But public report, authenticated by various authorities, English and Continental, forbids us to continue ignorant of the precise ground on which this act is presented as a violation of International Law. It is admitted that a United States man-of-war, meeting a British mail steamer beyond the territorial limits of Great Britain, may subject her to visitation and search; also that such man-of-war might put a prize crew on board the British steamer, and take her to a port of the United States for adjudication by a Prize Court there; but it is alleged that she would have no right to remove the individuals, not apparently officers in the military or naval service, and carry them off as prisoners, leaving the ship to pursue her voyage.[34] Under the circumstances, in the exercise of a belligerent right, the British steamer, with all on board, might have been captured and carried off; but, according to the British law officers, on whose professional opinion the British Cabinet acted, the whole proceeding was vitiated by failure to take the packet into port for condemnation. This failure is the occasion of much unprofessional objurgation; and we are emphatically and constantly reminded that the custody of the individuals in question could not be determined by a navy officer on his quarter-deck, so as to supersede the adjudication of a Prize Court. This is confidently stated by an English writer, assuming to put the case for his Government, as follows. “It is not to the right of search that we object, _but to the following seizure without process of law_. What we deny is _the right of a naval officer to stand in place of a Prize Court_, and adjudicate, sword in hand, with a _sic volo, sic jubeo_, on the very deck which is a part of our territory.”[35] The same authority flourishes the same objection again. “If Captain Wilkes and his irresponsible supporters imagine that we shall submit to the _arbitrary, semi-barbarous practice_, they will in a few days be undeceived; for our Government has instructed Lord Lyons to demand reparation for so wanton a breach of friendly relations.”[36] Such declarations in an important journal, and in precise harmony with the opinions of the British law officers, seem semi-official in character.