“All the above articles, _and none others_, shall be subject to confiscation, whenever they are attempted to be carried to an enemy.”[96] Thus we have not only words of enumeration without mention of “despatches,” but also words of exception. These testimonies constitute the record of our nation on this question. Here it may be remarked, that, while decisions of British Admiralty Courts are freely cited, there are none of our Supreme Court. 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. And here again we have the testimony of Continental Europe, if we may accept the statement of Hautefeuille, and it would seem also that of the French Government, in the recent letter of M. Thouvenel. 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 that there were found on board despatches of the Confederate Government. This pretension, which has always been maintained by England, and which even at the present day is still avowed by its journals, is wholly contrary to all the principles of International Law.”[97] But Continental testimony is not uniform. So considerable an authority as Heffter recognizes the liability of a neutral vessel for “_voluntarily_ forwarding despatches to or for a belligerent.”[98] This is on general grounds, independent of treaty or national usage. 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. Here again we are brought to that American principle which condemns the pretension of seizing even enemies on board a neutral vessel, unless they are soldiers in actual service, and has constantly cried out against the desecration of our decks by British officers seizing our peaceful sailors under claim of allegiance to the British crown. * * * * *