Chapter III: Part 3

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 In an unpublished communication to Mr.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:--