THE FEDERAL INSULT TO THE BRITISH FLAG.

Wellington Independent, Volume XVI, Issue 1710, 25 March 1862, Page 5

THE FEDERAL INSULT TO THE BRITISH FLAG.

) (From the Times, November 29.) i" WHEnEVER two or three men met together yesterday the single topic of conversation was the recent outrage that has been offered by the Federal Go- » vornment of America to the British flag. That _ it was an outrage all must admit. The manner 1 -was one of unusual insult. The shotted guns, the 0 swarming boats' crews, the violence, the refusal to

afford any reason for the seizure of the passengers taken away, were all unusual, and, as we believe, unprecedented in cases of the exercise of that right of search which undoubtedly belongs to a belligerent nation. However clear the right may be to search neutral merchant ships in time of war, this is a right always odious in"its exercise, and which has always been jealously watched by those who have been the subjects of it. It has its limits, which have been carefully defined in a hundred Treaties. i/Vith what formalities it shall be done, at what distance it shall be effected, and what shall be deemed contrabrand, have often formed the occasion of war, have constantly been the subject of conventions, and have made the staple of debates wherein our greatest statesmen and jurists have exhausted all the learning of the text writers, and have cited all the precedents which history can afford. It has always been a point of honour with every highspirited nation to confine this ob- ' noxious interference within the very closest limits, and to resent any departure from the strictest observance of those rules within which an interference with the national flag brings no disgrace. Ninetenths of the public who read yesterday of the attack of the American frigate upon our mail steamer were, perhaps, less startled by the fact itself than they were by the subsequent intelligence which it was our duty to afford, that there was a Primd facie belligerent right in the Federal Government which might justify the act of visit and of search. In commenting, however, upon the facts of this case yesterday , we expressed strong doubts whether the circumstances of the seizure did not put it beyond the pale of International Law. Admitting, as we must most fully admit, the absolute right of a belligerent ship of war to visit and search a neutral merchant ship, the question still occurred — whether after such a visit and search had been, made, the belligerent had aright to treat the neutral as having violated her neutrality and to take out of her such persons and things as he might see fit to adjudge to be contrabrand? Even is this proposition could have found advocates, a further question still remained — whether, without discovering any merchandise or despatches contraband of war, passengers having no belligerent character could be held to be liable to capture in a neu trial ship on the high seas? Cautiously abstaining from hazarding any opinion upon questions of such great import, we were content to indicate the difficulties and to wait for some authoritative vsolution. We are now in a position to state that the depositions of the officers on board the Trent have been submitted to the law officers of the Crown, and that their opinion has been given to the effect that the proceedings of the American frigate are not to be justified by the law of nations. It is, we understand, the opinion of these jurists that the right of the Federal Government, acting by its officers, was confined to visiting and searching the .mail packet ; that if any men or things believed to be contraband of war had been found on board her, the . proper course was to take her into a port and submit the question to a Prize Court, which would have heard evidence and argument on both sides, and would have decided the case according to precedents and authorities. It is not our province to enforce or modify a declaration which comes from the recognised source, and by which the Government must in all cases of this kind be bound ; but we may say that the proposition seems so clear that it requires only to be stated to obtain universal assent. If this be not so, for what reasons have we Prize Courts, and Admiralty Judges, and codes of law and libraries of Admiralty decisious ? If the lieutenant of a frigate or the coxswain of a boat's crew is to decide while in forcible possession of a rich neutral ship what he will take as contraband, and what he will leave ; if an officer while his armed men are swarming round him upon the deck of hia prize is to determine whom he will take away prisoner, and to whom he will please to grant leave to proceed, what need have we for those careful institutions by which we erect tribunals which are, so to say, denationalized, and which are bound to decide, without favour or partiality, between, the Queen's cruisers and the meanest foreigner who complains of injustice ? The choice of learned and independent Admiralty Judges lias been a stipulation inserted in very early treaties, and a suspicion of partiality to his own countrymen would touch the hononr of one of our Prize Court Judges as nearly as a charge of corruption. Of what use is all this if any valorious lieutenant, with his drawn cutlass, is to stand upon a ship's deck and decide all questions of contraband and nationality off hand? If such a rule could prevail, or if such outrages could be submitted to, there would be an end forever to the freedom of the seas or to the safety of neutrals. Ever}' trumpery belligerent power, although possessing perhaps only a fleet which could be aunihilated in a week, would be able to plunder the commerce of the world. Many insolent pretensions have been made by belligerents over neutrals, and none have been at times more insolent than ourselves ; but in our most haughty days, when Seldon was asserting our absolute dominion over our surrounding seas, or when the Northern Powers were banding together for protection against our exactions, we never ventured to put forward such a doctrine as this, or to insist that our naval officers should perform "in a summary way the functions of Admirality Judges. Upon this point alone the seizure of the Trent was an unjustifiable outrage. We are inclined ourselves to. favour the opinion, which has many supporters, that even if the legal course had been pursued, and it the Trent had been taken into port and submitted io the arbitrament of a Prize Court, she must have been dismissed, with compensation for her detention. Even if despatches had been found in her, which was not the case, it has never yet been decided that the despatches which pass between an enemy and a neutral Government are contraband of war, nor has it ever been claimed as a belligerent right to cut off neutral Powers from all diplomatic intercourse with an enemy. Such a claim could not stand examination upon the grounds of principle or public policy. We are content, however, that the question should rest upon the more narrow, but indisputably ground, on which our Law Officers put it, that it is contrary to International Law for the officer of an armed cruiser to make himself a judge at sea. Such being the legal bearings of this outrageous proceeding, the question remains — what steps, we must take to remove the stain which has been cast upon our flag. When in former days the British ship of war Leopold unlawfully seized deserters, on board the Chesapeake, the British Government, on complaint being made, disavowed the act, recalled the admiral from the station, and expressed regret for the bloodshed which had been occasioned. On a more .recent occasion, when the Prince de Joinville forcibly took a pilot out of a British ship, the King of the French felt so acutely the wrong that had been done in his name that he disavowed the deed, and we believe, wrote an autograph letter expressing his regret. Among civilised nations, and in countries where a high sense of honour rules the men who hold the government in their hands think it as essentiai to their own fame as to that of those whom they have offended that reparation should be swift and ample. What the Government of the Federal States will do remains to be seen. The Cabinet meets to-day to consider what action shall bo taken upon the opinion of the Law Officers. .We do not wish to speculate as to what steps they may consider necessary. If, however, ie shall appear to them so clear a? it appears to us that Messrs. Mason and Sliddell were wrongfully taken when under the protection of the British flag, there would seem to be but one reparation which i 3 adequate to the affront. They must be restored with a sufficient apology.