. Motion and Remarks
in the Senate, February 25, 1862 238

OUR GERMAN FELLOW-CITIZENS, AND A TRUE RECONSTRUCTION. Letter
to the German Republican Central Committee of New York,
February 25, 1862 241

STATE SUICIDE AND EMANCIPATION. Letter to a Public Meeting at
the Cooper Institute, New York, March 6, 1862 243

REMOVAL OF DISQUALIFICATION OF COLOR IN CARRYING THE MAILS.
Bill in the Senate, March 18, 1862, and Incidents 247

RANSOM OF SLAVES AT THE NATIONAL CAPITAL. Speech in the Senate,
on the Bill for the Abolition of Slavery in the District of
Columbia, March 31, 1862 251

REBEL BARBARITIES, AND THE BARBARISM OF SLAVERY. Resolution and
Remarks in the Senate, April 1, 1862 301

TESTIMONY OF COLORED PERSONS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Remarks
in the Senate, on the Emancipation Bill, April 3, 1862 304

INDEPENDENCE OF HAYTI AND LIBERIA. Speech in the Senate, on the
Bill to authorize the Appointment of Diplomatic Representatives
to the Republics of Hayti and Liberia, April 23, 1862 307

FINAL SUPPRESSION OF THE SLAVE TRADE. Speech in the Senate, on
the Treaty with Great Britain, April 24, 1862 336

ENFORCEMENT OF EMANCIPATION IN THE DISTRICT. Resolution and
Remarks in the Senate, April 28, 1862 349

CONDUCT OF OUR GENERALS TOWARDS FUGITIVE SLAVES. Speech in the
Senate, on a Resolution of Inquiry, May 1, 1862 351

NO NAMES OF VICTORIES OVER FELLOW-CITIZENS ON REGIMENTAL
COLORS. Resolution in the Senate, May 8, 1862 361

BOUNTY LANDS FOR SOLDIERS OUT OF REAL ESTATE OF REBELS.
Resolution in the Senate, May 12, 1862 363

TESTIMONY OF COLORED PERSONS IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS FOR
CONFISCATION AND EMANCIPATION. Resolution in the Senate, May
12, and Remarks, June 28, 1862 364

THE LATE HON. GOLDSMITH F. BAILEY, REPRESENTATIVE FROM
MASSACHUSETTS. Speech in the Senate, on his Death,
May 15, 1862 366

USE OF PARCHMENT IN LEGISLATIVE PROCEEDINGS. Resolution and
Speech in the Senate, on the Enrolment of Bills, May 16, 1862 372

REVISION AND CONSOLIDATION OF THE NATIONAL STATUTES.

RESOLUTION AND SPEECH IN THE SENATE, DECEMBER 12, 1861.

April 8, 1852, during his first session in the Senate, Mr.
Sumner brought forward a resolution for a revision and
consolidation of the national statutes, which was duly referred
to the Committee on the Judiciary.[1] Though the resolution
attracted attention at the time, the committee did nothing.

Early in the next Congress, December 14, 1853, he presented the
same resolution a second time, which was duly referred,[2] and
again neglected.

In the succeeding Congress, February 11, 1856, he offered the
same resolution a third time,[3] and with no better success
than before.

Absence from the Senate and protracted disability prevented
the renewal of this effort until the administration of
President Lincoln, who was induced to make a recommendation
on the subject in his annual message of December 3, 1861.[4]
Mr. Sumner followed, December 12th, with his oft-repeated
resolution:--

“_Resolved_, That the Committee on the Judiciary be
directed to consider the expediency of providing by
law for the appointment of commissioners to revise the
public statutes of the United States, to simplify their
language, to correct their incongruities, to supply their
deficiencies, to arrange them in order, to reduce them to
one connected text, and to report them thus improved to
Congress for its final action, to the end that the public
statutes, which all are presumed to know, may be in such
form as to be more within the apprehension of all.”

Of this he spoke.

MR. PRESIDENT,--It is now nearly ten years, since, on first entering
this Chamber, I had the honor of presenting this identical resolution.
Several times afterwards, at succeeding sessions, I brought it forward;
but there was no action in regard to it, either by the Committee on the
Judiciary, to which it was referred, or by the Senate. At last we have
a positive recommendation from the President in his Annual Message,
calling attention to the necessity of a revision of our statutes, and
of reducing them to a connected text. I desire to take advantage of
that recommendation, and to revive the proposition which ten years ago
I first introduced.

Something in earnest, Sir, must be done. The ancient Roman laws,
when first codified, were so cumbersome that they made a load for
several camels. If this cannot be said of our statutes, nobody will
deny that they are cumbersome, swelling to at least eleven or twelve
heavy volumes, besides being most expensive. They are to be found
in few public libraries, and very rarely in private libraries. They
ought to be in every public library, and also in the offices of
lawyers throughout the country. That can be only by reducing them
in size so that they will form a single volume, which is entirely
practicable,--thus rendering them easy to read and cheap to buy.

I have reason to believe, Sir, that such a work would be agreeable
to the people. I am not without assurance that the people value such
reading. Certainly I am justified in this conclusion, when I think
of my own State; for it is within my knowledge that the statutes of
Massachusetts, reduced to a single volume, as they now are, have,
during a very brief period, been purchased by the people at large to
the extent of more than ten thousand copies.

I hope, Sir, there will be no objection founded on the condition of the
country. I do not forget the old saying, that the laws are silent in
the midst of arms; but I would have our Republic show by example that
such is not always the case. I am sure we can do nothing better for
the honor of the Administration that is ours. Indeed, should we not
all look with increased pride upon our country, most cherished when
most in peril, if, while dealing with a fearful Rebellion, Congress
turned aside to the edification of the people in objects that are
useful, among which I place that I now propose? It will be something,
if, through the din of war, this work of peace proceeds, changing the
national statutes into a harmonious text, and making them accessible to
all.

The resolution was agreed to.

* * * * *

This was followed, January 28, 1862, by a bill, introduced by
Mr. Sumner, for the revision and consolidation of the statutes
of the United States, which was referred to the Committee on
the Judiciary. May 31, the Committee, on motion of its chairman
[Mr. TRUMBULL], was discharged from the further consideration
of the resolution. At the same time the bill was postponed to
the first Monday in December, and expired with the Congress.[5]

December 15, 1863, Mr. Sumner renewed his original resolution
on the subject, and on the 23d introduced another bill with
the same object, on which Mr. Trumbull, from the Committee,
reported adversely, June 28, 1864.[6]

January 5, 1866, Mr. Sumner renewed his effort by a bill, which
was also referred to the Judiciary Committee. February 7,
Mr. Poland, from the Committee, reported the bill favorably.
April 9, it was considered in the Senate and passed without
debate, substantially as drawn and introduced by Mr. Sumner.
In the original bill the salaries of the commissioners were
$3,000 each. On the report of the Committee, they were
changed to $5,000 each. June 22 the bill passed the House of
Representatives without amendment, and was approved by the
President June 27.[7]

Under this Act, President Johnson appointed as commissioners
Hon. Caleb Cushing of Massachusetts, Hon. Charles P. James of
Ohio, and Hon. William Johnston of Pennsylvania.

The period of three years, within which the revision and
consolidation were to be completed, having expired, leaving the
work undone, a supplementary Act of Congress was passed,[8]
continuing the original Act, and under it President Grant
appointed as commissioners Hon. Benjamin Vaughan Abbott of
New York, Hon. Charles P. James of Ohio, and Hon. Victor C.
Barringer of North Carolina.

DENIAL OF PATENTS TO COLORED INVENTORS.

RESOLUTION AND REMARKS IN THE SENATE, DECEMBER 16, 1861.

Mr. Sumner offered the following resolution, and asked for its
present consideration.

“_Resolved_, That the Committee on Patents and the Patent
Office be directed to consider if any further legislation
is necessary in order to secure to persons of African
descent, in our own country, the right to take out patents
for useful inventions, under the Constitution of the United
States.”

MR. PRESIDENT,--If I can have the attention of the Chairman of the
Committee on Patents, I will state to him why this resolution is
introduced. It has come to my knowledge that an inventor of African
descent, living in Boston, applied for a patent under the Constitution
and laws of the land, and was refused, on the ground, that, according
to the Dred Scott decision, he is not a citizen of the United States,
and therefore a patent cannot issue to him. I wish the Committee to
consider whether in any way that abuse cannot be removed. That is all.

The resolution was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed
to.

* * * * *

The Committee made no report on the resolution. It was a case
for interpretation rather than legislation, and the question,
like that of passports, was practically settled not long
afterwards by the opinion of the Attorney-General, that a free
man of color, born in the United States, is a citizen.[9] Since
then patents have been issued to colored inventors.

THE NATIONAL ARMIES AND FUGITIVE SLAVES.

RESOLUTION AND REMARKS IN THE SENATE, DECEMBER 18, 1861.

The abuses in Missouri, to which Mr. Sumner called attention,
December 4, 1861, appeared even in the neighborhood of
Washington, almost under the eye of Congress, so that he felt
it his duty to expose them once more.

December 18, he spoke briefly on the following resolution,
introduced by himself the preceding day.

“_Resolved_, That the Committee on Military Affairs and the
Militia be directed to consider the expediency of providing
by additional legislation that our national armies shall
not be employed in the surrender of fugitive slaves.”

MR. PRESIDENT,--Some days ago it was my duty to expose abuses in
Missouri in regard to fugitive slaves. Since then I have received
communications from that State, showing great interest in the question,
some of them in the nature of protest against the system adopted there.
One purports to be from a slave-master, educated in a Slave State, and
he speaks with bitterness of the indignity put upon the army there, and
of the injury it inflicts on the cause of the Union. Another contains a
passage which I shall read.

“I wish to say in addition that I have lived twenty-four
years in Missouri, that I know the people well, have served
them in various offices; and let me assure you, it is nonsense
to try to save Missouri to the Union, and the institution of
Slavery also. We must give up one or the other. Slavery ought
to fall, and Missouri be saved. Fremont’s army struck terror
into the Secessionists. He made them feel it by taking their
goods and chattels. Let our armies proclaim freedom to the
slaves of the Secessionists and the Rebellion will soon close.
We can take care of the free negroes at a future day; give
General Lane ten thousand men, and he would establish peace in
Missouri in thirty days.”

But, Sir, my special object now is, to exhibit wrong here at home
rather than in distant Missouri. Brigadier-General Stone, the
well-known commander at Ball’s Bluff, is adding to his disaster there
by engaging in the surrender of fugitive slaves. He does this most
successfully. If a fugitive slave is to be handed over to a Rebel, the
General is easily victorious.

Sir, beside my constant interest in this question, beside my interest
in the honor of the national army, I have a special interest at the
present moment, because Brigadier-General Stone sees fit to impose
this vile and unconstitutional duty upon Massachusetts troops. The
Governor of my honored State has charged me with a communication to the
Secretary of War, treating it as an indignity to the men, and an act
unworthy of the flag. I agree with the Governor; and when I ask your
attention to this outrage, I make myself his representative, as well as
my own.

Others beside the Governor of Massachusetts complain. There are two
German companies in one of the Massachusetts regiments, who entered
into the public service with the positive understanding that they
should not be put to any such discreditable and unconstitutional
service. They complain, and with them all their own compatriot
fellow-citizens, the enlightened, freedom-loving German population
throughout the country.

The complaint extends to other quarters. Here is a letter from
Philadelphia, interesting and to the point. I read a short extract only.

“I have but one son, and he fought on Ball’s Bluff in the
California regiment, where his bravery brought him into notice.
He escaped, wounded, after dark. He protests against being made
to return fugitive slaves, and, if ordered to that duty, will
refuse obedience and take the consequences. I ask, Sir, shall
our sons, who are offering their lives for the preservation
of our institutions, be degraded to slave-catchers for any
persons, loyal or disloyal? If such is the policy of the
Government, I shall urge my son to shed no more blood for its
preservation.”

With such communications, some official and others private, I feel that
I should not do my duty, if I failed to implore the attention of the
Senate to this intolerable grievance. It must be arrested. I am glad
to know that my friend and colleague, the Chairman of the Committee on
Military Affairs [Mr. WILSON], promises us a bill to stop this outrage.
It should be introduced promptly, and passed at once. Our troops must
be saved from such shame.

The resolution was adopted after remarks by Mr. Cowan, of
Pennsylvania, which revealed the tone still prevalent in
certain quarters. He said:--

“I agree, that, if all men were Puritans, that, if all
men appreciated Liberty as we do, and as our race does,
then we might extend it to all men; but to extend it to
men who have no appreciation of it, who would trample the
boon under foot, when granted them,--to such men it is a
mischief rather than a blessing.

“Still I have only to say, that I think we have nothing in
the world to do with all these questions. I think their
discussion here, their being mooted in these assemblies,
is mischievous, and only calculated to keep up an angry
irritation, which may have exceedingly bad results in the
final consummation of the struggle in which we are now
engaged.”

Mr. Wilson, as chairman of the Committee, reported a bill on
the subject, which, after debate, gave way to another from the
House of Representatives, containing a new article of war,
prohibiting the employment of the national forces in the return
of fugitive slaves, which became a law March 13, 1862.[10]

* * * * *

This movement of Mr. Sumner was followed by a personal
incident. General Stone, whose conduct was exposed with
severity, took exception to the speech, and addressed him a
letter intended to be very insulting. Mr. Sumner made no reply,
nor did he utter any complaint in any quarter. A few days later
be received notice from Boston that a near relative of the
General had threatened to inflict personal violence upon him.
Some time afterwards General Stone was taken into custody by
military order, and for a long time incarcerated. The hostile
press and the General’s friends charged this upon Mr. Sumner,
often in most offensive terms, and it was repeated in the
face of his constant denial. April 21, 1862, the question of
this arrest was considered in the Senate, on motion of Mr.
McDougall, of California, when Mr. Sumner spoke briefly.

MR. PRESIDENT,--I have no opinion to express on the case of General
Stone, for I know nothing about it. Clearly he ought to be confronted
with his accusers at an early day, unless, indeed, there be some reason
of transcending military character, which, in the present condition of
the country, at a moment of war, might render such a trial improper. Of
this I do not pretend to judge; nor am I aware of evidence on which the
Senate can now act.

…

I hope I shall be pardoned, if I allude to myself. A most persistent
attempt has been made in newspapers to connect me with this arrest, to
the extent of according to me and my imagined influence the credit
or the discredit of it. This is a mistake. I have been from the
beginning an absolute stranger to it. The arrest was made originally
without suggestion or hint from me, direct or indirect, and it has been
continued without any such suggestion or hint from me. I knew nothing
about it at the beginning, and know nothing about it now. There is no
intimate friend or family relative of the prisoner more entirely free
from all connection with it than myself.

EXPULSION OF TRUSTEN POLK, OF MISSOURI.

RESOLUTION AND REMARKS IN THE SENATE, DECEMBER 18, 1861.

December 18, 1861, Mr. Sumner offered the following resolution,
which, on his motion, was referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary.

“_Resolved_, That Trusten Polk, of Missouri, now a traitor
to the United States, be expelled, and he hereby is
expelled, from the Senate.”

Mr. Sumner produced a letter from Mr. Polk, which had found its
way into the newspapers, where he says: “Dissolution is now
a fact,--not only a fact accomplished, but thrice repeated.
Everything here looks like inevitable and final dissolution.
Will Missouri hesitate a moment to go with her Southern
sisters? I hope not.”

Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, thought the letter was “not
genuine,” and added:--

“He is a native of my own State; from early boyhood he
has been an exemplary Christian, a member of a religious
denomination; and when the phrase is used in that letter,
professing to have been written by Trusten Polk, that he
had to ‘ante up $200,’ I am satisfied the language is not
the language of Trusten Polk. He is not familiar with
scenes where hundreds of dollars are ‘anted up.’”

Mr. Sumner replied:--

I do not pretend to an opinion on the genuineness of the letter. Like
the Senator from Delaware, I have seen it in several newspapers, and
my attention has been specially called to it by correspondents in
Missouri, who write that its genuineness cannot be doubted. But this is
a question for the Committee.

If I understand the Senator, his argument against the genuineness
of the letter is founded on a phrase which he thinks Trusten Polk
could never have written: it is a phrase of doubtful style or taste,
showing bad associations. I am not familiar enough with Trusten Polk
to sit in judgment on his style, nor is the Senate called to any such
responsibility; but we are to sit in judgment on his public conduct,
and if the letter is not a forgery, there can be no question as to our
duty.

Believing the inquiry important, not doubting the duty of the Senate
to purge itself of traitors who have too long found sanctuary in its
Chamber, and satisfied that the country justly expects this to be done,
I have felt bound to introduce the resolution.

But there is more than the letter. The Senate has heard within a few
days that this person has found his way to Memphis. Why is he at
Memphis, when he should be at Washington?

Some time afterwards Mr. Sumner received from Missouri the very
letter, in the undoubted autograph of Mr. Polk, and with the
phrase which it was insisted he could not have written.

January 9, 1862, Mr. Ten Eyck, of New Jersey, reported
the resolution from the Committee, with the unanimous
recommendation that it pass.

January 10, the resolution was adopted without debate: Yeas,
36; Nays, 0.

EMANCIPATION AND THE PRESIDENT.

LETTER TO GOVERNOR ANDREW, OF MASSACHUSETTS, DECEMBER 27, 1861.

The following extract, copied from the letter-book of Governor
Andrew, is a contemporary record of Mr. Sumner’s efforts with
the Governor, and also of an important remark by President
Lincoln.

WASHINGTON, December 27, 1861.

…

We hope that in your Message you will keep Massachusetts ahead,
where she always has been, in the ideas of our movement. Let the
doctrine of Emancipation be proclaimed as an essential and happy
agency in subduing a wicked rebellion. In this way you will help
a majority of the Cabinet, whose opinions on this subject are
fixed, and precede the President himself by a few weeks. He tells
me that I am ahead of him only a month or six weeks. God bless
you!…

Ever yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

THE TRENT CASE, AND MARITIME RIGHTS.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON THE SURRENDER OF MASON AND SLIDELL, REBEL
AGENTS, TAKEN FROM THE BRITISH MAIL STEAMER TRENT, JANUARY 9, 1862.
WITH APPENDIX.

_Hamlet._ Come on, Sir.

_Laertes._ Come, my Lord. [_They play._]

…

_Osric._ A hit, a very palpable hit.

_Laertes._ Well,--again.

[LAERTES _wounds_ HAMLET; _then, in scuffling, they change
rapiers, and_ HAMLET _wounds_ LAERTES.]

SHAKESPEARE, _Hamlet_, Act V. Scene 2.

It is, perhaps, well that you settled the matter by sending
away the men at once. _Consistently with your own principles
you could not have justified their detention._--RICHARD COBDEN,
_MS. Letter to Mr. Sumner_, January 23, 1862.

This announcement is not made, my Lord, to revive useless
recollections of the past, nor to stir the embers from fires
which have been in a great degree smothered by many years
of peace. Far otherwise. Its purpose is to extinguish those
fires effectually, before new incidents arise to fan them into
flame. The communication is in the spirit of peace and for
the sake of peace, and springs from a deep and conscientious
conviction that high interests of both nations require this so
long contested and controverted subject now to be finally put
to rest.--DANIEL WEBSTER, _Letter to Lord Ashburton_, August 8,
1842: Works, Vol. VI. p. 325.

The case of the Trent was an important incident of the
war,--most interesting for a time to the people of the United
States, attracting the attention of foreign nations, and
exciting England to hostile demonstrations, even to the verge
of practical coöperation with a Rebellion for the sake of
Slavery. The facts are few, and are authenticated by official
documents.

At an early stage of the Rebellion, the Slave-Masters of
Richmond appointed James M. Mason, of Virginia, commissioner
and envoy to England, and John Slidell, of Louisiana, in the
same capacity to France, each with a secretary, and also
with instructions and despatches. Their duty was to help the
Rebellion, especially in its financial and military exigencies,
to urge its recognition, to make treaties of commerce and
alliance, to obtain European intervention, and generally to
oppose the diplomacy of the United States. As the Rebel ports
were already under strict blockade, and there were no Rebel
vessels for their conveyance, they were driven to rely upon
accommodation under a neutral flag. Some time in October, 1861,
they succeeded in running the blockade and reaching Havana.
Here their pretensions and objects were notorious. But this was
only the first stage in the voyage. The next was conveyance to
Europe; and for this they relied upon the English flag, taking
passage in the Trent, bound from Havana to St. Thomas, from
which latter place a regular line of steamers, connecting with
the Trent, ran to England. Mr. Dana, in his excellent statement
of the case, says: “Their character and destination were well
known to the agent and master of the Trent, as well as the
great interest felt by the Rebels that they should, and by
the United States officials that they should not, reach their
destination in safety.”[11] The regular mails for England from
South America and Cuba were aboard, to be transferred at St.
Thomas, with a large number of passengers bound to England.

On the high seas, within a few hours’ sail of Nassau, the
Trent was stopped and searched by the national steamer San
Jacinto, commanded by Captain Wilkes, afterwards Rear-Admiral,
acting on his own responsibility, and without any instructions
from the National Government. The two commissioners and
their secretaries were found aboard, but the despatches were
secreted or confided to some of the passengers. Here Mr. Dana
remarks: “There was no evidence or charge that the commander
of the Trent aided in the concealment or forwarding of these
despatches. He did, however, deny the right of search, refused
all facilities for it, and obstructed it by everything but
actual force, and made it known to Captain Wilkes that he
yielded only to superior power, and that, if made a prize,
he and his crew would lend no aid in carrying the Trent into
port.”[12] Under these circumstances, Captain Wilkes took
the two commissioners with their suite, and carried them as
prisoners to the United States, while the Trent proceeded on
her voyage.

As this incident became known in the United States, there was
a general expression of sympathy and approbation. The press
was unanimous. Persons in authority gave their adhesion by
public speech or writing, among whom were Mr. Everett, Governor
Andrew, Chief-Justice Bigelow of Massachusetts, Professor
Parsons of the Law School at Cambridge, Mr. Caleb Cushing, and
Mr. George Sumner, all of whom were to a certain extent under
the influence of British precedents.

The Secretary of the Navy, under date of November 30, 1861,
addressed a communication to Captain Wilkes, containing the
following significant words.

“Your conduct in seizing these public enemies was marked by
intelligence, ability, decision, and firmness, and has the
emphatic approval of this Department. It is not necessary
that I should in this communication, which is intended to
be one of congratulation to yourself, officers, and crew,
express an opinion on the course pursued in omitting to
capture the vessel which had these public enemies on board,
further than to say that the forbearance exercised in this
instance must not be permitted to constitute a precedent
hereafter for infractions of neutral obligations.”[13]

The House of Representatives made haste, December 2, 1861, the
first day of its session, to adopt a joint resolution tendering
the thanks of Congress to Captain Wilkes, “for his brave,
adroit, and patriotic conduct in the arrest and detention of
the traitors James M. Mason and John Slidell.” This was on the
motion of Hon. Owen Lovejoy, the faithful Abolitionist. The
joint resolution, on reaching the Senate, was referred to the
Committee on Naval Affairs, of which Mr. Hale was chairman.
Mr. Sumner suggested its reference to the Committee on Foreign
Relations; but Mr. Hale insisted, by way of objection, that
“the attempt now to take it out of its ordinary course and
refer it to the Committee on Foreign Relations would be taken
as an intimation that there is some doubt in some minds as
to the propriety of the course that Captain Wilkes took.”
Unwilling to raise a debate at that moment, Mr. Sumner assented
to the reference proposed.

* * * * *

In England there was a counter sentiment, breaking out
into expressions of exasperation. The press was bitter and
vindictive. Public report attested a crisis, which may be read
in the newspapers of Richmond, throbbing sympathetically with
the London organs.

The _Richmond Examiner_, of December 19, broke forth in notes
of triumph.

“All other topics become trifles beside the tidings of
England which occupy this journal, and all commentary
that diverts public attention from that single point is
impertinence. The effect of the outrage of the Trent on the
public sentiment of Great Britain more than fulfils the
prophecy that we made when the arrest of the Confederate
ministers was a fresh event. All legal quibbling and
selfish calculation has been consumed like straw in the
burning sense of incredible insult.”

Then, speculating upon the position of the National Government,
the same journal says:--

“The Abolition element of the Northern States would go
straight to revolution at the least movement toward a
surrender of the captives.… Spectators of these events, who
can doubt that the Almighty fiat has gone forth against the
American Union, or that the Southern Confederacy is decreed
by Divine Wisdom?”

The _Richmond Enquirer_ of the same date likewise rejoiced.

“We have no need to invite attention to the extremely
interesting foreign news which we publish to-day from
England. The old British lion is giving an honest roar, in
view of the indignity visited upon the Queen’s flag.… We
will not disturb the eloquence of such facts by words of
comment. We will only say, Well done, John Bull! France,
too, echoes the British indignation, and will support her
action. _Vive Napoléon!_ … After the brave talk and the
congratulations to Wilkes by both Cabinet and Congress, it
would be to the last degree pusillanimous to retreat. We
think Lincoln will be afraid to prove so great a coward.”

Swiftly came the British demand, in a letter from Earl Russell
to Lord Lyons at Washington, dated at London, November 30, and
read to Mr. Seward December 19. It concluded in the following
terms.

“Her Majesty’s Government, therefore, trust, that, when
this matter shall have been brought under the consideration
of the Government of the United States, that Government
will, of its own accord, offer to the British Government
such redress as alone could satisfy the British nation,
namely, the liberation of the four gentlemen and their
delivery to your Lordship, in order that they may again
be placed under British protection, and a suitable apology
for the aggression which has been committed. Should these
terms not be offered by Mr. Seward, you will propose them
to him.”[14]

“The four gentlemen,” being the commissioners and their
secretaries, all Rebels, were to be liberated forthwith, and “a
suitable apology” was to be made by the National Government.
Such was the mandate. But accompanying these instructions
read to Mr. Seward was a private communication to Lord Lyons,
directing him to break up his legation and to leave Washington,
if the National Government did not submit to the terms required
after “a delay not exceeding seven days.” Here are the words:--

“Should Mr. Seward ask for delay, in order that this grave
and painful matter should be deliberately considered, you
will consent to a delay not exceeding seven days. If at the
end of that time no answer is given, or if any other answer
is given except that of a compliance with the demands of
Her Majesty’s Government, your Lordship is instructed to
leave Washington, with all the members of your legation,
bringing with you the archives of the legation, and to
repair immediately to London.… You will communicate with
Vice-Admiral Sir A. Milne immediately upon receiving the
answer of the American Government, and you will send him
a copy of that answer, together with such observations
as you may think fit to make. You will also give all the
information in your power to the Governors of Canada, Nova
Scotia, New Brunswick, Jamaica, Bermuda, and such other of
Her Majesty’s possessions as may be within your reach.”[15]

These latter instructions, contemplating war, were unknown
in our country at the time of the settlement, and, when read
in the calmness of a period removed from the event, seem
incomprehensible in spirit. They are positive and peremptory,
without recognizing any possibility of delay, even for a
proposal of arbitration. Plainly they announce, as the British
alternatives, instant surrender, with suitable apology, or war.
This is the conclusion of Mr. Dana, in his admirable note, and
nobody can doubt it.

In accord with this note was the conduct of the British
Government, making preparations for war; and here is
unimpeachable British testimony.

“Troops were despatched to Canada with all possible
expedition; and that brave and loyal colony called out
its militia and volunteers, so as to be ready to act at a
moment’s notice. Our dock-yards here resounded with the din
of workmen getting vessels fitted for sea; and there was
but one feeling, which animated all classes and parties in
the country, and that was a determination to vindicate our
insulted honor and uphold the inviolability of the national
flag.”[16]

At that moment the American Republic was straining every
nerve to suppress a Rebellion whose single declared object
was the foundation of a new government with Slavery as its
corner-stone. War by England was practical recognition of the
new government, with alliance and breaking of the blockade.

The difficulty in comprehending this attitude is increased,
when it is known that the British Government did not regard the
seizure as authorized by instructions. In his letter to Lord
Lyons, Earl Russell says expressly: “Her Majesty’s Government
are willing to believe that the United States naval officer
who committed the aggression was not acting in compliance with
any authority from his Government.”[17] Therefore the National
Government had done nothing,--absolutely nothing.

On the same day that Earl Russell indited his remarkable
despatch, Mr. Seward wrote from Washington to Mr. Adams,
at London, on business of the legation, and in his letter
mentions that Captain Wilkes “acted without any instructions
from the Government.” He adds: “We have done nothing on the
subject to anticipate the discussion.” The letter throughout
is in the spirit of peace. After declaring his inference
“that the British Government is now awake to the importance
of averting possible conflict, and disposed to confer and act
with earnestness to that end,” Mr. Seward says, “If so, we are
disposed to meet them in the same spirit, as a nation chiefly
of British lineage, sentiments, and sympathies, a civilized
and humane nation, a Christian people,” and then adds, that
the affair of the Trent “is to be met and disposed of by the
two Governments, if possible, in the spirit to which I have
adverted,”[18] that is, with a sense of “the importance of
averting possible conflict,” and a disposition “to confer and
act with earnestness to that end,” as a Christian people. It
so happened that Mr. Adams read this letter to Earl Russell on
the very day that Lord Lyons read the demand for surrender and
apology to Mr. Seward; but the British Government did not allow
its pacific contents to become known, and the war-fever went
on. Here Mr. Dana aptly remarks: “The truth seems to be, that,
so long as they were uncertain whether their menace of war
might not lead to war, they could not afford to withdraw the
chief motive for the war-spirit in the British people, and to
admit that their warlike demonstration had been needless. Their
popular support depended upon a general belief in a necessity
for their having accompanied their demand with the preparations
and menace of war.”[19]

The extraordinary character of this demand was recognized at
the time in Europe. The Count de Gasparin, after describing
it as “a question of declaring war,” and an “ultimatum,”
said: “Between great nations, between sister nations, it was
a strange opening. The usage is hardly to commence with an
_ultimatum_,--that is, to commence with the end. Ordinarily,
when there has been a misunderstanding or regrettable act,
especially when that act comes within a portion of the Law of
Nations which is yet full of obscurity, the natural opening
is to ask for explanations as to the intentions, and for
reparation for what has been done, without mixing therewith an
immediate menace of rupture.”[20] After expressing astonishment
that a demand of apology “figured in the original programme,”
which he pronounced entirely out of place, the impartial
Frenchman proceeds: “Seeing such haste and proclamation so
lofty of an exigence above debate, seeing the idea of an
impious war accepted with so much ease by some and with such
joy so little dissembled by others, Europe declared, without
ambiguity or reserve, that, if England were not miraculously
saved from her own undertaking, that, if she went so far as to
fire a cannon at the North as an ally of the South, she would
tear with her own hands her principal titles to the respect
of the civilized world.”[21] Rejecting the pretension that
the maintenance of peace was due to the “warlike measures of
England,” the eloquent moralist exclaims, “America has just
rendered to England the most signal service which ever a people
rendered to another people,” and this by refusing the war which
was menaced,--a war, as painted by him, where, in addition
to untold calamity, would be the wretchedness of striking at
the liberty of the world in alliance with slave-traders. How
naturally he adds: “From the moment that she is only the ally
of slave-traders, she has abdicated.”[22]

The summary tone of the British Government and the
contemporaneous preparations for war enhanced the difficulties
peculiar to such a question; but it was easy to see, on
examination, that the demand was in substantial conformity with
American precedents, and accordingly the Rebels, who had been
confined at Fort Warren, in Boston Harbor, were handed over to
the British Government.

* * * * *

While the question was under consideration by the Cabinet
of President Lincoln, and before any conclusion had been
communicated to the British Government, an incident occurred
in the Senate which showed the feeling that sought expression.
December 26th, Mr. Hale, of New Hampshire, who had already
avowed his sympathy with the act of Captain Wilkes, found
occasion to discuss it at some length, and to denounce the idea
of surrendering the Rebels. A few passages will show the tone
he adopted.

“I believe that the Cabinet to-day and yesterday, and for
some days past, have had under consideration a measure
which involves more of good or evil to this country
than anything that has ever occurred before: I mean the
surrender, on the demand of Great Britain, of the persons
of Messrs. Slidell and Mason. To my mind, a more fatal act
could not mark the history of this country,--an act that
would surrender at once to the arbitrary demand of Great
Britain all that was won in the Revolution, reduce us to
the position of a second-rate power, and make us the vassal
of Great Britain.…

“I have seen many gentlemen, and I have seen none, not a
man can be found, who is in favor of this surrender; for it
would humiliate us in the eyes of the world, irritate our
own people, and subject us to their indignant scorn. If we
are to have war with Great Britain, it will not be because
we refuse to surrender Messrs. Mason and Slidell: that is a
mere pretence. If war shall come, it will be because Great
Britain has determined to force war upon us. They would
humiliate us first and fight us afterwards. If we are to
be humiliated, I prefer to take it after a war, and not
before.… I pray that this Administration will not surrender
our national honor. I tell them that hundreds and thousands
and hundreds of thousands will rush to the battle-field,
and bare their breasts to its perils, rather than submit to
degradation.”[23]

Mr. Sumner at that time had not seen the demand, and was
without any precise information on the subject, but felt it his
duty to say something by way of breakwater against the rising
tide. He spoke briefly.

MR. PRESIDENT,--The Senator has made his speech, and then withdrawn his
motion; he has accomplished his object. For myself, Sir, I would rather
meet this question, truly important, when presented in a practical
form. The Senator treats it on an hypothesis; he assumes that Great
Britain has made an arrogant demand, and then proceeds to denounce it.
How does he know that any such demand has been made? Who in the Senate
knows it? Who in the country knows it? I do not believe it,--will not
believe it, except on evidence.

The Senator says that he is not against arbitration. How does he know
that this is not the policy of the Administration? But I know nobody
here who can speak for the Administration on this point.

I submit to the Senator that on both points he has spoken too swiftly.
There is no evidence to justify him in belief that any arrogant demand
has been made; there is no evidence that can lead him to distrust the
fidelity of the Administration. Speaking for myself and nobody else, I
declare my conviction that the question will be peaceably and honorably
adjusted. I do not believe that it is a question for war; and I hail
with gratitude the declaration of the honorable Senator in favor of
arbitration. This at least is pacific in what must be called a war
speech. But do not understand me as intimating that such mode is under
consideration. I content myself with repeating, that the question is
in safe hands, and that it will be better for us to reserve ourselves
until it is presented in some practical form, or at least on evidence,
and not on mere hypothesis.

Mr. Sumner had been with the President and his Cabinet the day
before, to read important letters just received from Mr. Cobden
and Mr. Bright; but he did not know the conclusion on the
question. The few words in reply to Mr. Hale were in the spirit
of peace, and as such were warmly welcomed by the public.
The sympathy they awakened attests the prevailing interest.
A leading citizen of Providence wrote: “Very many thanks for
your mild rebuke of our friend Senator Hale, when he mounted
the war-horse.” Another in Boston adopted the same vein: “For
your wise words, after the war speech of Mr. Hale, you have my
thanks, and the thanks of thousands who will never express to
you their feelings. I know you will exert your great influence
on the side of peace, and I rejoice that you have so much moral
power in this matter.” Rev. George C. Beckwith, Corresponding
Secretary of the American Peace Society, had promptly declared
his trust: “It is a matter of special congratulation, that
the helm of our Foreign Relations, so far as the Senate is
concerned, is held at this juncture in hands so worthy of our
confidence. We trust that you and your Committee will have all
the wisdom and other qualities needed to meet the case now
before us just as it ought to be.” A friend holding high office
in Massachusetts augured new strength for Mr. Sumner in the
battle with Slavery: “Your decisive speech,” he wrote, “will do
much to raise you in the estimation of those who were alarmed
by your Emancipation doctrines, and who begin to see that you
are right in that, as well as other things.”

The confidence reposed had its responsibilities increased
by his position as Chairman of the Committee on Foreign
Relations, and, when the surrender was announced, Mr. Sumner
felt it a duty to do what he could in reconciling the people
to his conclusion, especially as he was satisfied that the
original taking of the Rebels could not be justified without
adopting most obnoxious British precedents. Besides, reform in
Maritime Law seemed to be involved in the discussion, and he
was not without hope of contributing to this important result.
Therefore he made an early occasion to address the Senate on
the subject.

In his speech Mr. Sumner brought into strong relief the early
and long continued pretension of England to enter our ships and
take our sailors without trial of any kind, as Captain Wilkes
had entered the Trent and taken the Rebel agents. In presenting
this point, he was determined not only by the London press,
which adopted the original American objection to any such entry
and taking, but also by the unpublished opinions of the law
advisers of the Crown, which he had before him in manuscript.

The capture of the Rebels was known in London on the evening
of 27th November. But some time before, on an intimation that
such an attempt might be made, the British Government had asked
the opinion of the law officers on the questions involved
in such an act. An answer was returned, bearing date 12th
November, which was signed by the Queen’s Advocate-General, the
Attorney-General, and the Solicitor-General. In this opinion
it was stated: “The United States ship of war may put a prize
crew on board the West India steamer and carry her off to a
port of the United States for adjudication by a Prize Court
there; _but she would have no right to remove Messrs. Mason and
Slidell and carry them off as prisoners, leaving the ship to
pursue her voyage_.” This opinion was supposed to have greater
value because it was given sixteen days before anything on the
subject had appeared in the London press. Afterwards the case
of the Trent was submitted to these law officers, and on the
28th of November they gave another opinion in accordance with
the former, where they say: “From on board a merchant ship of a
neutral power, pursuing a lawful and innocent voyage, _certain
individuals have been taken by force. They were not apparently
officers in the military or naval service of the Confederate
Government._” They conclude that Her Majesty’s Government “will
be justified in requiring reparation for the international
wrong which has been on this occasion committed.” In conformity
with this opinion, Earl Russell, in his letter demanding the
surrender, treated it simply as a forcible taking of “certain
individuals” from an innocent British vessel at sea by an
American ship of war, all of which had been too often done by
British ships of war with innocent American vessels at sea.

It will be observed that Earl Russell uses the most general
language, without specification; but the contemporaneous press
dwelt on the single point taken by the law officers. One of
these is quoted in Mr. Sumner’s speech.

In France, the _Revue des Deux Mondes_ wrote, as if instructed
from Downing Street:--

“England _confines herself_ to denying that an officer can
erect himself into a judge in such a cause, the decision of
which should belong only to a Court of Admiralty. Captain
Wilkes, _substituting himself arbitrarily for the judicial
authority_, alone competent to give a legal character to
his prize, England can see in the act which he committed on
the Trent only an act of violence, an outrage perpetrated
against the British flag.”[24]

This single point found sudden favor in England. Nassau W.
Senior, the eminent economist, in close relations with the
British Cabinet, wrote to Mr. Sumner, under date of December
10: “We think that Captain Wilkes _could not make himself judge
in his own cause_; that the utmost he could have done legally
would have been to take the Trent into an Admiralty Court.”
Here the able Englishman simply echoes the early and constant
doctrine of our country; but others among his countrymen did
the same.

The intimate relations of Mr. Sumner with Mr. Cobden and Mr.
Bright, already existing, were quickened during this anxious
period, when these eminent English statesmen wrote constantly,
full of friendship for our country and anxious always for
peace. The perfect freedom of these communications may be
judged by a passage in a letter of Mr. Cobden.

“I write to you, of course, in confidence; and I write to
you what I would not write to any other American,--nay,
what it would be perhaps improper for any other Englishman
than myself to utter to any other American but yourself.
But we are, I think, both more of Christians and
cosmopolitans than British or Yankee.”

Intervening time and death have removed the seal of confidence,
opening what passed between them to the observation of history.

Mr. Cobden occupied himself especially to obtain important
reforms in International Law on the ocean. This was part
of his scheme for disarmament; and here Mr. Sumner was a
fellow-laborer. He was anxious that the attention suddenly
directed to Maritime Rights should redound to the good of
the Human Family. His programme was given in a letter dated
December 5, and read by Mr. Sumner to President Lincoln and his
Cabinet, while considering the British demand, on the forenoon
of Christmas day. Mr. Cobden begins by quoting from the public
letter of General Scott, then at Paris.

“I am sure that the President and people of the United
States would be but too happy to let these men go free,
unnatural and unpardonable as their offences have been,
if by it they could emancipate the commerce of the world.
Greatly as it would be to our disadvantage, at this present
crisis, to surrender any of these maritime privileges of
belligerents which are sanctioned by the Laws of Nations,
I feel that I take no responsibility in saying that the
United States will be faithful to their traditional policy
upon this subject, and to the spirit of their political
institutions.”

He then proceeds:--

“If I were in the position of your Government, I would
act upon it, and thus, by a great strategic movement,
turn the flank of the European powers, _especially of the
governing classes of England_. I would propose to let Mason
and Slidell go, and stipulate, at the same time, for a
complete abandonment of the old code of Maritime Law as
upheld by England and the European powers. I would propose
that private property at sea should be exempt from capture
by armed Government ships. On this condition I would give
in my adhesion to the abolition of privateering. I would
propose that neutral merchant vessels, in time of war, as
in time of peace, should be exempt from search, visitation,
or detention, by armed Government vessels, when on the
ocean or high seas,--I mean when beyond that distance from
the shore which removes them from the jurisdiction of any
maritime state. I would propose to abolish blockades of
purely commercial ports, excepting for articles contraband
of war.”

To these just and magnificent reforms Mr. Cobden returns in
other letters, dwelling on the abolition of blockades, but
pressing upon our country the duty of advancing all, and, in
the ardor of appeal, exclaiming, “Take high ground with Europe
for a complete sweep of the old maritime code, and then take
your own time to deal with the Slave States,” and concluding
another letter with the words, “Recollect how immensely you
would gain in moral power by leading all Europe in the path of
civilization. You owe it to yourselves and us.”

This correspondence reveals the anxiety of good Englishmen,
and also the various reports by which the public mind was
perplexed. In one letter Mr. Cobden writes: “Everybody tells
me that war is inevitable; and yet I do not believe in war.”
In another he mentions “an impression in high quarters that
Mr. Seward wishes to quarrel with this country,” which he
characterizes as “absurd enough.” In another he alludes to
the joint resolution of thanks to Captain Wilkes, adopted by
the House of Representatives, as “viewed here by our alarmist
journals as almost a declaration of war”; and, after mentioning
that “grave men, holding the highest post in your cultivated
State of Massachusetts, compliment Captain Wilkes for having
given an affront to the British lion,” he says, with point, “It
makes it very hard for Bright and me to contend against the
British-lion party in this country.”

Even in this peculiar atmosphere his clearness of perception
did not fail, and Mr. Cobden saw the mistake of principle or
policy involved in the “impressment” of the Rebel agents. In
the postscript of a letter dated November 27, the very day
when the taking was first known in London, he wrote: “We are
rather unprepared to find you exercising in a strained manner
the right of search, _inasmuch as you have been supposed to be
always the opponents of the practice_.”

In the same vein his eloquent colleague, Mr. Bright, wrote,
under date of December 5: “Our law officers are agreed and
strong in their opinion of the illegality of the seizure of the
commissioners; _but I cannot make out how or where it exceeds
the course taken by English ships of war before the War of
1812_. But all the people here, of course, accept their opinion
as conclusive on the law of the case.”

Thus directly from the opinions of the law officers, and also
from various testimony, including the press, is it apparent
that the special objection of England was founded on the
forcible taking of “certain individuals” from a British vessel.

Naturally, therefore, Mr. Sumner planted himself on the early
American postulate, constantly maintained by us and constantly
denied by England. In the able note already cited Mr. Dana sums
up the result.

“This celebrated case can be considered as having settled
but one principle, and that had substantially ceased to be
a disputed question: viz., that a public ship, though of a
nation at war, cannot take persons out of a neutral vessel
at sea, whatever may be the claim of her Government on
those persons.”[25]

Mr. Seward was, therefore, right, when, in his communication
to Lord Lyons, he announced the settlement of the case “upon
principles confessedly American.”[26] In similar spirit,
Prince Gortschakoff, in behalf of the Russian Cabinet,
congratulated our Republic upon “remaining faithful to the
political principles which she has always maintained, even
when those principles were turned against her, and abstaining
from invoking in her turn the benefit of doctrines which she
has always repudiated.”[27] And Baron Ricasoli, speaking for
the Italian Cabinet, would not believe that the Government at
Washington “desired to change its character all at once, and
become the champion of theories which history has shown to be
calamitous, and which public opinion has condemned forever.”[28]

* * * * *

The correspondence “in relation to the recent removal of
certain citizens of the United States from the British
mail-steamer Trent,” including the letter of Earl Russell and
the reply of Mr. Seward, and also the letter of M. Thouvenel,
Minister of Foreign Affairs in France, was communicated to
the Senate January 6, 1862. Its reference to the Committee
on Foreign Relations was, on motion of Mr. Sumner, made the
special order for January 9th, at one o’clock, when he made his
speech.

January 7th, two days before Mr. Sumner’s speech, the subject
was discussed in the House of Representatives, and strong
speeches were made against the surrender. Mr. Vallandigham, of
Ohio, a leading Democrat, said:--

“I avail myself of this, the earliest opportunity yet
presented, to express my utter and strong condemnation,
as one of the Representatives of the people, of the act
of the Administration surrendering Mr. Mason and Mr.
Slidell to the British Government.… In six days after the
imperious and peremptory demand of Great Britain they were
abjectly surrendered, upon the mere rumor of the approach
of a hostile fleet; and thus, Sir, for the first time in
our national history, have we strutted insolently into
a quarrel without right and then basely crept out of it
without honor; and thus, too, for the first time, has
the American eagle been made to cower before the British
lion.”[29]

Then again the same Democratic Proslavery orator said:--

“I would prefer a war with England to the humiliation which
we have tamely submitted to; and I venture the assertion
that such a war would have called into the field five
hundred thousand men who are not now there, and never will
be without it, and have developed an energy and power in
the United States which no country has exhibited in modern
times, except France, in her great struggle in 1793.”[30]

In equal opposition to the British demand, Mr. B. F. Thomas, of
Massachusetts, an able lawyer, said:--

“The surrender is made, the thing done. In the presence
of great duties we have no time for the luxury of grief.
Complaint of the Government would be useless, if not
groundless. It was too much to ask of it to take another
war on its hands.… But we are not called upon, Mr.
Speaker, to say that the demand was manly or just. It was
unmanly and unjust. It was a demand which, in view of her
history, of the rights she had always claimed and used as a
belligerent power, of the principles which her greatest of
jurists, Lord Stowell, had imbedded in the Law of Nations,
England was fairly estopped to make.… When the matter is
more carefully weighed, it will be seen and felt that no
wrong was done to England,--that there was no wrong in the
forbearance to exercise an extreme right,--no insult, for
none was intended,--that our feeling, if any, leaned to
virtue’s side, was a relaxation of the iron rigor of law
from motives of humanity and Christian courtesy,--that,
on the other hand, England has done to us a great wrong,
in availing herself of our moment of weakness to make a
demand, which, accompanied as it was by the ‘pomp and
circumstance of war,’ was insolent in spirit and thoroughly
unjust.… But the loss will ultimately be hers. She is
treasuring up to herself wrath against the day of wrath.
She has excited in the hearts of this people a deep and
bitter sense of wrong, of injury inflicted at a moment
when we could not respond. It is night with us now; but
through the watches of the night, even, we shall be girding
ourselves to strike the blow of righteous retribution.”[31]

In similar spirit, Mr. Wright, of Pennsylvania, said:--

“Let England take them; if she has a mind to fête and
toast them, let her do it,--it is none of our business; if
England desires to make lions of Confederate Rebels, it is
a mere matter of taste. If they have to be surrendered,
then let them be surrendered under a protest, while we
shall remember hereafter that there is a matter to be
cancelled between the British Government and the United
States of North America.”[32]

These utterances show elements in the atmosphere when
Mr. Sumner spoke. With many there was grief mingled with
indignation, while others who accepted the result felt a new
burden added to the war. Something was needed as a rally.

SPEECH.

MR. PRESIDENT,--Every principle of International Law, when justly and
authoritatively settled, is a safeguard of peace and a landmark of
civilization. It constitutes part of that code which is the supreme
law, above all municipal laws, binding the whole Commonwealth of
Nations. Such a settlement may be by a general Congress of Nations,
as at Munster, Vienna, or Paris; or it may be through the general
accord of treaties; or it may be by a precedent established under such
conspicuous circumstances, with all nations as assenting witnesses,
that it becomes at once a commanding rule of international conduct.
Especially is this the case, if disturbing pretensions, long maintained
to the detriment of civilization, are practically renounced. Without
congress or treaty, such a precedent is now established.

Surely it ought to be considered and understood in its true character.
Undertaking to explain it, I shall speak for myself alone; but I shall
speak frankly, according to the wise freedom of public debate, and the
plain teachings of history on the question involved, trusting sincerely
that what I utter may contribute something to elevate the honest
patriotism of the country, and perhaps to secure that tranquil judgment
under which this precedent will be the herald, if not the guardian, of
international harmony.

* * * * *

Two old men and two younger associates, recently taken from the British
mail packet Trent, on the high seas, by order of Captain Wilkes of the
United States Navy, and afterwards detained in custody at Fort Warren,
are liberated and placed at the disposition of the British Government.
This is at the instance of that Government, made on the assumption that
the original capture was an act of violence constituting an affront
to the British flag, and a violation of International Law. This is a
simple outline of the facts. To appreciate the value of the precedent,
other matters must be brought into view.

These two old men were citizens of the United States, and for many
years Senators. Arrogant, audacious, persistent, perfidious,--one was
author of the Fugitive Slave Bill, and the other was chief author of
the filibustering system which has disgraced our national name and
disturbed our national peace. Occupying places of trust and power
in the service of the country, they conspired against it, and at
last the secret traitors and conspirators became open rebels. The
present Rebellion, surpassing in proportions and in wickedness any
rebellion in history, was from the beginning quickened and promoted
by their untiring energies. That country to which they owed love,
honor, and obedience, they betrayed and gave over to violence and
outrage. Treason, conspiracy, and rebellion, each in succession, acted
through them. The incalculable expenditures now tasking the national
resources,--the untold derangement of affairs, not only at home,
but abroad,--the levy of armies without example,--the devastation
of extended spaces of territory,--the plunder of peaceful ships on
the ocean, and the slaughter of fellow-citizens on the murderous
battle-field,--such are some of the consequences proceeding directly
from them.

To carry forward still further the gigantic crime of which they were
so large a part, these two old men, with their two younger associates,
stole from Charleston on board a Rebel steamer, and, under cover of
darkness and storm, running the surrounding blockade and avoiding the
national cruisers, succeeded in reaching the neutral island of Cuba,
where, with open display and the knowledge of the British consul, they
embarked on board the British mail packet Trent, bound for St. Thomas,
whence they were to embark for England, in which kingdom one of them
was to play the part of Ambassador of the Rebellion, while the other
was to play the same part in France. The original treason, conspiracy,
and rebellion, of which they were so heinously guilty, were all
continued on this voyage, which became a prolongation of the original
crime, destined to still further excess through their ambassadorial
pretensions, which it was hoped would array two great nations against
the United States, and enlist them openly in support of an accursed
Slaveholding Rebellion. While on their way, the pretended ambassadors
were arrested by Captain Wilkes, of the United States steamer San
Jacinto, an accomplished officer, already well known by scientific
explorations, who on this occasion acted without instructions from his
Government. If in this arrest he forgot for a moment the fixed policy
of the Republic, which has been from the beginning like a frontlet
between the eyes, and transcended the Law of Nations, as the United
States have always declared it, his apology will be found in the
patriotic impulse by which he was inspired, and the British examples he
could not forget. They were the enemies of his country, embodying in
themselves the triple essence of worst enmity,--treason, conspiracy,
and rebellion; and they bore a professed ambassadorial character,
which, as he supposed, according to high British authority, rendered
them liable to be stopped, while, as American citizens, they were
liable to seizure by the National Government in strict conformity with
long continued British practice. If, in the ardor of an honest nature,
Captain Wilkes erred, he might well say,--

“Who can be wise, amazed, temperate and furious,
Loyal and neutral, in a moment? No man.
The expedition of my violent love
Outran the pauser reason.…
… Who could refrain,
That had a heart to love, and in that heart
Courage to make his love known?”

If this transaction be regarded exclusively in the light of British
precedents, if we follow the seeming authority of the British
Admiralty, speaking by its greatest voice, and especially if we accept
the oft repeated example of British cruisers, upheld by the British
Government against the oft repeated protests of the United States, we
find little difficulty in vindicating it. The act becomes questionable
only when brought to the touchstone of those liberal principles which
from the earliest times the American Government has openly avowed
and sought to advance, and other European nations have accepted with
regard to the sea. Great Britain cannot complain, except by adopting
those identical principles; and should we undertake to vindicate the
act, it can be only by repudiating those identical principles. Our two
cases will be reversed. In the struggle between Laertes and Hamlet,
the combatants exchanged rapiers, so that Hamlet was armed with the
rapier of Laertes, and Laertes with the rapier of Hamlet. And now,
on this sensitive question, a similar exchange occurs. Great Britain
is armed with American principles, while to us are left only those
British pretensions which throughout our history have been constantly,
deliberately, and solemnly rejected.

Earl Russell, in his despatch to Lord Lyons, communicated to Mr.
Seward, contents himself by saying that “it appears that certain
individuals have been forcibly taken from on board a British vessel,
the ship of a neutral power, _while such vessel was pursuing a lawful
and innocent voyage_,--an act of violence which was an affront to
the British flag, and a violation of International Law.”[33] Here is
positive assertion that the ship, notoriously having on board the Rebel
emissaries, was pursuing a lawful and innocent voyage; but there is no
specification of the precise ground on which the act is regarded as a
violation of International Law. Of course, it is not an affront; for an
accident can never be an affront to an individual or to a nation.

But public report, authenticated by various authorities, English and
Continental, forbids us to continue ignorant of the precise ground on
which this act is presented as a violation of International Law. It
is admitted that a United States man-of-war, meeting a British mail
steamer beyond the territorial limits of Great Britain, may subject
her to visitation and search; also that such man-of-war might put a
prize crew on board the British steamer, and take her to a port of
the United States for adjudication by a Prize Court there; but it
is alleged that she would have no right to remove the individuals,
not apparently officers in the military or naval service, and carry
them off as prisoners, leaving the ship to pursue her voyage.[34]
Under the circumstances, in the exercise of a belligerent right, the
British steamer, with all on board, might have been captured and
carried off; but, according to the British law officers, on whose
professional opinion the British Cabinet acted, the whole proceeding
was vitiated by failure to take the packet into port for condemnation.
This failure is the occasion of much unprofessional objurgation; and
we are emphatically and constantly reminded that the custody of the
individuals in question could not be determined by a navy officer on
his quarter-deck, so as to supersede the adjudication of a Prize Court.
This is confidently stated by an English writer, assuming to put the
case for his Government, as follows.

“It is not to the right of search that we object, _but to the
following seizure without process of law_. What we deny is _the
right of a naval officer to stand in place of a Prize Court_,
and adjudicate, sword in hand, with a _sic volo, sic jubeo_, on
the very deck which is a part of our territory.”[35]

The same authority flourishes the same objection again.

“If Captain Wilkes and his irresponsible supporters imagine
that we shall submit to the _arbitrary, semi-barbarous
practice_, they will in a few days be undeceived; for our
Government has instructed Lord Lyons to demand reparation for
so wanton a breach of friendly relations.”[36]

Such declarations in an important journal, and in precise harmony
with the opinions of the British law officers, seem semi-official in
character.

Thus it appears that the present complaint of the British Government
is not founded on any assumption by the American war steamer of the
belligerent right of search,--nor on the ground that this right was
exercised on a neutral vessel between two neutral ports,--nor that
it was exercised on a mail steamer, sustained by subvention from the
Crown, and officered in part from the royal navy,--nor that it was
exercised in a case where the penalties of contraband could not attach;
but it is founded simply and precisely on the idea that persons other
than apparent officers in the military or naval service cannot be taken
out of a neutral ship at the mere will of the officer exercising the
right of search, and without any form of trial. Therefore the Law of
Nations has been violated, and the conduct of Captain Wilkes must be
disavowed, while men who are traitors, conspirators, and rebels, all in
one, are allowed to go free.

Surely, that criminals, though dyed in guilt, should go free, is better
than that the Law of Nations should be violated, especially in any rule
by which war is restricted and the mood of peace is enlarged; for the
Law of Nations cannot be violated without overturning the protection of
the innocent as well as the guilty. On this general principle there
can be no question. It is but an illustration of that important maxim,
recorded in the Latin of Fortescue, “Better that twenty guilty should
escape than one innocent man should suffer,”[37] with this difference,
that in the present case four guilty ones escape, while the innocent
everywhere on the sea obtain new security. And this security becomes
more valuable as a triumph of civilization, when it is considered that
it was long refused, even at the cannon’s mouth.

Remember, Sir, that the question in this controversy is _strictly a
question of law_,--precisely like a question of trespass between two
neighbors. The British Cabinet began proceedings by taking the opinion
of their law advisers, precisely as an individual begins proceedings
in a suit at law by taking the opinion of his attorney. To make such a
question _a case of war_, or to suggest that war is a proper mode of
deciding it, is simply to revive, on a gigantic scale, the exploded
Ordeal by Battle, and to imitate those dark ages when such proceeding
was openly declared to be the best and most honorable mode of deciding
even an abstract point of law. “It was a matter of doubt and dispute,”
says a mediæval historian, “whether the sons of a son ought to be
reckoned among the children of the family, and succeed equally with
their uncles, if their father happened to die while their grandfather
was alive. An assembly was called to deliberate on this point, and it
was the general opinion that it ought to be remitted to the examination
and decision of judges. But the Emperor, following a better course, and
desirous of dealing honorably with his people and nobles, appointed
the matter to be decided by battle between two champions.”[38] In
similar spirit has it been latterly proposed, amidst the amazement of
the civilized world, to withdraw the point of law, now raised by Great
Britain, from peaceful adjudication, and submit it to Trial by Combat.
The irrational anachronism becomes more flagrant from the inconsistency
of the party making it; for it cannot be forgotten, that, in times
past, _on this identical point of law_, Great Britain persistently
held an opposite ground from that she now takes. Hereafter, in a
happier moment, this exacting power may regret the swiftness with which
she undertook to gird herself for unnatural combat, on a mere point
of law, with a friendly nation already struggling against domestic
enemies,--especially as impartial history must record that her heavy
sword was to be thrown into the scale of Slavery.

* * * * *

The British complaint seems narrowed to a single point, although there
are yet other points, on which, had the ship been carried into port for
adjudication, controversy must have arisen. The four following have
been presented in the case.

1. That the seizure of the Rebel emissaries, without taking the ship
into port, was wrong, _inasmuch as a navy officer is not entitled to
substitute himself for a judicial tribunal_.

2. That, had the ship been carried into port, it would not have been
liable on account of the Rebel emissaries, inasmuch as neutral ships
are free to carry all persons not apparently in the military or naval
service of the enemy.

3. Are despatches contraband of war, so as to render the ship liable to
seizure?

4. Are neutral ships, carrying despatches, liable to be stopped between
two neutral ports?

These I shall consider in their order, giving special attention to
the first, which is the pivot of the British complaint. If, in this
discussion, I expose grievances which it were better to forget, be
assured it is from no willingness to revive the buried animosities they
once so justly aroused, but simply to exhibit the proud position which
the United States early and constantly maintained.

* * * * *

A question of International Law should not be presented on any mere
_argumentum ad hominem_. It would be of little value to show that
Captain Wilkes was sustained by British authority and practice, if
he were condemned by International Law as interpreted by his own
country. It belongs to us now, nay, let it be our pride, at any cost
of individual prepossession or transitory prejudice, to uphold that
law in all its force, as it was often declared by the best men in our
history, and illustrated by national acts; and let us seize the present
occasion to consecrate its positive and unequivocal recognition. In
exchange for the prisoners set free, we receive from Great Britain a
practical assent, too long deferred, to a principle early propounded
by our country, and standing forth on every page of our history. The
same voice that asks for their liberation renounces in the same breath
an odious pretension, for whole generations the scourge of peaceful
commerce.

Great Britain, throughout her municipal history, has practically
contributed to the establishment of freedom beyond all other nations.
There are at least seven institutions or principles which she has
given to civilization: first, the trial by jury; secondly, the writ of
_Habeas Corpus_; thirdly, the freedom of the press; fourthly, bills
of rights; fifthly, the representative system; sixthly, the rules and
orders of debate, constituting Parliamentary Law; and, seventhly,
the principle that the air is too pure for a slave to breathe,--long
ago declared, and first made a conspicuous reality, by British law.
No other nation can show such peaceful triumphs. But, while thus
entitled to gratitude for glorious contributions to Municipal Law, we
turn with dissent and sorrow from much which she has sought to fasten
upon International Law. In municipal questions, Great Britain drew
inspiration from her own native Common Law, instinct with freedom; but,
especially in maritime questions arising under the Law of Nations, this
power seems to have acted on that obnoxious principle of the Roman Law,
positively discarded in municipal questions, _Quod principi placuit
legis vigorem habet_, and too often, under this inspiration, imposed
upon weaker nations her own arbitrary will. A prerogative of the
English monarch, mentioned in very express and pompous terms by early
writers, was “the Custody of the Sea,” and he is frequently styled “The
Sovereign Lord and Proprietor of the Sea.” But beyond these titles,
the time has been when she pretended to actual sovereignty over the
seas surrounding the British Isles, as far as Cape Finisterre to the
south, and Vanstaten in Norway to the north. Driven from this lordly
pretension, other pretensions, less local, but hardly less offensive,
were avowed. The boast of “Britannia rules the waves” was practically
adopted by British Prize Courts, and universal maritime rights were
subjected to the special exigencies of British interests. In the
consciousness of strength, and with an irresistible navy, this power
has put chains upon the sea.

The commerce of the United States, as it began to whiten the ocean, was
cruelly decimated. American ships and cargoes, while, in the language
of Earl Russell, “pursuing a lawful and innocent voyage,” suffered from
British Prize Courts more than from rock or tempest. Shipwreck was less
frequent than confiscation, and, when it came, was easier to bear.
But the loss of property stung less than the outrage of impressment,
by which foreigners, under protection of the American flag, and also
American citizens, without any form of trial, and at the mere mandate
of a navy officer, who for the moment acted as a judicial tribunal,
were dragged from the deck which should have been to them a sacred
altar. This outrage, insolently vindicated by the municipal claim of
Great Britain to the services of her subjects, was enforced arrogantly
and perpetually on the high seas, where Municipal Law is silent and
International Law alone prevails. The belligerent right of search,
derived from International Law, and justly applicable to enemy property
or contraband only, and not to men, was employed for this purpose,
and the quarter-deck of every English cruiser became a floating
judgment-seat. The leading organ of opinion in England, on the morning
after the news that the Rebels had been taken from a British ship, thus
confessed the precedents of British history:--

“Unwelcome as the truth may be, it is nevertheless a truth,
that we have ourselves established a system of International
Law which now tells against us. In high-handed and almost
despotic manner, we have, in former days, claimed privileges
over neutrals which have at different times banded all the
maritime powers of the world against us. _We have insisted even
upon stopping the ships of war of neutral nations and taking
British subjects out of them._”[39]

The practice began early and was continued constantly; nor did it
discriminate among its victims. It is mentioned by Mr. Jefferson,
and repeated by an excellent British writer on International Law,
that two nephews of Washington, on their way home from Europe,
were ravished from the protection of the American flag, without
any judicial proceedings, and placed, as common seamen, under the
ordinary discipline of British ships of war.[40] The victims were
counted by thousands. Lord Castlereagh himself admitted, on the floor
of the House of Commons, that an inquiry instituted by the British
Government had discovered in the British fleet three thousand five
hundred men claiming to be impressed Americans,--claiming only. But
while unwilling to accept this large number as all Americans, his
Lordship could not deny, “that, in the great extent of the British
navy, there were sixteen or seventeen hundred individuals who were
there contrary to the wishes of His Majesty’s Government, and who had
some rational ground for demanding their liberation, on the ground
of their being subjects of the United States,”--which, I take it, is
a pleonastic circumlocution to denote that at least sixteen hundred
American citizens were originally kidnapped and stolen from American
ships on the high seas, to undergo the servitude of the British
navy: all of which can be read in the Parliamentary Debates.[41] At
our Department of State upwards of six thousand cases were recorded,
and it was estimated that at least as many more might have occurred,
of which no information had been received.[42] Thus, according to
official admission of the British minister, there was reason to
believe that the quarter-deck of a British man-of-war had been made
a floating judgment-seat three thousand five hundred times, while,
according to the records of our own State Department, it had been made
a floating judgment-seat six thousand times and upwards, and each time
some citizen or other person was taken from the protection of the
national flag without any form of trial whatever. If a pretension so
intrinsically lawless could be sanctioned by precedent, Great Britain
would have succeeded in interpolating it into the Law of Nations.

The numbers sacrificed have been often denied on the other side;
but candid Englishmen have made admissions which are on record. The
“Edinburgh Review,” at a moment when its authority was at its height,
and truth prevailed above controversy, said:--

“The two lists made out in 1801 and 1812 of impressed Americans
can be but a small part of the American case against us. From
that fraction of their case we may, however, form some opinion
on the extent to which freemen, who would be a scandal to their
English ancestry, unless liberty was as dear as life, must have
writhed under our practice of impressment. Prior to September,
1801, 1,132 native American sailors were set at liberty by
the English Government, as having been wrongfully impressed.
On the war with America in 1812, another division of 1,422
native Americans, every one of them having been so taken, were
transferred out of our men-of-war into our prisons. This is
proved from English documents. Here are nearly two thousand six
hundred sufferers, victims of a greater outrage than one free
nation ever assumed the privilege of inflicting on another,--an
outrage which no nation deserving the name of a nation, and
solemnly bound to protect its meanest members, can be expected
patiently to endure.”[43]

Such words by one of us might be treated as the exaltation of patriotic
indignation. Here, it is history written by the other side.

Even assuming, that, according to frequent British allegation, the
persons taken were British subjects and not American citizens, which
would make the act identical with that of Captain Wilkes, this only
presents in stronger relief the precise point now in issue. Whether the
victims were American citizens or British subjects, there was in each
case the same forcible entry of our ships and taking from our decks.

Protest, argument, negotiation, correspondence, and war
itself--unhappily the last reason of republics, as of kings--were all
employed by the United States in vain to procure renunciation of the
intolerable pretension. The ablest papers in our diplomatic history
are devoted to this purpose; and the only serious war in which we have
been engaged, until summoned to subdue the Rebellion, was to overcome
by arms this very tyranny, which would not yield to reason. Beginning
in the last century, the correspondence is at length closed by the
recent reply of Mr. Seward to Lord Lyons. The long continued occasion
of conflict is now happily removed, and the pretension disappears
forever,--to take its place among the barbaric curiosities of the past.

But I do not content myself with asserting the persistent opposition
of the American Government. It belongs to the argument that I should
exhibit this opposition, and the precise ground on which it was
placed,--being identical with that now adopted by Great Britain. Here
the testimony is complete. If you will kindly follow me, you shall see
it from the beginning in the public life of our country, and in the
authentic records of the National Government.

This British pretension aroused and startled the administration of
Washington, and the pen of Mr. Jefferson, his Secretary of State,
was enlisted against it. In a letter to Thomas Pinckney, Minister at
London, dated June 11, 1792, he announced the American doctrine.

“The simplest rule will be, that the vessel being American
shall be evidence that the seamen on board her are such.”[44]

In another letter to the same minister, dated October 12, 1792, he
calls attention to a case of special outrage.

“I enclose you a copy of a letter from Messrs. Blow and
Melhaddo, merchants of Virginia, _complaining of the taking
away of their sailors_ on the coast of Africa by the commander
of a British armed vessel. So many instances of this kind have
happened, that it is quite necessary that their Government
should explain themselves on the subject, and be led to disavow
and punish such conduct.”[45]

At a later day, also under the administration of Washington, Mr.
Pickering, at that time Secretary of State, in a letter to Rufus King,
Minister at London, dated June 8, 1796, after repeating the rule
proposed by Mr. Jefferson, says:--

“But it will be an important point gained, _if, on the high
seas, our flag can protect those, of whatever nation, who shall
sail under it_. And for this humanity, as well as interest,
powerfully pleads.”[46]

The same pretension was put forth under the administration of John
Adams, and was again encountered. Mr. Marshall, afterwards the
venerated Chief Justice of the United States, and at the time Secretary
of State, in his instructions to Rufus King, at London, dated September
20, 1800, says:--

“The impressment of our seamen is an injury of very serious
magnitude, which deeply affects the feelings and the honor of
the nation.… Alien seamen, not British subjects, engaged in our
merchant service, ought to be equally exempt with citizens.…
Britain has no pretext of right to their persons or to their
service. _To tear them, then, from our possession is at the
same time an insult and an injury._ It is an act of violence
for which there exists no palliative.”[47]

The same pretension showed itself constantly under the administration
of Mr. Jefferson. Throughout the eight years of his Presidency, the
repeated outrages of British cruisers never for a moment allowed it
to be forgotten. Mr. Madison, during this full period, was Secretary
of State, and none of the varied productions of his pen are more
masterly than those in which he exposed this tyranny. In the course
of the discussion he showed the special hardship found in the fact
that sailors were taken from the ship at the mere will of an officer,
without any form of judicial proceedings, and thus early presented
against the pretension of Great Britain the precise objection now
adopted by her. Here are his emphatic words, in the celebrated
instructions to Mr. Monroe, our Minister at London, dated January 5,
1804:--

“Taking reason and justice for the tests of this practice,
_it is peculiarly indefensible, because it deprives the
dearest rights of persons of a regular trial_, to which the
most inconsiderable article of property captured on the high
seas is entitled, and _leaves their destiny_ to the will of
an officer, sometimes cruel, often ignorant, and generally
interested, by his want of mariners, in his own decisions.
Whenever property found in a neutral vessel is supposed to be
liable, on any grounds, 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 to
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 instant 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 his person to the most humiliating
discipline, and his life itself to the greatest dangers?
Reason, justice, and humanity unite in protesting against so
extravagant a proceeding.”[48]

Negotiations on this principle, thus distinctly enunciated, were
intrusted at London to James Monroe, afterwards President of the United
States, and William Pinkney, the most accomplished master of Prize Law
our country has produced. But they were unsuccessful. Great Britain
persisted. In reply to a proposal of the British commissioners, as
reported in a joint letter to Mr. Madison, dated at London, September
11, 1806, the plenipotentiaries declared,--

“That it was impossible that we should acknowledge, in favor
of any foreign power, _the claim to such jurisdiction on
board our vessels_ found upon the main ocean _as this sort
of impressment implied_,--a claim as plainly inadmissible in
its principle, and derogatory from the unquestionable rights
of our sovereignty, as it was vexatious in its practical
consequences.”[49]

In another joint letter, dated at London, November 11, 1806, the same
plenipotentiaries say:--

“The right [of the crew to protection under the flag] was
denied by the British commissioners, _who asserted that of
their Government to seize its subjects on board neutral
merchant vessels on the high seas_, and who also urged that
the relinquishment of it at this time would go far to the
overthrow of their naval power, on which the safety of the
state essentially depended.”[50]

Again, in letter dated at London, April 22, 1807, Messrs. Monroe and
Pinkney say of the British commissioners:--

“They stated that the prejudice of the navy, and of the country
generally, was so strong _in favor of their pretension_, that
the ministry could not encounter it in a direct form, and
that, in truth, the support of Parliament could not have been
relied on in such a case.”[51]

The British commissioners were two excellent persons,--Lord Holland
and Lord Auckland; but, though friendly to the United States in their
declarations, and Liberals in politics, they were powerless.

At home the question continued to be discussed by able writers. Among
those whose opinions were of the highest authority was the former
President, John Adams, who, from his retirement at Quincy, sent forth
a pamphlet, dated January 9, 1809, in which the British pretension was
touched to the quick, and again was presented the precise objection now
urged by Great Britain against the seizure of the two Rebels. Depicting
the scene, when one of our ships is boarded by a British cruiser, he
says:--

“The lieutenant is to be the judge, … the midshipman is to be
clerk, and the boatswain sheriff or marshal.… It is impossible
to figure to ourselves in imagination this solemn tribunal and
venerable judge without smiling, till the humiliation of our
country comes into our thoughts and interrupts the sense of
ridicule by the tears of grief or vengeance.”[52]

At last all redress through negotiation was found impossible; and this
pretension, aggravated into multitudinous tyranny, was openly announced
to be one of the principal reasons for the declaration of war against
Great Britain in 1812. In his message to Congress, dated June 1 of that
year, Mr. Madison, who was now President, thus exposed its offensive
character; and his words, directed against a persistent practice,
are now echoed by Great Britain in the single instance which has
accidentally occurred on our side.

“Could the seizure of British subjects in such cases be
regarded as within the exercise of a belligerent right, the
acknowledged laws of war, which forbid an article of captured
property to be adjudged without a regular investigation before
a competent tribunal, _would imperiously demand the fairest
trial where the sacred rights of persons were at issue. In
place of such a trial, these rights are subjected to the will
of every petty commander._”[53]

While the war was waging, the subject was still discussed. Mr. Grundy,
of Tennessee, in the House of Representatives, in a report from the
Committee on Foreign Affairs, said:--

“A subaltern or any other officer of the British navy ought not
to be arbiter in such a case. The liberty and lives of American
citizens ought not to depend on the will of such a party.”[54]

Such was the American ground, occupied from the beginning without
interruption, and from the beginning most persistently contested by
Great Britain.

The British pretension was unhesitatingly proclaimed in the Declaration
of the Prince Regent, afterwards George the Fourth, given at the palace
of Westminster, January 9, 1813.

“The President of the United States has, it is true, since
proposed to Great Britain an armistice: not, however, on
the admission that the cause of war hitherto relied on was
removed, but on condition that Great Britain, as a preliminary
step, should do away a cause of war now brought forward _as
such_ for the first time,--namely, _that she should abandon
the exercise of her_ UNDOUBTED RIGHT _of search to take from
American merchant vessels British seamen, the natural-born
subjects of His Majesty_.…

“His Royal Highness can never admit, that, in the exercise of
_the_ UNDOUBTED _and hitherto undisputed right of searching
neutral merchant vessels in time of war, the impressment
of British seamen_, when found therein, _can be deemed any
violation of a neutral flag_. Neither can he admit that
the taking such seamen from on board such vessels _can be
considered by any neutral state as a hostile measure or a
justifiable cause of war_.”[55]

In the semi-official counter statement presented by Alexander J.
Dallas, at the time Secretary of the Treasury, entitled “Exposition
of the Causes and Character of the late War,” this pretension is thus
described:--

“But the British claim, expanding with singular elasticity, was
soon found to include _a right to enter American vessels on
the high seas_, in order to search for and seize all British
seamen; it next embraced the case of every British subject; and
finally, in its practical enforcement, it has been extended to
every mariner who could not prove upon the spot that he was a
citizen of the United States.”[56]

The war was closed by the Treaty at Ghent; but, perversely, the British
pretension was not renounced. Other negotiations, in 1818 under
President Monroe, in 1823 also under Monroe, and again in 1827 under
John Quincy Adams, expressly to procure its renunciation, were all
unavailing. Of these various negotiations I forbear all details; but
the language of Mr. Rush, our Minister at London, who pressed this
question assiduously for several years, beginning with 1818, should not
be omitted. The case was never stated more strongly.

“Let the steps by which the enforcement proceeds be attended
to. A British frigate, in time of war, meets an American
merchant vessel at sea, boards her, and, under terror of her
guns, takes out one of the crew. The boarding lieutenant
asserts, and, let it be admitted, believes, the man to be a
Briton. By this proceeding the rules observed in deciding upon
any other fact, where individual or national rights are at
stake, are overlooked. _The lieutenant is accuser and judge.
He decides upon his own view, instantly._ The impressed man
is forced into the frigate’s boat, and the case ends. _There
is no appeal, no trial of any kind_; more important still,
there is no remedy, should it appear that a wrong has been
committed.”[57]

At last, in 1842, at the Treaty of Washington, Mr. Webster, calmly
setting aside all idea of further negotiation on this pretension, and
without even proposing any stipulation with regard to it, deliberately
announced the principle irrevocably adopted by our Government. It was
that announced at the beginning by Mr. Jefferson. This document is one
of the most memorable in our history, and it bears directly on the
existing controversy, when, in exposing the British pretension, it
says:--

“But the lieutenant of a man-of-war, having necessity for men,
_is apt to be a summary judge_, and his decisions will be quite
as significant of his own wants and his own power as of the
truth and justice of the case.”[58]

At a later day still, on the very eve of recent events, we find
General Cass, as Secretary of State, in elaborate instructions to our
ministers in Europe, dated June 27, 1859, declaring principles which
may properly control the present question. He says:--

“It is obvious, from the temper of the age, that the present is
no safe time to assert and enforce pretensions on the part of
belligerent powers affecting the interest of nations at peace,
_unless such pretension are clearly justified by the Law of
Nations_.… The stopping of neutral vessels upon the high seas,
their forcible entrance, and the overhauling and examination
of their cargoes, the seizure of their freight _at the will of
a foreign officer_, the frequent interruption of their voyages
by compelling them to change their destination in order to
seek redress, and, _above all, the assumption of jurisdiction
by a foreign armed party over what has been aptly termed the
extension of the territory of an independent state, and with
all the abuses which are so prone to accompany the exercise of
unlimited power_, where responsibility is remote,--these are,
indeed, serious ‘obstructions,’ little likely to be submitted
to in the present state of the world, without a formidable
effort to prevent them.”[59]

Such is an authentic history of this British pretension, and of the
manner in which it has been met by our Government. And now the special
argument formerly employed by us against an intolerable pretension
is invoked by Great Britain against the error of taking two Rebel
emissaries from a British packet ship. If Captain Wilkes is right,
then, throughout all these international debates, extending over at
least two generations, have we been wrong.

It is sometimes said, that the steam packet, having on board the Rebel
emissaries, was on this account liable to capture, and therefore
the error of Captain Wilkes in taking the emissaries was simply of
form, and not of substance. I do not stop to consider whether an
exercise of summary power, against which our nation has so constantly
protested, can, under any circumstances, be an error of form merely;
for the national policy, most positively declared in diplomacy, and
also attested in numerous treaties, leaves small room to doubt that
a neutral ship with enemy passengers, not in the military or naval
service, is not liable to capture, and therefore the whole proceeding
was wrong, not only because the passengers were taken from the ship,
but also because the ship, howsoever guilty morally, was not guilty
legally, in receiving such passengers on board. If this question were
argued on English authorities, it might be otherwise; but according
to American principles, the ship was legally innocent. Of course, I
say nothing of the moral guilt which an indignant patriotism will find
forever indelible in that ship.

In the middle of the last century, the Swiss publicist Vattel declared,
that, on the breaking out of war, we are no longer under obligation to
leave the enemy in free enjoyment of his rights; and this principle he
applied loosely to the transit of ambassadors.[60] Sir William Scott,
afterwards known in the English peerage as Lord Stowell, quoting this
authority, at the beginning of the present century, let fall these
words:--

“You may stop the ambassador of your enemy on his passage.”[61]

And this curt proposition, though in some respects indefinite, has
been often since repeated by writers on the Law of Nations. On its
face it leaves the question unsettled, whether the emissaries of an
unrecognized Government can be stopped. But there is another case
in which the same British judge, who has done so much to illustrate
International Law, has used language which seems to embrace not only
authentic ambassadors, but also pretenders to this character, and
all others who are public agents of the enemy. Says this eminent
magistrate:--

“It appears to me on _principle_ to be but reasonable, that,
whenever it is of sufficient importance to the enemy that _such
persons should be sent out on the public service, at the public
expense_, it should afford equal ground of forfeiture against
the vessel that may be let out for a purpose so intimately
connected with the hostile operations.”[62]

Admit that the emissaries of an unrecognized Government cannot be
recognized as ambassadors, with the liabilities as well as immunities
of this character, yet, in the face of these words, it is difficult to
see how a Government bowing habitually to the authority of Sir William
Scott, and regarding our Rebels as “belligerents,” can assert that a
steam packet, conveying emissaries from these belligerents, “sent out
on the public service, at the public expense,” was, according to the
language of Earl Russell, “pursuing a lawful and innocent voyage.” At
least, in this assertion, the British Government seems to turn its
back again upon its own history, or it sets aside the facts so openly
boasted with regard to the public character of these fugitives.

On this question British policy may change with circumstances, and
British precedents may be uncertain, but the original American policy
is unchangeable, and the American precedents which illustrate it are
solemn treaties. The words of Vattel and the judgments of Sir William
Scott were well known to the statesmen of the United States; and yet,
in the face of these authorities, which have entered so largely into
this debate, the National Government at an early day deliberately
adopted a contrary policy, to which for half a century there was steady
adherence. It was plainly declared _that only soldiers or officers
could be stopped_, thus positively excluding the idea of stopping
ambassadors, or emissaries of any kind, not in the military or naval
service. Mr. Madison, who more than any other person shaped our
national policy on Maritime Rights, has stated it on this question.
In his remarkable despatch to Mr. Monroe, at London, dated January 5,
1804, he says:--

“The article renounces the claim to take from the vessels of
the neutral party, on the high seas, any person whatever _not
in the military service of an enemy_, an exception which we
admit to come within the Law of Nations, on the subject of
contraband of war. _With this exception, we consider a neutral
flag on the high seas as a safeguard to those sailing under
it._”[63]

Then again, in the same despatch, this statesman says:--

“Great Britain must produce, then, an exception in the Law of
Nations in favor of the right she contends for. But in what
written and received authority will she find it? In what
usage, except her own, will it be found?… But nowhere will
she find an exception to this freedom of the seas, and of
neutral flags, which justifies the taking away of any person,
_not an enemy in military service_, found on board a neutral
vessel.”[64]

And once more, in the same despatch, he says:--

“Whenever a belligerent claim against persons on board a
neutral vessel is referred to in treaties, _enemies in military
service alone_ are excepted from the general immunity of
persons in that situation; _and this exception confirms the
immunity of those who are not included in it_.”[65]

In pursuance of this principle, thus clearly announced and repeated,
Mr. Madison instructed Mr. Monroe to propose a convention between the
United States and Great Britain containing the following stipulation:--

“No person whatever shall, upon the high seas and without the
jurisdiction of either party, be demanded or taken out of any
ship or vessel belonging to citizens or subjects of one of the
parties, by the public or private armed ships belonging to or
in the service of the other, _unless such person be at the time
in the military service of an enemy of such other party_.”[66]

Mr. Monroe pressed this stipulation most earnestly upon the British
Government; but, though treated courteously, he could get no
satisfaction. Lord Harrowby, the Foreign Secretary, in one of his
conversations, “expressed concern to find the United States opposed
to Great Britain on certain great neutral questions, in favor of the
doctrines of the Modern Law, which he termed _novelties_”;[67] and Lord
Mulgrave, who succeeded this accomplished nobleman, persevered in the
same dissent. Mr. Monroe writes, under date of 18th October, 1805:--

“On a review of the conduct of this Government towards the
United States from the commencement of the war, I am inclined
to think that the delay which has been so studiously sought
in all these concerns is the part of a system, and that it is
intended, as circumstances favor, to subject our commerce, at
present and hereafter, to every restraint in their power.”[68]

Afterwards Mr. Monroe was joined in the mission to London, as we have
already seen, by Mr. Pinkney, and the two united in again presenting
this same proposition to the British Government.[69] It was rejected,
although the ministry of Mr. Fox, who was then in power, seems to have
afforded at one time the expectation of an agreement.

While these distinguished plenipotentiaries were pressing this
principle at London, Mr. Madison was maintaining it at home. In an
unpublished communication to Mr. Merry, the British minister at
Washington, bearing date 9th April, 1805, which I extract from the
files of the State Department, he declared:--

“The United States cannot accede to the claim of any nation
to take from their vessels on the high seas _any description
of persons, except soldiers_ in the actual service of the
enemy.”[70]

In a reply bearing date 12th April, 1805, this principle was
positively repudiated by the British minister; so that the two
Governments were ranged unequivocally on opposite sides. And this
attitude was continued. In the subsequent negotiations at London,
intrusted to Mr. Rush, in 1818, we find the two powers face to face.
The Foreign Secretary was the celebrated Lord Castlereagh, who,
according to Mr. Rush, did not hesitate to complain,--

“That we gave to our ships a character of inviolability that
Britain did not: that we considered them as part of our soil,
clothing them with like immunities.”[71]

To which Mr. Rush replied:--

“That we did consider them as thus inviolable, so far as to
afford protection to our seamen; but that we had never sought
to exempt them from search for rightful purposes, viz., for
enemy’s property, articles contraband of war, or _men in the
land or naval service of the enemy. These constituted the
utmost limit of the belligerent claim, as we understood the Law
of Nations._”[72]

Two champions were never more completely opposed than were the two
Governments on this question.

The treaties of the United States with foreign nations are in harmony
with the principle so energetically proposed and upheld,--beginning
with the Treaty of Amity and Commerce with France in 1778, and ending
only with the Peruvian treaty as late as 1851. Here is the provision in
the treaty with France, negotiated by Franklin, whose wise forethought
is always conspicuous:--

“And it is hereby stipulated that free ships shall also give
a freedom to goods, and that everything shall be deemed to
be free and exempt which shall be found on board the ships
belonging to the subjects of either of the confederates,
although the whole lading or any part thereof should appertain
to the enemies of either, contraband goods being always
excepted. It is also agreed, in like manner, that the same
liberty be extended to persons who are on board a free ship,
with this effect, that, _although they be enemies to both
or either party, they are not to be taken out of that free
ship, unless they are soldiers and in actual service of the
enemies_.”[73]

The obvious effect of this stipulation is twofold: first, that enemies,
unless soldiers in actual service, shall not be taken out of a neutral
ship; and, secondly, that such persons are not contraband of war so
as to affect the voyage of a neutral with illegality. Such was the
proposition of Franklin, of whom it has been said, that he snatched the
lightning from the skies, and the sceptre from tyrants. That he sought
to snatch the trident also is attested by his whole diplomacy, of which
this proposition is part.

But the same principle is found in succeeding treaties, sometimes
with a slight change of language. In the treaty with the Netherlands,
negotiated by John Adams in 1782, the exception is confined to
“military men actually in the service of an enemy,”[74]; and this same
exception is also found in the treaty with Sweden in 1783,[75] with
Prussia in 1785,[76] with Spain in 1795,[77] with France in 1800,[78]
with Colombia in 1824,[79] with Central America in 1825,[80] with
Brazil in 1828,[81] with Mexico in 1831,[82] with Chile in 1832,[83]
with Venezuela in 1836,[84] with Peru-Bolivia in 1836,[85] with Ecuador
in 1839,[86] with New Granada in 1846,[87] with Guatemala in 1849,[88]
with San Salvador in 1850,[89] and in the treaty with Peru in 1851.[90]

Such is unbroken testimony, in the most solemn form, to the policy
of our Government. In some of the treaties the exception is simply
“soldiers,” in others it is “officers or soldiers.” Observe, too,
that every treaty testifies to the opinions of the Administration
that negotiated it, and of at least two thirds of the Senate that
ratified it,--so that this large number of treaties constitutes a
mass of authority from which there can be no appeal, embracing all
the great names of our history. It is true that among these treaties
there is none with Great Britain; but it is also true that this is
simply because our mother country refused assent, when this principle
was presented as an undoubted part of International Law which our
Government desired to confirm by treaty.

Clearly and beyond all question, according to American principle and
practice, the ship was not liable to capture on account of the presence
of emissaries, “not soldiers or officers”; nor could such emissaries be
legally taken from the ship. But the completeness of this authority is
increased by the concurring testimony of the Continent of Europe. Since
the Peace of Utrecht, in 1713, the policy of the Continental States
has generally refused to sanction the removal of enemies from a neutral
ship, unless military men in actual service. And now, since this debate
has commenced, we have the positive testimony of the French Government
to the same principle, given with special reference to the present
case. M. Thouvenel, the Minister of the Emperor for Foreign Affairs,
in a recent letter communicated to Mr. Seward, and published with the
papers before the Senate, earnestly insists that the Rebel emissaries,
not being military persons actually in the service of the enemy, were
not subject to seizure on board a neutral ship.[91]

I leave this question with the remark, that it is perhaps Great Britain
alone whose position here can be brought into doubt. Originally a
party to the Treaty of Utrecht, this imperial power soon saw that its
provisions in favor of Maritime Rights interfered plainly with that
dictatorship of the sea which Britannia was then grasping. Maritime
Rights were repudiated, and her Admiralty Courts have ever since
enforced this repudiation.

* * * * *

Still another question occurs. Beyond all doubt there were “despatches”
on board the ship,--such “despatches” as rebels can write. Public
report, the statement of persons on board, and the boastful declaration
of Jefferson Davis in an official document that these emissaries were
proceeding under appointment from him, which appointment would be a
“despatch” of the highest character,--and necessarily with instructions
also, being another “despatch,”--seem to place this beyond denial.
Assuming such fact, very notorious at the time of sailing, the ship was
liable to capture and to be carried off for adjudication, according to
British authorities,--unless the positive judgment of Sir William Scott
in the case of the Atalanta,[92] and also the Queen’s Proclamation
at the commencement of the Rebellion, enumerating “despatches” among
contraband articles, are treated as nullities, or so far modified in
application as to be words and nothing more. Even if the judgment be
uncertain and inapplicable, the Queen’s Proclamation is not. Does
it not warn British subjects against “carrying officers, soldiers,
_despatches_, arms, military stores or materials, … _for the use or
service_ of either of the said contending parties”? And we have the
authority of a recent English writer, quoted by the English press, who
characterizes the conveyance of despatches as “a _service_, which, in
whatever degree it exists, can only be considered in one character, as
an act of the most noxious and hostile nature.”[93]

But however binding and peremptory these authorities in Great Britain,
they cannot be accepted to reverse a standing policy of the United
States. For the sake of precision in rights claimed and accorded on
the ocean, our Government has explained in treaties what was meant by
contraband. As early as 1778, in the treaty with France negotiated
by Franklin, after specifying contraband articles, without including
despatches, it is declared that

“Free goods are all other merchandises and _things_ which are
not comprehended and particularly mentioned in the foregoing
enumeration of contraband goods.”[94]

This was before the judgment of Sir William Scott, recognizing
despatches as contraband; but in other treaties subsequent to this
well-known judgment, and therefore practically discarding it, after
enumerating contraband articles, without specifying “despatches,” the
following provision is introduced:--

“All other merchandises and _things_ not comprehended in the
articles of contraband explicitly enumerated and classified as
above shall be held and considered as free.”[95]

Then again John Quincy Adams, in his admirable draught of a treaty for
the reform of Maritime Rights, after declaring specifically what shall
be “under the denomination of contraband of war,” without including
“despatches,” adds:--

“All the above articles, _and none others_, shall be subject to
confiscation, whenever they are attempted to be carried to an
enemy.”[96]

Thus we have not only words of enumeration without mention of
“despatches,” but also words of exception. These testimonies constitute
the record of our nation on this question.

Here it may be remarked, that, while decisions of British Admiralty
Courts are freely cited, there are none of our Supreme Court. If any
existed, they would be of the highest value; but there are none, and I
can imagine no better reason than because the question is so settled by
treaties and diplomacy as to be beyond judicial inquiry.

The conclusion follows, that, according to American principle and
practice, the ship was not liable on account of despatches on board.
And here again we have the testimony of Continental Europe, if we may
accept the statement of Hautefeuille, and it would seem also that of
the French Government, in the recent letter of M. Thouvenel.

The French champion of neutral rights vindicates the immunity of
despatches against English construction in pointed language.

“We must be permitted to protest against the pretension
set up by the Americans of considering the transportation
of despatches as an act of contraband, and consequently of
maintaining that the stopping of the Trent is justified by
the fact that there were found on board despatches of the
Confederate Government. This pretension, which has always been
maintained by England, and which even at the present day is
still avowed by its journals, is wholly contrary to all the
principles of International Law.”[97]

But Continental testimony is not uniform. So considerable an
authority as Heffter recognizes the liability of a neutral vessel for
“_voluntarily_ forwarding despatches to or for a belligerent.”[98] This
is on general grounds, independent of treaty or national usage.

Even if the ship were liable, so that Captain Wilkes would have been
justified in bringing the Trent into port for adjudication, it does
not follow that the two Rebels could be summarily seized and taken
therefrom. Here again we are brought to that American principle which
condemns the pretension of seizing even enemies on board a neutral
vessel, unless they are soldiers in actual service, and has constantly
cried out against the desecration of our decks by British officers
seizing our peaceful sailors under claim of allegiance to the British
crown.

* * * * *

There is yet another question which remains. Assuming that despatches
are contraband, would their presence on board a neutral ship, sailing
between two neutral ports, render the voyage illegal? The mail steamer
was sailing between Havana, a port of Spain, and St. Thomas, a port
of Denmark. Here again, if we bow to English precedent, the answer is
prompt. The British oracle has spoken. In a well-considered judgment,
Sir William Scott declares that despatches taken on board a neutral
ship, sailing from a neutral country and bound for another neutral
country, are contraband,--but that, where there is reason to believe
the master ignorant of their character, “it is not a case in which the
property is to be confiscated, although in this, _as in every other
instance in which the enemy’s despatches are found on board a vessel_,
he has justly subjected himself to all the inconveniences of seizure
and detention, and to all the expenses of those judicial inquiries
which they have occasioned.”[99] Such is the Law of Nations according
to Great Britain.

Even if this rule had not been positively repudiated by the United
States, it is so inconsistent with reason, and, in the present
condition of maritime commerce, so utterly impracticable, that it can
find little favor. If a neutral voyage between two neutral ports is
rendered illegal on this account, then the postal facilities of the
world, and the costly enterprises by which they are conducted, are
exposed to interruptions under which they must at times be crushed, to
the infinite detriment of universal commerce. If the rule is applicable
in one sea, it is applicable in all seas, and there is no part of the
ocean which may not be vexed by its enforcement. It would reach to the
Mediterranean and to the distant China seas as easily as to the Bahama
Channel, and be equally imperative in the chops of the British Channel.
Not only the stately mail steamers traversing the ocean would be
subject to detention and possible confiscation, but the same penalties
must attach to the daily packets between Dover and Calais. The simple
statement of such a consequence, following directly from the British
rule, throws instant doubt over it, which the eloquent judgment of Sir
William Scott cannot remove.

Here again our way is clear. American principle and practice have
settled this question also. Wheaton commences his statement of the
Law of Contraband by saying, “The general freedom of neutral commerce
with the respective belligerent powers is subject to some exceptions.
_Among these is the trade with the enemy_ in certain articles called
contraband of war.”[100] It will be perceived that the trade must be
_with the enemy_, not with the neutral. And here the author followed
the suggestions of reason and the voice of American treaties. In the
celebrated treaty with Great Britain negotiated by John Jay in 1794,
after an enumeration of contraband articles, it is expressly said,
“And all the above articles are hereby declared to be just objects
of confiscation, _whenever they are attempted to be carried to an
enemy_.”[101] Of course, when on the way to neutrals, they are free.
And the early treaties negotiated by Benjamin Franklin and John
Adams are in similar spirit; and in precisely the same sense is the
treaty with Prussia in 1828, which in its twelfth article revives the
thirteenth article of our treaty with that same power in 1799, by
which contraband is declared to be detainable _only when carried to
an enemy_. Even if this rule were of doubtful authority with regard
to articles of acknowledged contraband, it is positive with regard to
despatches, which, as we have already seen, are among “merchandises
and _things_” declared free; with regard to which our early treaties
secured the greatest latitude. Nothing can be broader than the words in
the treaty of 1778 with France:--

“So that they may be transported and carried _in the freest
manner_ by the subjects of both confederates, even to places
belonging to an enemy, such towns or places being only excepted
as are at that time besieged, blocked up, or invested.”[102]

But the provision in the treaty with the Netherlands of 1782 is equally
broad:--

“So that all _effects_ and merchandises which are not expressly
before named may, _without any exception and in perfect
liberty_, be transported by the subjects and inhabitants
of both allies from and to places belonging to the enemy,
excepting only the places which at the same time shall be
besieged, blocked, or invested; and those places only shall
be held for such which are surrounded nearly by some of the
belligerent powers.”[103]

If the immunity of neutral ships needed further confirmation, it would
be found again in the concurring testimony of the French Government,
conveyed in the recent letter of M. Thouvenel,[104]--which is so
remarkable for its brief, but comprehensive, treatment of the questions
involved in this controversy. I know not how others may feel, but I
like to believe that this communication, when rightly understood, may
be accepted as a token of friendship for us, and also as a contribution
to those Maritime Rights for which France and the United States in
times past have done so much together. This eminent minister does not
hesitate to declare, that, if the flag of a neutral cannot completely
cover persons and merchandise in a voyage between two neutral ports,
then its immunity will be but a vain word.

* * * * *

As I conclude what I have to say on contraband in its several
divisions, I venture to assert that there are two rules in regard to it
which the traditional policy of our country has constantly declared,
and has embodied in treaty stipulations with every power that could be
persuaded to adopt them: first, that no article is contraband, unless
expressly enumerated and specified as such by name; secondly, that,
when such articles, so enumerated and specified, are found by the
belligerent on board a neutral ship, the neutral shall be permitted
to deliver them to the belligerent, whenever, by reason of bulk or
quantity, such delivery is possible, and then the neutral shall,
without further molestation, proceed with all remaining innocent cargo
to his destination, being any port, neutral or hostile, not at the time
actually blockaded.

Such was the early fixed policy of our country with regard to
contraband in neutral bottoms. It is recorded in several of our
earlier European treaties. Approximation to it is found in other
European treaties, showing our constant effort in this direction.
But this policy was not supported by the British theory and practice
of International Law, especially active during the wars of the
French Revolution; and to this fact may be ascribed something of the
difficulty which our Government encountered in effort to secure for
this liberal policy the complete sanction of European nations. But in
negotiations with the Spanish-American States the theory and practice
of Great Britain were less felt; and so to-day that liberal policy,
embracing the two rules touching contraband, is, among all American
nations, the public law, stipulated and fixed in solemn treaties. I do
not quote texts, but I refer to all these treaties, beginning with the
convention between the United States and Colombia in 1824. These rules,
if not directly conclusive on the question of contraband, at least
help to exhibit that spirit of emancipation with which our country has
approached the great subject of Maritime Rights.

* * * * *

Of course this discussion proceeds on the assumption that the Rebels
are regarded as belligerents, which is the character especially
accorded by Great Britain. If they are not regarded as belligerents,
then is the proceeding of Captain Wilkes indubitably illegal and void.
To a political offender, however deep his guilt, though burdened
with the undying execrations of all honest men, and bending beneath
the consciousness of the ruin he has brought upon his country, the
asylum of a foreign jurisdiction is sacred, whether on shore or sea;
and it is among the proudest boasts of England, at least in recent
days, that the exiles of defeated democracies, as well as of defeated
dynasties, have found a sure protection beneath her meteor flag. And
yet this lofty power has not always accorded to other flags what she
claimed for her own. One of the objections made to any renunciation of
impressment by Great Britain, at the beginning of the present century,
was, “that facility would be given, particularly in the British
Channel, by the immunity claimed for American vessels, _to the escape
of traitors_”[105]: thus assuming, not only that traitors--companions
of Robert Emmet, in Ireland, or companions of Horne Tooke, in
England--ought to be arrested on board a neutral ship, but that
impressment was needed for this purpose. This flagrant instance
cannot be a precedent for the United States, which has maintained the
right of asylum as firmly always as it has rejected the pretension of
impressment.

* * * * *

If I am correct in this review, then the conclusion is inevitable.
The seizure of the Rebel emissaries on board a neutral ship cannot be
justified, according to declared American principles and practice.
There is no single point where the seizure is not questionable, unless
we invoke British precedents and practice, which, beyond doubt, led
Captain Wilkes into his mistake. In the solitude of his ship he
consulted familiar authorities at hand, and felt that in Vattel and
Sir William Scott, as quoted by eminent writers, he had guides, while
the inveterate practice of the British navy lighted his way. He was
mistaken. There was a better example: it was the constant, uniform,
unhesitating practice of his own country on the ocean, conceding always
the greatest immunities to neutral ships, unless sailing to blockaded
ports, refusing to consider despatches as contraband of war, refusing
to consider persons other than soldiers or officers as contraband of
war, and protesting always against an adjudication of personal rights
by summary judgment of the quarter-deck. Had these well-attested
precedents been in his mind, the gallant captain would not, even for
a moment, have been seduced from allegiance to those principles which
constitute part of our country’s glory.

* * * * *

Mr. President, let the Rebels go. Two wicked men, ungrateful to their
country, with two younger confederates, are set loose with the brand
of Cain upon their foreheads. Prison-doors are opened; but principles
are established which will help to free other men, and to open the
gates of the sea. Never before in her renowned history has Great
Britain ranged herself on this side. Such an event is an epoch. “_Novus
sæclôrum nascitur ordo._” To the liberties of the sea this power is
at last committed. To a certain extent the great cause is now under
her tutelary care. If the immunities of passengers not in the military
or naval service, as well as of sailors, are not directly recognized,
they are at least implied; if neutral rights are not ostentatiously
proclaimed, they are at least invoked; while the whole pretension of
impressment, so long the pest of neutral commerce, and operating only
through lawless adjudication of the quarter-deck, is made absolutely
impossible. Thus is the freedom of the sea enlarged in the name of
peaceful neutral rights, not only by limiting the number of persons
exposed to the penalties of war, but by driving from it the most
offensive pretension that ever stalked upon its waves. Farewell to
kidnapping and man-stealing on the ocean! To such conclusion Great
Britain is irrevocably pledged. Nor treaty nor bond is needed. It is
sufficient that her late appeal can be vindicated only by renunciation
of early, long-continued tyranny. Let her bear the Rebels back. The
consideration is ample; for the sea became free as this altered power
went forth, steering westward with the sun, on an errand of liberation.

In this surrender, if such it may be called, the National Government
does not even “stoop to conquer.” It simply lifts itself to the
height of its own original principles. The early efforts of its best
negotiators, the patriot trials of its soldiers in an unequal war, at
length prevail, and Great Britain, usually so haughty, invites us to
practise upon principles which she has so strenuously opposed. There
are victories of force: here is a victory of truth. If Great Britain
has gained the custody of two Rebels, the United States have secured
the triumph of their principles.

As this result is in conformity with our cherished history, it is
superfluous to add other considerations; and yet I venture to suggest
that estranged sympathies abroad may be secured again by open adhesion
to principles which have the support already of Continental Europe,
smarting for years under British pretensions. The powerful organs
of opinion on the Continent are also with us. Hautefeuille, whose
earnest work on the Law of Nations[106] is the arsenal of neutral
rights, has entered into this debate with a direct proposition for the
release of the emissaries, as a testimony to the true interpretation of
International Law. Another distinguished Frenchman, Agénor de Gasparin,
whose impassioned love of liberty and enlightened devotion to our
country impart to his voice all the persuasion of friendship, has made
a similar appeal.[107] And a journal which of itself is an authority,
the _Revue des Deux Mondes_, declares, in words which harmonize with
what I have said to-day, that, “in disavowing a capture effected
by the arbitrary initiative of a naval officer, without any of the
guaranties of legal justice, without the intervention and the sanction
of a Court of Admiralty, the United States, far from renouncing
any of their political principles, would only render homage to the
doctrine which they have ever professed on the rights of neutrals.”
The same distinguished journal proceeds: “It would be in reality a
true triumph for this doctrine so to apply it to the profit of a
nation and of a government which have always contested or violated the
rights of neutrals, but which would be henceforward constrained to the
abandonment of their arbitrary pretensions by the conspicuous authority
of such a precedent.”[108]

Nor is this triumph enough. The sea-god will in future use his trident
less; but the same principles which led to the present renunciation
of early pretensions naturally conduct to yet further emancipation of
the sea. The work of maritime civilization is not finished. And here
the two nations, equally endowed by commerce, and matched together,
while surpassing all others, in peaceful ships, may gloriously unite
in setting up new pillars, to mark new triumphs, rendering the ocean a
highway of peace, instead of a bloody field.

The Congress of Paris, in 1856, where were assembled the
plenipotentiaries of Great Britain, France, Austria, Prussia, Russia,
Sardinia, and Turkey, has already led the way. Adopting the early
policy of the United States, often proposed to foreign nations,
this congress authenticated two important changes in restraint of
belligerent rights: first, that the neutral flag shall protect
enemy goods, except contraband of war; and, secondly, that neutral
goods, except contraband of war, are not liable to capture under an
enemy’s flag. This is much. Another proposition, for the abolition of
Privateering, was defective in two respects: first, because it left
nations free to employ private vessels under public commission as ships
of the navy, and therefore was nugatory; and, secondly, because, if
not nugatory, it was too obviously in the special interest of Great
Britain, which, through her commanding navy, would be left at will
to rule the sea. No change can be practicable which is not equal in
advantage to all nations; for the Equality of Nations is not a dry
dogma merely of International Law, but a vital sentiment common to
all. This cannot be overlooked; and every proposition must be brought
sincerely to its equitable test.

There is a way in which privateering may be effectively abolished
without shock to the Equality of Nations. A simple proposition,
assuring private property on the ocean the same immunity it now enjoys
on land, will at once abolish privateering, and relieve commerce on
the ocean from its greatest perils, so that, like commerce on land,
it will be undisturbed, except by illegal robbery and theft. Such
a proposition must operate for the equal advantage of all. On this
account, and in the policy of peace, always cultivated by our Republic,
it has been already presented to other nations. You have not forgotten
the important paper in which Mr. Marcy did this service,[109] and the
favor it found with European powers, always excepting Great Britain,
whose opposition was too potential. But this vast cause was never
commended with more force than by John Quincy Adams, as Secretary of
State, when, in a masterly despatch, he declared that “private war,
banished by the tacit and general consent of Christian nations from
their territories, has taken its last refuge upon the ocean, and
there continues to disgrace and afflict them by a system of licensed
robbery, bearing all the most atrocious characters of piracy.”[110]
The Governments of Europe were invited to enter into conventions by
which “all warfare against private property upon the sea is disclaimed
and renounced,” and at the same time the final suppression of the
slave-trade assured, so that the freedom of the sea was associated with
the freedom of men.[111] In the same humane interest, Henry Clay, as
Secretary of State, invited Great Britain “to agree to the abolition of
privateering, and no longer to consider private property on the high
seas as lawful prize of war.”[112] In such a cause the effort alone was
noble.

To complete the efficacy of this reform, closing the gate against
belligerent pretensions, Contraband of War should be abolished,
so that all ships may navigate the ocean freely, without peril or
detention from the character of persons or things on board: and here
I only follow the Administration of Washington, enjoining upon John
Jay, in his negotiation with England, to seek security for neutral
commerce, particularly “by abolishing contraband _altogether_.”[113]
The Right of Search, which, on outbreak of war, becomes an omnipresent
tyranny, subjecting every neutral ship to the arbitrary invasion of
every belligerent cruiser, would then disappear. It would drop, as
the chains from an emancipated slave; or rather, it would exist only
as an occasional agent, under solemn treaties, in the war waged by
civilization against the slave-trade; and then it would be proudly
recognized as an honorable surrender to the best interests of humanity,
glorifying the flag which made it.

With the consummation of these reforms in Maritime Law, war will be
despoiled of its most vexatious prerogatives, while innocent neutrals
are exempt from its torments. One step further is needed to complete
this exemption. Commercial Blockade must be abandoned; for, while
its first effects are naturally felt by the belligerent against whom
directed, it soon acts with kindred hardship upon all neutrals, near
or remote, whose customary commerce is interrupted,--so that the
blockade of an American port may cause distress in Liverpool and
Manchester, in Lyons and Marseilles, scarcely less than if these great
cities were under pressure of a blockading squadron. Neutrals, it
is said, must not relieve belligerents, and therefore blockade is
effectively a two-edged sword, wounding belligerents on the one side
and neutrals on the other side,--often, indeed, wounding neutrals as
much as belligerents. If not designedly so, it becomes thus mischievous
from the essential vice of its character. Blockade may be called the
elephant of naval warfare, as destructive, often, to friends as to
foes. So palpable is this becoming, that it is doubtful if neutrals
will much longer allow such backhanded agency, smiting the innocent as
well as the guilty, to continue under sanction of International Law.
Its extinction is needed to complete the triumph of Neutral Rights.[114]

Such a change, just in proportion to its accomplishment, will be a
blessing to mankind, inconceivable in grandeur. The statutes of the
sea, thus refined and elevated, will be agents of peace instead of
agents of war. Ships and cargoes will pass unchallenged from shore to
shore, and those terrible belligerent rights under which the commerce
of the world has so long suffered will cease from troubling. In
this work our country began early. Hardly had we proclaimed our own
independence, before we sought to secure a similar independence for
the sea. Hardly had we made a constitution for our own government,
before we sought to establish a constitution similar in spirit for the
government of the sea. If not prevailing promptly, it was because we
could not overcome the unyielding resistance of Great Britain. And now,
behold, this champion of belligerent rights has “changed his hand and
checked his pride.” Welcome to the new-found alliance! Welcome to the
peaceful transfiguration! Meanwhile, through all present excitements,
amidst all trials, beneath all threatening clouds, it only remains for
us to uphold the perpetual policy of the Republic, and to stand fast on
the ancient ways.

APPENDIX.

The reception of this speech revealed the interest of the
question, which was not inferior to that of Slavery. The
auditory at its delivery, the expressions of the public press,
the sensation in England, and letters from all quarters were
as instructive as complimentary. Among our own countrymen at
home and abroad the satisfaction was general. The people were
against war with England, and they were glad to learn that
by surrender of the Rebels Maritime Rights had obtained new
safeguard, while the British pretext for war was removed.

* * * * *

The scene at the delivery was described by the leading journals.

The correspondent of the _New York Tribune_ telegraphed
briefly, but emphatically.

“Senator Sumner’s speech was felt to be exhaustive of the
Law of Nations which governed the case of the Trent, and
is already ranked in Washington as a state paper upon the
question of seizure and search worthy to be placed side by
side with the despatches of Madison and Jefferson. It was
delivered to a thronged and charmed Senate.”

The correspondent of the _New York Herald_ telegraphed more at
length.

“The speech was impressively delivered. The galleries
of the Senate were densely crowded. Notwithstanding the
inclemency of the weather, the ladies’ gallery was filled
to overflowing. Mrs. Vice-President Hamlin and a party
of her friends occupied seats in the diplomatic gallery,
which was also filled. Secretaries Chase and Cameron
occupied seats on the floor of the Chamber, where were
also the French, Russian, Austrian, Prussian, Danish, and
Swedish ministers. Lord Lyons was not present, as etiquette
required that he should not be there on such an occasion.
The speech was listened to with fixed attention by Senators
Bright and Powell and ex-Senator Green. M. Mercier, the
French minister, occupied a seat next to Mr. Bright, and
exchanged salutations with Mr. Sumner at the conclusion
of the speech, as did also most of the other foreign
dignitaries.

“Mr. Sumner’s speech has created a marked impression on
the public in regard to himself. It has removed much
prejudice that existed against him, and added greatly to
his reputation as a profound statesman. The impression
prevailed, that, with all his learning, his extraordinary
acquirements, and splendid talents, he could not avoid the
introduction of his peculiar views in reference to Slavery;
and on account of the strong Antislavery proclivities of
England hitherto, and the sympathy heretofore from this
cause existing between leading English politicians and
our own Antislavery men of Mr. Sumner’s class, it was
apprehended by many that he would be inclined to lean
towards Great Britain in this controversy. His course
to-day was, therefore, an agreeable surprise. The absence
of any allusion in his speech to the Negro Question
demonstrated his ability and willingness to rise superior
to the one idea attributed to him, and the scathing
exposition of British inconsistency in regard to the right
of search, and the dignified rebuke he administered to
England, exhibited his capacity to regard public affairs
with the eye of a genuine statesman.

“The applause accorded to this really great production is
universal and unqualified.”

The correspondent of the _New York Evening Post_ gives the
following sketch of the scene in a letter.

“In spite of the fog, rain, and mud of this morning, the
galleries of the Senate Chamber began to fill at an early
hour. In addition to the lounging _habitués_ of the daily
sessions, came a crowd which left them no room to lounge.
You have only to advertise a speech, and how the life-tide
sets towards the Capitol! Mr. Sumner’s splendid oratory
always attracts immense audiences, even when his speeches
bear upon the unpopular subject of Slavery.

“Most people seemed to think that he was the slave of
this one idea, and could only be great when mounted on
his hobby. But in his master speech on the Trent affair
and its relation to Maritime and International Law he has
proved himself to be something more than the accomplished
scholar, the eloquent speech-maker, forcing the recognition
of his statesmanship from the very mouths of his enemies.
This exposition of the triumph of American principles,
necessarily less ornate than his more literary productions,
is marked by all his usual fastidious strength of style.
Vibrating through his voice, every word seemed a live nerve
quivering with electric meaning.

“A speech so kind and calm in rebuke, so elaborate in
research, so bountiful in proof, so conclusive in argument,
coming from the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign
Relations, and an acknowledged favorite of England, will
appeal with strong conviction to her people. Here in
Washington its praise is on every tongue. In the dense
crowd of the gallery General Fremont was conspicuous, and
among the Abolitionists of the audience were the Rev. John
Pierpont and Rev. Dr. Channing of the new Antislavery
church. The French, Danish, Prussian, Austrian, Russian,
and Spanish ministers, with Secretaries Chase and Cameron,
sat in groups in the Senate Chamber, amid the eagerly
listening Senators. The last is a special item; for I
observe, as an every-day habit, that these distinguished
gentlemen do not pay very marked attention to each other’s
speeches. In the crimson diplomatic gallery sat the
daughter and wife of Vice-President Hamlin.”

The editorial judgments were in harmony with the reports of
correspondents.

The _National Intelligencer_, at Washington, which had not
inclined to Mr. Sumner on Slavery, said:--

“We give to-day, in consideration of the current interest
attaching to its subject, and, we may add, because of its
great ability, the speech delivered yesterday by Mr. Sumner
in the Senate of the United States on the question of
International Law raised by the arrest of Messrs. Mason and
Slidell.

“Singularly qualified for this discussion by his erudition
as a jurist and as a student of history, besides being
called by his position as Chairman of the Committee on
Foreign Relations in the Senate to give to the subject that
mature consideration it deserves, Mr. Sumner has brought to
its treatment an affluence of illustration and authority,
derived from the most cherished traditions of American
diplomacy, for the purpose of showing that the decision to
which our Government has come in the premises may be rested
on a broader foundation than that which was sufficient to
cover the ground of the British reclamation against the act
of Captain Wilkes.”

_L’Eco d’Italia_, an Italian paper in New York, took this
occasion to pay a warm tribute to Mr. Sumner, and his
moderation of conduct.

“Nobody had better right to speak with knowledge and
authority than the Chairman of the Committee of Foreign
Relations, and as a man rather extreme in his ideas of
personal independence.”

Then complimenting him on his knowledge of French and Italian,
his admiration of Italian literature, and his ardent love of
Italy, this journal says:--

“Sumner, from the beginning of his political career, showed
himself the decided enemy of Slavery, and was marked by the
opposite party as an Abolitionist, which was equivalent
to subverter of public order, robber, and worse. In the
midst of the greatest difficulties he kept himself constant
always.… Now that the movement has commenced, Sumner,
instead of throwing wood on the fire, which already burns
too much, shows all the prudence and sagacity of a true
statesman.”

The _World_, in New York, said:--

“The carefully prepared speech which Mr. Sumner delivered
in the Senate yesterday is an important contribution to
the stock of current information on an important question
of public law. The arrest of Mason and Slidell has not
before been discussed with so much breadth of research.
Mr. Sumner’s luminous speech is a remarkable example of
the advantage of historical knowledge in the discussion of
public questions.…

“It is creditable to Mr. Sumner that he has been able to
present so conclusive an historical argument in opposition
to the view of this subject taken by legists and publicists
so able and erudite as Mr. Everett, Mr. Cushing, Professor
Parsons, and Chief-Justice Bigelow, of his own State, and
most of the public journals in all parts of the country.
The error of these writers has consisted in an undue
deference to the British admiralty decisions,--decisions
against whose validity on the points involved in this
controversy our Government has always protested.

“Mr. Sumner’s argument plainly sustains Mr. Seward in
his surrender of the Rebel commissioners, but not in his
delaying to do so till they were demanded by the English
Government. The thanks of the country are due to Mr. Sumner
for his convincing argument that the national honor has
suffered no detriment by their surrender.”

The _New York Commercial Advertiser_ said:--

“Mr. Sumner gives, within limits as brief as the nature of
the case would permit, the arguments which influenced the
Committee after a laborious investigation of the point in
dispute. He performs this duty in a temperate, lucid, and
convincing manner, rising above all asperity or excitement,
and viewing the question as it affects the best interests
of the human race. At the same time he has steered almost
entirely clear of the track marked out by Secretary Seward,
the great body of his argument being drawn from events and
precedents in the history of our own country.… We take the
greater pleasure in referring to the elaborate arguments
brought forward by Senator Sumner, inasmuch as certain
parties seem to think that Secretary Seward’s able reply
to Lord Lyons on this subject was nothing but a graceful
backing down before superior force,--that he strove to
hunt up precedents on behalf of a position which was in
fact defensible only because our Government could not
accept the gauntlet thrown down by that of Great Britain.
No unprejudiced person, we think, can peruse Mr. Sumner’s
speech without arriving at a different conclusion. It
should rather be an occasion for national congratulation
than humiliation, that Great Britain has, _de facto_,
abandoned her old ground, and planted herself on doctrines
and practice strictly, and for a time almost exclusively,
American.”

The _Burlington Daily Times_, of Vermont, said:--

“We have not room to print the elaborate and convincing
argument of Senator Sumner on the seizure of the Rebel
emissaries, Mason and Slidell. Notwithstanding all that
has been said, it is fresh and original, and is a complete
vindication of the course of the Administration in promptly
restoring the seized persons to the British Government. It
cannot remove the animosities which the course of England
has kindled among Americans; but it cannot fail to heal
the galled sense of wounded national honor, because it
is shown by the argument that it has not been wounded at
all,--that the feeling of shame and dishonor which has
been experienced has been resting on imaginary and false
grounds.”

The _Boston Transcript_ said:--

“Fortunately for Mr. Sumner, events have arisen which have
enabled him to demonstrate that he is not ridden by one
idea. As Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the
most important post that a Senator of the United States
can hold in the present emergency of the nation, he has
shown talents and acquirements which every fair mind
cannot but appreciate. The ‘inevitable negro’ is banished
from this arena, and the country has been astonished by
the solidity of Mr. Sumner’s learning, the amplitude of
his understanding, and the sagacity of his judgment on
all the vital questions which have arisen in his special
department. His speech on the affair of the Trent is a
masterpiece. He goes beyond all the precedents of the
conservative lawyers of New England, and all the arguments
of the Secretary of State, to the essential principles of
International Law, as recognized by the great thinkers and
statesmen of the Continent of Europe, and as contended
for by our own Government. He, the man who has most cause
to hate Slidell and Mason, and who, from his Abolitionist
proclivities, would be most opposed to delivering them
up, is found to exceed even Mr. Seward in his desire to
establish the rights of neutrals and ignore the passions of
the hour.”

The _Norfolk County Journal_ said:--

“It is a work of supererogation to say one word in its
praise. Public opinion has already stamped it as one of
the great speeches of the present generation of American
statesmen. In the acquaintance which it displays with
International Law, the impregnability of its argument, the
classic finish of its diction, and the statesmanlike temper
which it brings to the discussion, it has gained for its
author new honors, and done much to counteract a prejudice
against our Senator which too many had mistakenly allowed
to possess their minds.”

The _Haverhill Publisher_ said:--

“The late speech of the Senator on the Trent affair is
one of the ablest state papers that have appeared in this
country for years, and will have a powerful influence upon
the English mind in settling the present disturbed state of
feeling, and also in securing the practical acknowledgment
of a great principle in International Law. Those who have
found the most fault of late with Mr. Sumner for his
efforts to keep fresh before the country the cause of our
present disaster, as an important thing to be considered,
while struggling for relief, are now among the first
to do him honor for his unanswerable argument upon the
Trent Question, and the principle involved. In the end,
the country and the world will as fully agree with him,
practically, upon the question of Slavery. No man can more
truly be said to be the man for the hour than can Senator
Sumner.”

The _Salem Gazette_ said:--

“It is a pleasure to accord to Senator Sumner the approval
of his most judicious course on the same subject. We take
the more pleasure in this approval, because it has often
been our fortune to differ with Mr. Sumner in regard to
the treatment of some of the most important questions
before the country. But in regard to our foreign relations,
holding as he does the responsible position of Chairman of
the Senate Committee on that subject, we confide in him as
a safe, wise, and thoroughly well-informed guide.”

These are illustrations of the American press. Very different
was that of London, so far as it spoke. One of our countrymen,
then abroad, and closely observing the manifestations of
opinion, remarked that the speech was attacked, but not
reprinted.

“The excellence of any such effort is to be measured now in
this country only by the amount of attack it calls out, and
I was therefore much pleased to see that the _Times_ lost
its temper in criticizing you. It is a significant fact,
that neither it nor any of its allies have ventured to
reprint the speech. They confine themselves to a style of
criticism that I should call blackguard, against you, Mr.
Seward, and Mr. Everett.”

In contrast with the prevailing tone was the London Peace
Society, which, in its Annual Report, spoke of the speech.

“They felt it right to reprint the very able speech
delivered by Mr. Charles Sumner on the affair of the
Trent, because, while explicitly surrendering every right
on the part of the American Government, as respects that
transaction, he does so on such broad principles as in
the judgment of the Committee it would be greatly to
the advantage of all civilized states to adopt and act
upon in their relations with each other. Copies of this
pamphlet were sent to all Members of Parliament, and to a
large number of newspapers and periodicals throughout the
kingdom.”[115]

The character of the attack by the _Times_ will be seen by a
few passages from a leader, January 25, 1862.

“The last mail has brought us another attempt, made in
a speech five columns long by Mr. Charles Sumner in the
American Senate. This gentleman is, perhaps, the one
American who has been most petted and fêted over here.
Mr. Charles Sumner was the greatest drawing-room lion of
his day, and his mane was combed by a thousand delicate
hands, often held up in admiration at his gentle roarings.
In America he has arrived at the high distinction of
Senator for Massachusetts and Chairman of the Committee
for Foreign Affairs; but after the very general hilarity
throughout Europe caused by Mr. Seward’s diplomatic
_fiasco_, it seems to have been thought necessary to
put some one forward to make ‘a scathing exposition of
British inconsistency,’ and to show what a victory over
the old country had been obtained. So Charles Sumner is
the man.… Mr. Sumner has not done his work ill. But
then he had peculiar facilities for it. ‘Who best has
known them can abuse them best.’ Moreover, his audience
at Washington was not difficult. Gentlemen who could
congratulate themselves on Bull Run required no cogent
reasons for seeing a glorious triumph, first in the seizure
of the Trent, and then in the compulsory surrender of
the prize.… No wonder, then, that Mr. Charles Sumner’s
speech in the Senate has been a great success. We are
told that all the foreign ambassadors--except only Lord
Lyons, whom nothing but severe diplomatic etiquette kept
away--came round him and congratulated him; and that after
its delivery, ‘our respected mother, England,’ is ‘left
out in the cold,’--whatever that may mean. The two points
which seem especially to have been admired are, first,
‘the absence of any allusion in his speech to the Negro
Question,’--showing that he is by no means so obstinate
upon that matter as had been feared,--and, second, ‘the
signal rebuke he administered to England.’ We can go some
way with Mr. Sumner’s encomiasts in this admiration. It
at least shows a versatile and cosmopolitan mind. His
‘allusions to the Negro Question’ are evidently only absent
from his Washington speeches because they are kept entirely
for English use, and are not fitted for home consumption;
whereas the ‘rebukes’ are manufactured expressly for the
American market, and are never offered for acceptance on
this side of the Atlantic.… It is of no great consequence
to us what clouds of dust American statesmen may choose to
raise in order to escape from their difficulty. Now that
they have eaten the leek, they may declare, if they please,
that it was exquisite in its flavor, and had been presented
to them as a mark of honor.…

“The case of the Trent has not made any new precedent
whatever, nor can it clash with any precedent upon which
in modern times we ever did or could have intended to
rely. The forcible removal of those four men from under
the British flag was a rude outrage, redeemed neither by
precedent nor principle, and it has been resented and
repaired. If all the Federal Senate make set speeches till
doomsday, they can make no more of it.”

In the course of its objurgations, the _Times_ seeks to repel
the parallel between the taking by Captain Wilkes and the
taking of American citizens by British cruisers, and here it
asserts:--

“In the current number of the _Quarterly Review_ it is
conclusively shown that only two men ‘claiming to be
Americans’ were taken by our cruisers out of American ships
in the year preceding the war of 1812.”[116]

“Only two men ‘claiming to be Americans’”! Lord Castlereagh,
in the House of Commons, immediately after the breaking out
of the war, admitted that there were in the British fleet
three thousand five hundred men “who claimed to be American
subjects.”[117] The _Times_ perhaps intended “only two men”
really American. But here is strange and total oblivion of the
fact, that, in every case of taking, whether the victim was
American or not, whether two or two hundred were seized, there
was an exercise of the very prerogative it condemned in Captain
Wilkes, although he had an excuse beyond that of any British
cruiser.

This leader of the _Times_ was followed by an article, dated
at the Temple, January 28, from its famous correspondent
“Historicus,” known to be Mr. Vernon Harcourt, a writer
of admirable power on questions of International Law, and
afterwards a distinguished member of Parliament. In this
article the same spirit appeared, with the same personality,
and the same hardihood of assertion. Beginning with elaborate
flings at Mr. George Sumner, where the causticity is reinforced
from _Martin Chuzzlewit_, he comes to the Senator, and, in the
tone already adopted by the _Times_, refers to his reception
in London: “It would be scarcely too much to say, that, for
a single season, Mr. Charles Sumner enjoyed a social success
almost equal to that of the ‘Black Sam’ himself. He was
regarded as ‘a man and a brother,’ and he could not have been
better treated, if he had had real black blood in his veins.”
This is to prepare for what follows.

“It is impossible adequately to describe the ‘threat
speech’ in the Senate, except by saying that Charles,
if possible, out-Sumners George. The great object of
this remarkable oration is to prove that the surrender
of Messrs. Slidell and Mason is a great triumph for the
American Government. There is, proverbially, no accounting
for taste; and if the American people are of Mr. Sumner’s
opinion, I do not see why we should complain of their
contentment. Some people, like Uriah Heep, are ‘very
’umble,’ and their meekness is an edifying spectacle. We
demanded the restoration of the prisoners, not in order
to mortify the American people, but for the purpose of
vindicating the honor of our flag and asserting the
established principles of Maritime Law.”

In exposing Mr. Sumner’s misfeasance, the writer proceeds:--

“As if to make the absurdity of his position more
conspicuous, Mr. Sumner invokes the sympathies of
‘Continental Governments’ for the doctrine of Mr. Seward’s
despatch. He has even the incredible audacity (if it
be not, indeed, an ignorance hardly less credible) to
pledge the authority of M. Hautefeuille in support of
the pretension to treat Messrs. Slidell and Mason as
‘contraband of war.’”

This is followed by an extract from M. Hautefeuille, declaring
that a neutral ship, destined for a neutral port, is not
subject to seizure.

This passage shows that the writer had in mind something very
different from the speech he criticized. Mr. Sumner nowhere
alludes to Mr. Seward’s despatch, much less does he invoke the
sympathies of Continental Europe for its doctrines. Nor does
he pledge the authority of M. Hautefeuille in support of the
pretension to treat the Rebel agents as contraband of war; on
the contrary, he mentioned M. Hautefeuille as having “entered
into this debate with a direct proposition for the release
of the emissaries as a testimony to the true interpretation
of International Law,”[118] and himself insists upon the
very doctrine of the French publicist. Plainly, therefore,
the writer dealt hard words at Mr. Sumner, mistaking him for
somebody else.

Then comes another misapprehension.

“I know not whether, in the hazy muddle of a confused
intelligence, Mr. Sumner has figured to himself that the
seizure of Messrs. Slidell and Mason is a parallel case
to the instances of impressment of seamen out of which
grew the war of 1812. Yet men of less pretensions than the
‘Chairman of the Committee of Foreign Relations’ ought to
be aware that the cases are not only not the same, but not
even similar. Their resemblance, at most, extends to the
proverbial identity of chalk and cheese.”

Evidently the writer had not read the opinion of the law
officers, individualizing the point, that “from on board
a merchant ship of a neutral power, pursuing a lawful and
innocent voyage, certain individuals have been taken by
force,”[119] which was the precise point so often urged by the
United States against impressment.

Then follow the general condemnation and counterblast.

“It is impossible to read such performances as the ‘Great
Speech of the Hon. C. Sumner’ without drawing a gloomy
augury for the future of a nation among whom such a man
can occupy a chief place. In all the symptoms of decadence
which the recent history of the American Republic exhibits,
there is none more conspicuous and apparently more
irreparable than the decline in capacity and character
of her public men. The men bred under the shadow of the
English colonial system were of a very different stamp
from the race which progressive Democracy has spawned for
itself.…

“But now, whether we turn to the puerile absurdities
of President Lincoln’s message, or to the confused and
transparent sophistry of Mr. Seward’s despatch, or to the
feeble and illogical malice of Mr. Sumner’s oration, we
see nothing on every side but a melancholy spectacle of
impotent violence and furious incapacity.”

In the volume of Historicus,[120] much of which constitutes a
valuable contribution to International Law, this effusion is
abridged and modified. Some things are left out, and others
are changed. Generally the personalities are mitigated. Thus,
the original caption, “The Brothers Sumner on International
Law,” is turned into “Letter on Mr. Sumner’s Speech,” and “the
hazy muddle of a confused intelligence” is softened into “a
confusion of mind” attributed to Mr. Sumner; but the article
is introduced by words describing the speech as “_professing_
to expound and to maintain the doctrines of Mr. Seward’s
despatch,” and it repeats the allegation that “Mr. Sumner
invokes the sympathies of ‘Continental Governments’ for the
doctrine of Mr. Seward’s despatch,” whereas, in fact, he never
professed or did any such thing. It would be pleasant to forget
that an article of such a character was ever written; nor would
it be mentioned here, if it did not throw important light--and
not to be neglected--on the general tone of the British press
and its unfounded conduct towards our Republic at a critical
moment.

* * * * *

Contemporary letters from countrymen abroad tell how they were
impressed.

At home, persons in all conditions--statesmen, judges,
lawyers, clergymen, authors, citizens--made haste to express
gratification and sympathy. This copious correspondence evinces
the intensity and extent of the prevailing sentiment, which can
be learned in no other way. Thus it illustrates an important
chapter of history.

A letter from Hon. Richard H. Dana, Jr., District Attorney of
the United States at Boston, and afterwards the annotator of
Wheaton’s “Elements of International Law,” an able publicist,
full of good feeling for England, though written at Boston, may
be introduced here, as it bears especially upon the conduct of
England and the English press.

“Permit me to say that I am glad to see the London _Times’_
attack on you and your Trent speech. It will make you feel
to the quick--what you did not seem to feel, or refused to
admit--the _insolent_ tone of the British press and public
men towards us in our struggle for life, and the false
manner in which they have tried to turn this case to our
national ruin. Those few semi-republican, semi-abolition,
liberally inclined men in England, whom you respect, and
who command, perhaps, one paper and one monthly, are a drop
in the bucket. The ruling class in England is determined
to sever this Republic, and all its pent-up jealousy,
arrogance, and superciliousness are breaking out stronger
and stronger.

“There is not one English paper that I have seen which has
not either suppressed or falsified the material facts of
this case, because they know, that, properly understood,
they would not support the hostile feeling against this
country the papers depended upon keeping up. I am rejoiced
to know that you feel this.

“I have had a letter from England, from a high source,
which speaks of your speech as very able, etc., etc.,
but says, “No paper has dared to publish it,” and speaks
of their attacking without publishing it, thus making it
apparent that it is read.

“One of my letters says, ‘It is an excellent speech, but it
has cost him his favor in England.’

“I write these things to you because I take pleasure in
them. They are _the best omen for you_ that I have seen.”

Hon. George R. Russell, an excellent citizen of Boston,
travelling in Europe, wrote from Florence:--

“The _Times_ has come down on you, and has failed. It has
the usual bitterness, but the power is wanting.”

Hon. James E. Harvey, Minister Resident at Lisbon, wrote:--

“I have just read your speech on the Trent affair, and
cannot refrain from expressing my thanks for its able and
conclusive vindication of the position of our Government on
that subject. If any reasoning can reconcile the American
mind to the restitution of the two emissaries to British
protection, your arguments and the calm and convincing
presentation of facts must do it. What you have said of
Hautefeuille might be justly applied to this statesmanlike
production, which, in comprehension and in logical
connection, is a state paper.”

Hon. Bradford R. Wood, Minister Resident at Copenhagen, wrote:--

“I thank you for your speech on Maritime Rights, just
received, and which I have carefully read. All my
assertions that the Trent affair would not lead to war were
received here with incredulity, by the Government, by my
colleagues, by all parties. It was a bitter disappointment
to some of the English here, and I doubt not in England,
that this matter has been settled without war. The London
_Times_, while criticizing your speech and denying its
conclusions, writhes under it, and its arguments are
a severer rebuke to England than any philippics or
denunciations could be.”

William S. Thayer, Consul-General at Alexandria, wrote from his
post:--

“I lent Mr. Buckle[121] the _Intelligencer_ with your
speech on the Trent affair, some points of which received
his emphatic indorsement.”

Hon. John Bigelow, Consul at Paris, and afterwards Minister
there, wrote from Paris:--

“It produced an excellent effect here, and still better in
England, if one may judge by the ill-humor in which it put
the _Times_. The impotent venom of that journal, under the
circumstances, was more complimentary than its praise could
have been.”

Henry Woods, the Parisian member of the American importing
house of Messrs. C. F. Hovey & Co., wrote from Paris:--

“I have to thank you for a copy of your very able speech
on the Trent affair, which has been very much read, and
in all quarters I hear it spoken of with admiration. It
is considered your greatest effort, and worthy of a great
occasion.”

Professor Charles D. Cleveland, author and Abolitionist, Consul
at Cardiff, Wales, wrote:--

“How my heart rejoices that the affair of the Trent is thus
amicably settled! but--and I _must_ say so--I have little
faith in the good feeling of the Government of England,
and the leading influences here, towards our country. How
indignant have I felt the last six weeks at the tone of
the leading papers towards our country! Nothing, hardly,
could exceed the bitterness of the _Times_, the _Post_, the
_Telegraph_, the _Saturday Review_, &c., &c. Even _Punch_
lent all his influence to the Rebels, and against us. The
very first number after the news of the Trent affair was
received had a full-length figure of Britannia standing
beside a cannon, with a match in her hand, looking across
the water, and underneath was written, ‘Waiting for an
Answer.’

“True, the religious public, or rather the Dissenters, have
shown right feelings; and I wrote letters of thanks to Dr.
Newman Hall and to Mr. Spurgeon for what they had done,
and received very kind answers; but very few of the Church
Establishment have shown right feelings.

“I was always the friend of England, and few have written
or spoken more in commendation of her; but I must in truth
say that my feelings have changed since I have been here.
England would rejoice to-day to see our country divided.
She sees our growing greatness, and envies and fears it.”

In close connection with letters from abroad is that of E.
Littell, founder and editor of the _Living Age_, close student
of the English press, and warmly attached to England, who wrote
from Boston:--

“Allow me to congratulate you upon the speech on the Trent
affair. ‘They of the contrary part,’ even, ‘cannot gainsay
it.’

“After feeling so deeply the almost unbroken attitude of
the London press as to be forced to think and say that I
must give up my love for England (which was a part of my
inmost heart), I have reverted to her again, pleading that
that press does not represent either her people or her
Government.”

Hon. Henry L. Dawes, the eminent Representative in Congress,
wrote:--

“I congratulate you on your great effort to-day. It was
worthy of you. I regret I could not hear it all. But I
shall have the greater pleasure in reading it.”

Hon. Hamilton Fish, afterwards Secretary of State, wrote from
New York:--

“_Exactly_ right; you have done justice to the question,
the country, its history, its policy, and its late action.
On such ground as you have placed the subject we stand
proudly before the world.…

“It should be circulated largely in England, among the
class who will read it. The British press will not publish
it in full, unless you can bring, through some of your
friends, an influence to bear. Cannot you do so?”

Hon. N. P. Talmadge, former Senator of the United States from
New York, wrote from Georgetown, District of Columbia:--

“I have just read with great pleasure your very able speech
in regard to Messrs. Mason and Slidell and the recent
affair of the Trent. Coming in support of the lucid and
able reply of Mr. Seward to Lord Lyons, it places the
matter before the American people and all Europe in a light
as clear as a sunbeam.

“It seems to me that England, in the excitement of the
moment, and with the sudden impulse of redressing a fancied
wrong, has not foreseen the inevitable result to which her
own action has brought her. She may attempt hereafter,
as occasion may require, to evade the consequences by
saying that the law officers of the crown decided that
the wrong consisted in not taking the Trent into port for
the adjudication of a Prize Court, and therefore that was
the only point involved. She will find, however, that not
only the United States, but France, and all Europe, will
hold her to the consequences which you have so clearly
demonstrated flow from her own action.

“Mr. Seward’s reply to Lord Lyons, and your speech, will
settle this whole question with the American people. If
their judgments are satisfied, they cheerfully acquiesce,
no matter how high their passions may have been wrought
against these Rebels, nor how strong their desire to
keep possession of them. I believe there is not a loyal
press that has not acquiesced in the decision of the
Administration. How proudly all this contrasts with the
predictions of Dr. Russell, the correspondent of the London
_Times_, that, if these men were given up, the Government
would be dissolved and destroyed by the mob! This will show
England that a British ministry have much more to fear from
her mobs than the Administration of this Government have to
fear from our people.”

Hon. Julius Rockwell, the Judge, and former Senator of the
United States, with lifelong experience, political and
judicial, wrote from Pittsfield, Massachusetts:--

“The public opinion, as far as I know it here, is in
accordance with the positions set forth in your speech,
and your speech will tend to illustrate and render it
more general. Still, some are unsatisfied, and there is
a general, I may say, almost universal, accession of
dissatisfaction with the conduct and character of England.
This feeling just now pervades our people, crops out in all
lectures, and in many sermons, and some prayers.”

Hon. Daniel Ullmann, prominent in the politics of New York, and
a General in the war, wrote from his head-quarters:--

“You will greatly oblige me by sending to my address a
pamphlet copy of your great speech on the ‘Trent affair.’ I
desire it in that form for preservation.”

Hon. James Duane Doty, Governor of Utah, and former
Representative in Congress, wrote from Salt Lake City:--

“Far, far from you, on the top of the Rocky Mountains, I
have just held communion with you by a perusal of your
able, eloquent, and conclusive speech on the Trent affair,
as reported in the _Herald_ of the 10th January, which
has just reached us. Surely no nation was ever put in a
more absurd position than you have placed England, and if
she is satisfied with the possession of the Rebels (whom,
I am glad to notice, you have not named), we ought to be
gratified; for it avoids a quarrel at an inconvenient time,
and allays public feeling, which was becoming much excited.
These two worthless Rebels could not have been put to a
better use.”

Hon. Wayne MacVeagh, afterwards Minister at Constantinople,
wrote from West Chester, Pennsylvania:--

“I cannot refrain from expressing to you the personal
obligation I feel for your last great speech. Its wise
candor and its steadfast adherence to the landmarks of
maritime freedom cannot fail to make a profound impression
upon the liberal minds of Europe; while disclaiming the
thought of her dishonor, you have lifted the Republic to
the heights of a beneficent victory.”

Hon. B. C. Clark, merchant, and Consul for Hayti, wrote from
Boston:--

“Your speech on the Mason and Slidell matter has won, most
justly, golden opinions from all sorts of people. The
affair has been put to rest, but simply on legal grounds.…
The Trent will tell more terribly upon England than the
ghost of Cæsar upon Brutus at Philippi.”

Hon. George T. Bigelow, Chief Justice of Massachusetts, wrote
from Boston:--

“I have read your speech on the Trent affair with very
great pleasure. It is an admirable exposition of the
doctrine which England has so long held on the subject of
neutral rights; and while it demonstrates that the act
of Captain Wilkes might have been justified on English
practice and precedents, it places in the most clear light
that it was inconsistent with the position which our
Government has always occupied on the subject of search and
seizure. The tone of the speech is so quiet and dignified,
that it will have the effect, I think, of a severe rebuke
on the hasty and unjustifiable conduct of the English
Cabinet in demanding a reparation and a surrender of the
captives with warlike menaces and preparations.

“The prevailing sentiment here, especially among those who
have not heretofore been inclined to speak your praise,
is one of commendation of your speech. I am rejoiced
that you have been able, while vindicating the course of
the Administration in making the surrender of Mason and
Slidell, to add so much to your reputation as a statesman.”

Hon. Theophilus Parsons, the eminent law-writer and
law-professor, wrote from Cambridge:--

“I have read and studied your speech, and am really
unwilling to repeat to you what I have said in commendation
of it to others.

“This question may be considered after the fashion of a
lawyer, or a politician, or a statesman.

“You have viewed it as a statesman, and, in my
understanding of the word, that includes the other two, and
elevates them both.

“The affair has given rise to no paper so entirely
satisfactory to me, nor to one calculated, in my judgment,
to be so truly and permanently useful.”

Hon. Emory Washburn, Professor at the Law School, and former
Governor of Massachusetts, wrote:--

“I cannot forbear expressing my satisfaction in reading
your speech in the Senate on the Trent affair. It seems
to me to place the matter on the true ground; and if the
English Government do not find, when they come to look
coolly at the matter, that in taking Mason and Slidell
they have caught two Tartars, I shall be greatly mistaken.
I think, moreover, you have spoken the sober, sound
thought of the country; and while they are indignant at
the inconsistent annoyance of the ministry and the press
of England, they feel that the course taken is not only
the wise and expedient one, but, on the whole, the most
consistent.”

Hon. John H. Clifford, former Attorney-General of
Massachusetts, and Governor, wrote from Boston:--

“I have read with unqualified approval and satisfaction
your admirable exposition of the interesting questions of
public law in your recent speech, growing out of the arrest
and rendition of the ‘two old men’ taken from the Trent. I
trust its treatment of the doctrine of Maritime Rights will
command on the other side of the water the respect to which
it is so justly entitled, and of which its reception by the
best minds at home gives a hopeful assurance.”

Hon. John C. Gray, a venerable and accomplished citizen, wrote
from Boston:--

“I return you my acknowledgments for your speech on the
Mason and Slidell affair. The more I have examined the
law,--and I regret that I did not do it earlier,--the more
I am satisfied that our civilians here were mistaken in
their first impressions.”

Hon. George S. Hale, lawyer, wrote from Boston:--

“Permit me to congratulate you on your late speech in the
Senate. I am not unfamiliar with your speeches, and feel
great pleasure in saying that none has ever, in my opinion,
so strengthened your position as a statesman; none has been
more happy, more effective, or more generally satisfactory
to your constituents.

“Without calling up any of those questions upon which
many of them have differed from you, you have done much
to contribute to public peace, and aided well, under
peculiarly difficult circumstances, in placing the country
in an honorable position before the world.”

Hon. Charles P. Huntington, late Judge of the Superior Court
for Suffolk County, wrote:--

“I have read your speech on the Trent affair with more
satisfaction than anything that has yet been uttered on the
subject, and as placing the merits of the question on the
most satisfactory and statesmanlike ground.”

Rev. Theodore D. Woolsey, the excellent President of Yale
College, and author of a work on International Law, wrote from
New Haven:--

“Having just read with great pleasure your speech on the
Trent case, as given in the _Tribune_ of yesterday, I feel
moved to express to you my satisfaction that you have given
the affair such a shape, and have tacitly exposed some of
Mr. Seward’s errors.”

Hon. John Jay, afterwards Minister at Vienna, wrote from New
York:--

“Accept my congratulations on your very able speech on
the Trent matter. It will rather surprise your friends in
England.”

Hon. John M. Read, a Judge of the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania, wrote from Philadelphia:--

“I was very much gratified in reading your very able,
temperate, and forcible speech on the Trent affair.”

Then, in a second letter, the same judicial authority wrote:--

“It is the very best discussion of the whole subject that I
have seen.”

Hon. Francis Brockholst Cutting, former Representative in
Congress from New York, and a leader of the bar, wrote from New
York:--

“Your speech on Maritime Rights has given me very great
satisfaction. It was worthy of your reputation, and equal
to the occasion. The argument was particularly gratifying
to me, because, from the outset, I had looked at the case
from the American point of view, and had expressed myself
accordingly.”

Hon. R. J. Meigs, of Tennessee, for a long time eminent at the
bar and in juridical study, wrote from New York:--

“One word more. I thank you for your speech upon the
Trent affair. It vindicates the honor of our baited and
abused country. It will be a well-remembered document in
the diplomacy of the world, settling as it does forever
the immunity of neutrals from the insulting pretension of
the right to seize persons on their ships merely upon the
ground that they owe allegiance to the belligerent. It
effectually extracts that poisonous fang from the jaws of
Leviathan.”

Hon. David Roberts, lawyer, and author of a “Treatise on
Admiralty and Prize,” wrote from Salem:--

“I deem it your best effort, settling, what to me was
from the first _the_ embarrassing element in the Wilkes
question, _a true American_ definition of ‘despatches.’

“I therefore thank you for the speech sincerely; and
though differing _toto cœlo_ from you politically in other
respects, I shall not withhold my commendation from your
present effort, deeming it, as I do, the paramount duty of
all to inculcate the lesson of loyalty everywhere, until
this Government is vindicated, and the existing Rebellion
suppressed.”

Hon. George Wheatland, lawyer, wrote from Salem:--

“Allow me, for the first time of ever addressing you,
to thank you for your masterly statement of the Trent
matter, which I have just risen from reading in the _Boston
Journal_.

“You have put the matter in its true light.…

“Your speech will shed light, and, in fact, illuminate the
whole subject, and should be read by every one. By taking
Mason & Co. we were acting on the English law; by giving
them up, we act under our own view of what the law should
be, and have brought England over to adopting our view.”

Hon. Asahel Huntington, the veteran lawyer, wrote from Salem:--

“I am always greatly obliged by your speeches, which you
have had the kindness to send me from time to time. They
are all gems of the first water, but the ‘Trent’ is the
greatest gem of all,--so calm, so full, so exhaustive, so
statesmanlike, so Websterian in its statements, structure,
and heavy logic, that, on first reading it, before
receiving the pamphlet, I had it in my heart to write
you at once and express my high admiration of that great
passage in your public life. It was a great opportunity,
and wa

Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/48170