Page images
PDF
EPUB

It is a narrow view, Mr. Speaker, which a serene trust in God and in his infinite wisdom and infinite goodness at once dispels. We wipe the mist from our eyes, and see that all is well. In the presence and with the consciousness of an immortal life, what matters it whether much or little be spent this side the veil, provided, as with our departed brother, it is well spent?

Mr. Speaker, death is busy everywhere around us. The accomplished jurist, the pure patriot, the statesman wise and good, passes away in the sabbath stillness.* Amid the thunders of artillery rocking like a cradle land and sea, amid fire and smoke, the shrieks of the wounded, the groans of the dying, the wail of defeat, and the shouts of triumph, the angel-reapers are garnering in fields seemingly not white for the harvest. The flower of our youth, the beauty of our Israel, is slain in our high places. The victories in this holy struggle for national life and "liberty in law" are sealed with our most precious blood. Yet in this hour of chastened triumph, of mingled joy and sadness, that tranquil death in a far-off New-England home comes very nigh to us with its solemn, I trust not unheeded warning, "Be ye also ready."

I offer the following resolutions :—

Resolved, That the House has heard with profound sorrow the announcement of the death of Hon. Goldsmith F. Bailey, a member of this House from the Ninth Congressional District of the State of Massachusetts.

* Samuel F. Vinton.

Resolved, That this House tenders to the widow and relatives of the deceased the expression of its deep sympathy in this afflicting bereavement.

Resolved, That the Clerk of this House communicate to the widow of the deceased a copy of these resolutions.

Resolved (as a further mark of respect), That a copy of these resolutions be communicated to the Senate, and that the House do now adjourn.

CASE OF THE "TRENT."

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JAN. 7, 1862.

I DESIRE to say a word upon the subject to which the motion* refers.

Mr. Speaker, 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. Possibly the elaborate and ingenious argument of the Secretary might have been spared. The matter was in a nutshell; the answer, in a word: "Take them. There are duties lying nearer to us. We can wait."

But we are not called upon, Mr. Speaker, to say that the demand of England 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 embedded in the law of nations, England was fairly estopped to make. But I rely on no estoppel: I pause not to inquire as to the consistency of England, or how far she is influenced by the consideration that she is now a

* The motion to refer the message of the President, transmitting the correspondence on this case, to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

neutral power, and we are in a struggle for national life; or to express surprise that her belligerent doctrines, so suddenly become obsolete, have been swept as cobwebs from her path. This is a question of legal right; and, as such, I will look it in the face. We may feel compelled to make concessions: we will ask none. The claim of England is that the "Trent" was pursuing a lawful and innocent voyage, and that the taking from her of Messrs. Mason and Slidell was an affront to the British flag and a violation of international law.

The legal questions involved are simple, and may be briefly and plainly stated.

Had we the right of visitation and search? There is no controversy on this point. Nothing is better settled in the law of nations than the right of a belligerent to visit and search the vessel of a neutral for contraband of war, or to ascertain if she is employed in the transportation of military persons or despatches of the enemy. Was the "Trent" so employed? How is that question to be settled? The obious answer is by the existing law of nations. The question is, not what rule ought now to be adopted, but what is the existing rule? New rules are guides for future action, not tests of the past. The common law of nations, like that of England and of this country, is, to a large extent, a law of precedents. These precedents are, however, of weight and authority for the principles involved in their determination, and not merely in cases where all the facts are identical. The whole body of the common law is the result of this distinction. It could not

otherwise be a science or intelligent rule of action. The province of courts, of jurists, and of statesmen, is to apply settled principles to new combinations of facts. From the mass of authorities let us extract the principles applicable to the case.

1. The fair result of the authorities, and especially of the English authorities, is that the carrying of the despatches of a belligerent is a violation of neutrality, the penalty of which is not only the seizure of the despatches, but the seizure and confiscation of the vehicle which carries them, if the carriage be with the knowledge or complicity of the owner or master.

2. The rule includes the official despatches of the enemy, whether relating to civil or military affairs.

3. The form in which the despatches are borne is immaterial. They may be oral as well as written, embodied as well as upon parchment. The mischief is the same. The reason of the rule covers the substance, which is the thing sent.

4. If the neutral is serving the belligerent, doing his work, the fact that the despatches, living or written, were taken at a neutral port, and that, at the time of the seizure, the vessel was going from one neutral port to another, is material only upon the question of the forfeiture of the vessel, and as tending to show that the despatches were taken without the privity of master or owner. The result to be effected The result to be effected the aid to the one belligerent, and the injury to the other is the same. The sanction of the exception would be the constant evasion, the practical suspension, of the rule itself.

« PreviousContinue »