SPEECH. The hour having arrived for the consideration of the 1 special order, the Sonate proceeded to consider the motion of Mr. SUMNER, to refer to the Committee on Foreign Rela. tions the message of the President, received on the 6th instant, relative to the recent removal of certain citizens of the United States from the British mail steamer Trent, by order of Captain Wilkes, in command of the United States war steamer San Jacinto. Mr. SUMNER said: Mr. President, every principle of international law, when justly and authoritatively settled, becomes a safeguard of peace and a landmark of civilization. It constitutes a 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 assent ing witnesses, that it shall at once become in itself a commanding rule of international conduct. Especially is this the case, if disturbing pretensions long maintained to the detriment of civilization are practically renounced by the Power which has maintained them. With out any congress or treaties, such a precedent has been established. sition of the British Government. This has been done at the instance of that Government, courteously conveyed, and founded on the assumption that the original capture of these men was an act of violence which was an affront to the British flag, and a violation of international law. This is a simple outline of the facts. But in order to appreciate the value of this precedent, there are other matters which must be brought into view. These two old men were citizens of the United States, and for many years Senators. One was the author of the fugitive-slave bill, and the other was the chief author of the fillibustering system which has disgraced our national name and disturbed our national peace. Occupying places of trust and power in the service of their country, they conspired against it, and at last the secret traitors and conspirators became open rebels. The present rebellion, now surpassing in proportions, and also 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, have acted through them. The incalculable expenditures which now task our national resources, the untold derangement of affairs, not only at home, but also abroad, the levy of armies, almost without an example, the devastation of extended regions of territory, the plunder of peaceful ships on the ocean, and the slaugher 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, Two old men and two younger associates, with their two younger associates, stole from recently taken from the British mail packet Charleston on board a rebel steamer, and under Trent on the high seas by order of Captain cover of darkness and storm, running the Wilkes of the United States navy, and after-blockade, and avoiding the cruisers in that wards detained in custody at Fort Warren, neighborhood, succeeded in reaching the neuhave been liberated, and placed at the dispo-tral island of Cuba, where, with open display Such a precedent ought to be considered and understood in its true character. In an dertaking 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 say may contribute something to elevate the honest patriotism of the country, and perhaps to secure that tranquil judgment which will render this precedent the herald, if not the guardian, of international harmony. > Lord Russell, in his dispatch 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." Here is a 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 in question 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. and the knowledge of the British consul, they | Hamlet was armed with the rapier of Laertes embarked on board the British mail packet, and Laertes was armed with the rapier of Hamthe Trent, bound for St. Thomas, whence they let. And now on this sensitive question a simwere to embark for England, in which king-ilar exchange has occurred. Great Britain is dom one of them was to play the part of am- armed with American principles, while to us bassador of the rebellion, while the other was is left only those British principles which, to play the same part in France. The original throughout our history, have been constantly, treason, conspiracy, and rebellion of which deliberately, and solemnly rejected. 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 behalf of an accursed slaveholding rebellion. While on their way, the ambassadors were arrested by Captain Wilkes, of the United States steamer San Jacinto, an accomplished officer, already well known by his 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 must be found in the patriotic impulse by which he was inspired, and the British examples which 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 wore a pretended ambassadorial character, which, as he supposed, according to high British authority, rendered them liable to be stopped. If, in the ardor of an honest nature, Captain Wilkes erred, he might well say: That had a heart to love, and in that heart But public report, authenticated by the conlish and continental, forbids us to continue igno curring testimony of various authorities, Engrant of the precise ground on which this act is presented as a violation of international law. It was admitted that a United States man-ofthe territorial limits of Great Britain, might war, meeting a British mail steamer beyond the United States ship-of-war might put a prize subject her to visitation and search; also that crew on board the British steamer, and carry her off to a port of the United States for adjudication by a prize court there; but that she would have no right to remove the emissaries, who were not apparently officers in the military or naval service, and carry them off as prisoners, leaving the ship to pursue her voyage. Under the circumstances, in the exercise of a belligerent right, the British steamer, with all ried off; but according to the British law offi on board, might have been captured and carCabinet has acted, the whole proceeding was cers, on whose professional opinion the British vitiated by the failure to take the packet into port for condemnation. This failure has been the occasion of much unprofessional objurgathat it was impossible to consent that the custion; and it has been emphatically repeated tody of the individuals in question should be determined by a navy officer on his quarterprize court. This has been confidently stated deck, so as to supersede the adjudication of a 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 shall not find it difficult to vindicate it. The act becomes questionable only when brought to the touchstone of these liberal principles, which, from the earliest times, the American Government has openly avowed and sought to advance, and which other European nations have accepted with regard to the sea. Indeed, Great Britain cannot complain except by an English writer, assuming to put the case for his Government, as follows: by now adopting those identical principles; and should we undertake to vindicate the act, "It is not to the right of search that we obit can be done only by repudiating those iden-ject, but to the following seizure without protical principles. Our two cases will be reversed. In the struggle between Laertes and Hamlet, the two combatants exchanged rapiers; so that' cess 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." Thus it appears that the present complaint of the British Government is not founded on the assumption by the American war steamer of the belligerent right of search; nor on the ground that this right was exercised on board a neutral vessel between two neutral ports; nor that it was exercised on board a mail | steamer, sustained by a 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 who exercises 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 many guilty should escape than one innocent man should suffer," with this dif ference, that in the present case a few guilty 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. lowing a better course, and desirous of dealing honorably with his people and nobles, appointed the matter to be decided by battle between two champions." 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. But the irrational anachronism of such a proposition becomes more flagrant from the inconsistency of the party which makes 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 which she now takes. The British complaint seems to have been narrowed down to a single point; but it is not to be disguised that there are yet other points on which, had the ship been carried into port for adjudication, controversy must have arisen. Not to omit anything important, let me say that the three following points, among others, 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 dispatches contraband of war, so as to render the ship liable to seizure? 4. Are neutral ships, carrying dispatches, liable to be stopped between two neutral ports? These matters 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 shall 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 on this question which the United States early and constantly maintained. Do not forget, sir, that the question involved 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 pro- A question of international law should not ceedings in a suit at law by taking the opinion be presented on any mere argumentum ad homof his attorney. To make such a question a inem. It would be of little value to show that case of war, or to suggest that war is a proper Captain Wilkes was sustained by British aumode of deciding it, is simply to revive, in co- thority and practice, if he were condemned by lossal proportions, the exploded ordeal by bat- international law as interpreted by his own tle, and to imitate those dark ages when such country. It belongs to us now, nay, let it be proceeding was openly declared to be the best our pride, at any cost of individual prepossesand most honorable mode of deciding even ansions or transitory prejudices, to uphold that abstract point of law. "It was a matter of doubt and dispute," says an early 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, fol 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 which asks for their liberation, re |