The skull of a gallant Massachusetts soldier has been converted into the drinking-cup of a Georgia colonel, that he may, far away among his slaves, renew the festive barbarism of another age under the name of “The Feast of Skulls.

The article renounces the claim to take from the vessels of the neutral party, on the high seas, any person whatever not in the military service of an enemy, an exception which we admit to come within the Law of Nations, on the subject of…

Great Britain must produce, then, an exception in the Law of Nations in favor of the right she contends for.

The obvious effect of this stipulation is twofold: first, that enemies, unless soldiers in actual service, shall not be taken out of a neutral ship; and, secondly, that such persons are not contraband of war so as to affect the voyage of a…

Such was the proposition of Franklin, of whom it has been said, that he snatched the lightning from the skies, and the sceptre from tyrants.

Such is unbroken testimony, in the most solemn form, to the policy of our Government.

It is true that among these treaties there is none with Great Britain; but it is also true that this is simply because our mother country refused assent, when this principle was presented as an undoubted part of International Law which our…

Clearly and beyond all question, according to American principle and practice, the ship was not liable to capture on account of the presence of emissaries, “not soldiers or officers”; nor could such emissaries be legally taken from the…

Originally a party to the Treaty of Utrecht, this imperial power soon saw that its provisions in favor of Maritime Rights interfered plainly with that dictatorship of the sea which Britannia was then grasping.

Maritime Rights were repudiated, and her Admiralty Courts have ever since enforced this repudiation.

For the sake of precision in rights claimed and accorded on the ocean, our Government has explained in treaties what was meant by contraband.

If any existed, they would be of the highest value; but there are none, and I can imagine no better reason than because the question is so settled by treaties and diplomacy as to be beyond judicial inquiry.

The conclusion follows, that, according to American principle and practice, the ship was not liable on account of despatches on board.

The French champion of neutral rights vindicates the immunity of despatches against English construction in pointed language.

We must be permitted to protest against the pretension set up by the Americans of considering the transportation of despatches as an act of contraband, and consequently of maintaining that the stopping of the Trent is justified by the fact…

Even if the ship were liable, so that Captain Wilkes would have been justified in bringing the Trent into port for adjudication, it does not follow that the two Rebels could be summarily seized and taken therefrom.

Assuming that despatches are contraband, would their presence on board a neutral ship, sailing between two neutral ports, render the voyage illegal?

Even if this rule had not been positively repudiated by the United States, it is so inconsistent with reason, and, in the present condition of maritime commerce, so utterly impracticable, that it can find little favor.

If a neutral voyage between two neutral ports is rendered illegal on this account, then the postal facilities of the world, and the costly enterprises by which they are conducted, are exposed to interruptions under which they must at times…

If the rule is applicable in one sea, it is applicable in all seas, and there is no part of the ocean which may not be vexed by its enforcement.

It would reach to the Mediterranean and to the distant China seas as easily as to the Bahama Channel, and be equally imperative in the chops of the British Channel.

It is obvious, Sir, that we are now in conflict with beings who belong to a different plane of civilization from ourselves, and it is important that this unquestionable fact should be made known to the country and to the world.

I know not how others may feel, but I like to believe that this communication, when rightly understood, may be accepted as a token of friendship for us, and also as a contribution to those Maritime Rights for which France and the United…

This eminent minister does not hesitate to declare, that, if the flag of a neutral cannot completely cover persons and merchandise in a voyage between two neutral ports, then its immunity will be but a vain word.

Let us at all hazards prevent the extension of Slavery and the increase of the Slave Power.