north america-2-第9节

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


ed　and　what　men　said　about　it；　I　knew　that　I　need　not　hurry　myself。　　One　met　a　minister　here；　and　a　Senator　there；　and　anon　some　wise　diplomatic　functionary。　　By　none　of　these　grave　men　would　any　secret　be　divulged；　none　of　them　had　any　secret　ready　for　divulging。　　But　it　was　to　be　read　in　every　look　of　the　eye；　in　every　touch　of　the　hand；　and　in　every　fall　of　the　foot　of　each　of　them；　that　Mason　and　Slidell　would　go　to　England。　Then　we　had；　in　all　the　fullness　of　diplomatic　language；　Lord　Russell's　demand；　and　Mr。　Seward's　answer。　　Lord　Russell's　demand　was　worded　in　language　so　mild；　was　so　devoid　of　threat；　was　so　free　from　anger；　that　at　the　first　reading　it　seemed　to　ask　for　nothing。　It　almost　disappointed　by　its　mildness。　　Mr。　Seward's　reply；　on　the　other　hand；　by　its　length　of　argumentation；　by　a　certain　sharpness　of　diction；　to　which　that　gentleman　is　addicted　in　his　State　papers；　and　by　a　tone　of　satisfaction　inherent　through　it　all；　seemed　to　demand　more　than　he　conceded。　　But；　in　truth；　Lord　Russell　had　demanded　everything；　and　the　United　States　government　had　conceded　everything。　I　have　said　that　the　American　government　behaved　well　in　its　mode　of　giving　the　men　up；　and　I　think　that　so　much　should　be　allowed　to　them　on　a　review　of　the　whole　affair。　　That　Captain　Wilkes　had　no　instructions　to　seize　the　two　men；　is　a　known　fact。　　He　did　seize　them；　and　brought　them　into　Boston　harbor；　to　the　great　delight　of　his　countrymen。　　This　delight　I　could　understand；　though　of　course　I　did　not　share　it。　　One　of　these　men　had　been　the　parent　of　the　Fugitive　Slave　Law；　the　other　had　been　great　in　fostering　the　success　of　filibustering。　　Both　of　them　were　hot　secessionists；　and　undoubtedly　rebels。　　No　two　men　on　the　continent　were　more　grievous　in　their　antecedents　and　present　characters　to　all　Northern　feeling。　It　is　impossible　to　deny　that　they　were　rebels　against　the　government　of　their　country。　　That　Captain　Wilkes　was　not　on　this　account　justified　in　seizing　them；　is　now　a　matter　of　history；　but　that　the　people　of　the　loyal　States　should　rejoice　in　their　seizure；　was　a　matter　of　course。　　Wilkes　was　received　with　an　ovation；　which　as　regarded　him　was　ill　judged　and　undeserved；　but　which　in　its　spirit　was　natural。　　Had　the　President's　government　at　that　moment　disowned　the　deed　done　by　Wilkes；　and　declared　its　intention　of　giving　up　the　men　unasked；　the　clamor　raised　would　have　been　very　great；　and　perhaps　successful。　　We　were　told　that　the　American　lawyers　were　against　their　doing　so；　and　indeed　there　was　such　a　shout　of　triumph　that　no　ministry　in　a　country　so　democratic　could　have　ventured　to　go　at　once　against　it；　and　to　do　so　without　any　external　pressure。　Then　came　the　one　ministerial　blunder。　　The　President　put　forth　his　message；　in　which　he　was　cunningly　silent　on　the　Slidell　and　Mason　affair；　but　to　his　message　was　appended；　according　to　custom；　the　report　from　Mr。　Welles；　the　Secretary　of　the　Navy。　　In　this　report　approval　was　expressed　of　the　deed　done　by　Captain　Wilkes。　　Captain　Wilkes　was　thus　in　all　respects　indemnified；　and　the　blame；　if　any；　was　taken　from　his　shoulders　and　put　on　to　the　shoulders　of　that　officer　who　was　responsible　for　the　Secretary's　letter。　　It　is　true　that　in　that　letter　the　Secretary　declared　that　in　case　of　any　future　seizure　the　vessel　seized　must　be　taken　into　port；　and　so　declared　in　animadverting　on　the　fact　that　Captain　Wilkes　had　not　brought　the　〃Trent〃　into　port。　　But；　nevertheless；　Secretary　Welles　approved　of　Captain　Wilkes's　conduct。　　He　allowed　the　reasons　to　be　good　which　Wilkes　had　put　forward　for　leaving　the　ship；　and　in　all　respects　indemnified　the　captain。　　Then　the　responsibility　shifted　itself　to　Secretary　Welles；　but　I　think　it　must　be　clear　that　the　President；　in　sending　forward　that　report；　took　that　responsibility　upon　himself。　　That　he　is　not　bound　to　send　forward　the　reports　of　his　Secretaries　as　he　receives　themthat　he　can　disapprove　them　and　require　alteration；　was　proved　at　the　very　time　by　the　fact　that　he　had　in　this　way　condemned　Secretary　Cameron's　report；　and　caused　a　portion　of　it　to　be　omitted。　　Secretary　Cameron　had　unfortunately　allowed　his　entire　report　to　be　printed；　and　it　appeare　d　in　a　New　York　paper。　　It　contained　a　recommendation　with　reference　to　the　slave　question　most　offensive　to　a　part　of　the　cabinet；　and　to　the　majority　of　Mr。　Lincoln's　party。　　This；　by　order　of　the　President；　was　omitted　in　the　official　way。　　It　was　certainly　a　pity　that　Mr。　Welles's　paragraph　respecting　the　〃Trent〃　was　not　omitted　also。　　The　President　was　dumb　on　the　matter；　and　that　being　so　the　Secretary　should　have　been　dumb　also。　But　when　the　demand　was　made；　the　States　government　yielded　at　once；　and　yielded　without　bluster。　　I　cannot　say　I　much　admired　Mr。　Seward's　long　letter。　　It　was　full　of　smart　special　pleading；　and　savored　strongly；　as　Mr。　Seward's　productions　always　do；　of　the　personal　author。　　Mr。　Seward　was　making　an　effort　to　place　a　great　State　paper　on　record；　but　the　ars　celare　artem　was　altogether　wanting；　and；　if　I　am　not　mistaken；　he　was　without　the　art　itself。　I　think　he　left　the　matter　very　much　where　he　found　it。　　The　men；　however；　were　to　be　surrendered；　and　the　good　policy　consisted　in　this；　that　no　delay　was　sought；　no　diplomatic　ambiguities　were　put　into　request。　　It　was　the　opinion　of　very　many　that　some　two　or　three　months　might　be　gained　by　correspondence；　and　that　at　the　end　of　that　time　things　might　stand　on　a　different　footing。　　If　during　that　time　the　North　should　gain　any　great　success　over　the　South；　the　States　might　be　in　a　position　to　disregard　England's　threats。　No　such　game　was　played。　　The　illegality　of　the　arrest　was　at　once　acknowledged；　and　the　men　were　given　up　with　a　tranquillity　that　certainly　appeared　marvelous　after　all　that　had　so　lately　occurred。　Then　came　Mr。　Sumner's　field　day。　　Mr。　Charles　Sumner　is　a　Senator　from　Massachusetts；　known　as　a　very　hot　abolitionist；　and　as　having　been　the　victim　of　an　attack　made　upon　him　in　the　Senate　House　by　Senator　Brooks。　　He　was　also；　at　the　time　of　which　I　am　writing；　Chairman　of　the　Committee　on　Foreign　Affairs；　which　position　is　as　near　akin　to　that　of　a　British　minister　in　Parliament　as　can　be　attained　under　the　existing　Constitution　of　the　States。　　It　is　not　similar；　because　such　chairman　is　by　no　means　bound　to　the　government；　but　he　has　ministerial　relations；　and　is　supposed　to　be　specially　conversant　with　all　questions　relating　to　foreign　affairs。　It　was　understood　that　Mr。　Sumner　did　not　intend　to　find　fault　either　with　England　or　with　the　government　of　his　own　country　as　to　its　management　of　this　matter；　or　that；　at　least；　such　fault…finding　was　not　his　special　object；　but　that　he　was　desirous　to　put　forth　views　which　might　lead　to　a　final　settlement　of　all　difficulties　with　reference　to　the　right　of　international　search。　On　such　an　occasion；　a　speaker　gives　himself　very　little　chance　of　making　a　favorable　impression　on　his　immediate　hearers　if　he　reads　his　speech　from　a　written　manuscript。　　Mr。　Sumner　did　so　on　this　occasion；　and　I　must　confess　that　I　was　not　edified。　　It　seemed　to　me　that　he　merely　repeated；　at　greater　length；　the　arguments　which　I　had　heard　fifty　times　during　the　last　thirty　or　forty　days。　　I　am　told　that　the　discourse　is　considered　to　be　logical；　and　that　it　〃reads〃　well。　　As　regards　the　gist　of　it；　or　that　result　which　Mr。　Sumner　thinks　to　be　desirable；　I　fully　agree　with　him；　as　I　think　will　all　the　civilized　world　before　many　years　have　passed。　　If　international　law　be　what　the　lawyers　say　it　is；　international　law　must　be　altered　to　suit　the　requirements　of　modern　civilization。　　By　those　laws；　as　they　are　construed；　everything　is　to　be　done　for　two　nations　at　war　with　each　other；　but　nothing　is　to　be　done　for　all　the　nations　of　the　world　that　can　manage　to　maintain　the　peace。　　The　belligerents　are　to　be　treated　with　every　delicacy；　as　we　treat　our　heinous　criminals；　but　the　poor　neutrals　are　to　be　handled　with　unjust　rigor；　as　we　handle　our　unfortunate　witnesses　in　order　that　the　murderer　may；　if　possible；　be　allowed　to　escape。　　Two　men　living　in　the　same　street　choose　to　pelt　each　other　across　the　way　with　brickbats；　and　the　other　inhabitants　are　denied　the　privileges　of　the　footpath　lest　they　should　interfere　with　the　due　prosecution　of　the　quarrel！　　It　is；　I　suppose；　the　truth　that　we　English　have　insisted　on　this　right　of　search　with　more　pertinacity　than　any　other　nation。　　Now　in　this　case　of　Slidell　and　Mason　we　have　felt　ourselves　aggrieved；　and　have　resisted。　　Luckily　for　us　there　was　no　doubt　of　the　illegality　of　the　mode　of　seizure　in　this　instance；　but　who　will　say　that　if　Captain　Wilkes　had　taken　the　〃Trent〃　into　the　harbor　of　New　York；　in　order　that　the　matter　might　have　been　adjudged　there；　England　would　have　been　satisfied？　　Our　grievance　was；　that　our　mail…packet　was　stopped　on　the　seas　while　doing　its　ordinary　beneficent　work。　　And　our　resolve　is；　that　our　mail…packets　shall　not　be　so　stopped　wit　impunity。　　As　we　were　high　handed　in　old　days　in　insisting　on　this　right　of　search；　it　certainly　behoves　us　to　see　that　we　be　just　in　our　modes　of　proceeding。　　Would　Captain　Wilkes　have　been　right；　according　to　the　existing　law；　if　he　had　carried　the