DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE. 



ine, not an exclusively British interest, but an old, 

 honored, and cherished American cause, not upon 

 British authorities, but upon principles that constitute 

 a lar>:e portion of the distinctive policy by which the 

 United States have developed the resources of a con- 

 tinent, and thus becoming a considerable maritime 

 have won the respect and confidence of many 

 nations. These principles were laid down for us in 

 .v James Madison, when Secretary of State in 

 the administration of Thomas Jefferson, in instructions 

 given to James Monroe, our Minister to England. Al- 

 though the case before him concerned a description of 

 persons different from those who are incidentally the 

 subjects of the present discussion, the ground he as- 

 sumed then was the same I now occupy, and the argu- 

 ments by which he sustained himself upon it, have 

 been an inspiration to me in preparing this reply. 



" Whenever," he says, " property found in a neutral 

 vessel is supposed to be liable on any ground to cap- 

 ture 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 reason- 

 able 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 exam- 

 ine the crew of a neutral vessel, to decide the impor- 

 tant question of their respective allegiances, and to 

 carry that decision into execution by forcing every 

 individual he may choose into a service abhorrent to 

 his feelings, cutting him off from his most tender con- 

 nections, exposing Iris mind and his person to the most 

 hutuiliatiug discipline, and his life itself to the greatest 

 "anger. Reason, justice, and humanity unite in pro- 

 testing against so extravagant a proceeding." 



If I decide this case in favor of my own Govern- 

 ment, I must disavow its most cherished principles, 

 and reverse and forever abandon its essential policy. 

 The country cannot afford the sacrifice. If I maintain 

 those principles, and adhere to that policy, I must sur- 

 render the case itself. It will be seen, therefore, that 

 this Government could not deny the justice of the claim 

 presented to us in this respect upon its merits. We 

 are asked to do to the British nation just what we have 

 always insisted all nations ought to do to us. 



Th'e claim of the British Government is not made in 

 a discourteous manner. This Government, since its 

 first organization, has never used more guarded lan- 

 guage in a similar case. 



In coming to my conclusion I have not forgotten 

 that, if the safety of this Union required the detention 

 of the captured persons, it would be the right and 

 duty of this Government to detain them. But the 

 effectual check and waning proportions of the existing 

 insurrection, as well as the comparative unimportance 

 of the captured persons themselves, when dispassion- 

 ately weighed, happily forbid me from resorting to 

 that defence. 



Nor am I unaware that American citizens are not in 

 any case to be unnecessarily surrendered for any pur- 

 pose into the keeping of a foreign State. Only the 

 captured persons, however, or others who are inter- 

 ested in them, could justly raise a question on that 

 ground. 



Xor have I been tempted at all by suggestions that 

 cases might be found in history where Great Britain 

 refused to yield to other nations, and even to ourselves, 

 claims like that which is now before us. Those cases 

 occurred when Great Britain, as well as the United 

 States, was the home of generations, which, with all 

 their peculiar interests and passions, have passed 

 away. She could in no other way so effectually dis- 

 avow any such injury as we think she does by assum- 

 ing now as her own the ground upon which we then 

 stood. It would tell little for our own claims to the 

 character of a just and magnanimous people if we 

 should so far consent to be guided by the law of re- 

 taliation as to lift up buried injuries from their graves 



to oppose against what national consistency and tha 

 national conscience compel us to regard as a claim in- 

 trinsically right. 



Putting behind me all suggestions of this kind, I 

 prefer to. express my satisfaction that, by the adjust- 

 ment of the present case upon principles confessedly 

 American, and yet, as I trust, mutually satisfactory to 

 both of the nations concerned, a question is finally and 

 rightly settled between them, which, heretofore ex- 

 hausting not only all forms of peaceful discussion, but 

 also the arbitrament of war itself, for more than half a 

 century alienated the two countries from each other, 

 and perplexed with fears and apprehensions all other 

 nations. 



The four persons in question are now held in mili- 

 tary custody at Fort Warren, in the State of Massa- 

 chusetts. 'They will be cheerfully liberated. Your 

 lordship will please indicate a time and place for re- 

 ceiving them. 



Other nations besides Great Britain took a 

 lively interest in this seizure of Messrs. Mason 

 and "Slidel!. On the 10th of December, the 

 Minister of France for Foreign Affairs writes to 

 the representative of that court at "Washington 

 that " the arrest had produced in France, if not 

 the same emotion as in England, at least ex- 

 treme astonishment and sensation. Public sen- 

 timent was at once engrossed with the unlaw- 

 fulness and the consequences of such an act." 

 Again he says : 



The desire to contribute to prevent a conflict, per- 

 haps imminent, between two powers for which the 

 French Government is animated by sentiments equally 

 friendly, and the duty to uphold," for the purpose of 

 placing the right of 'its own flag under shelter from 

 any attack, certain principles, essential to the security 

 of neutrals, have, after mature reflection, convinced it 

 that it could not, under the circumstances, remain en- 

 tirely silent. 



After examining the reasons which might be 

 urged to justify the arrest of Mason and Slidell, 

 if the United States approved of the act, he pro- 

 ceeds to show the disastrous effects which their 

 detention would have on the principles govern- 

 ing neutral rights. 



There remains, therefore, to invoke, in explanation 

 of their capture, only the pretext that they were the 

 bearers of official despatches from the enemy ; but 

 this is the moment to recall a circumstance which 

 governs all this affair, and which renders the conduct 

 of the American cruiser unjustifiable. 



The Trent was not destined to a point belonging to 

 one of the belligerents. She was carrying to a neutral 

 country her cargo and her passengers ; and, moreover, 

 it was in a neutral port that they were taken. 



The Cabinet of Washington could not, without strik- 

 ing a blow at the principles which all neutral nations 

 are alike interested in holding in respect, nor without 

 taking the attitude of contradiction of its own course 

 up to this time, give its approbation to the proceed- 

 ings of the commander of the San Jacinto. In this 

 state of things it evidently should not, according to our 

 views, hesitate about the determination to be taken. 



The result of this occurrence was highly fa- 

 vorable to the United States. It caused the 

 courts of Great Britain and France to manifest 

 a degree of respect for her which had been in a 

 great measure withheld so far during the trou- 

 bles of the country. The recognition of the 

 Confederate States was emphatically declined, 

 and all hope of encouragement on their part 

 from those powers, was destroyed. 



