The Express.
London, England, 1860-04-06 00:00:00

MARITIME INTERCOURSE IN TINE OP WAR•

The following is the report of a special committee
of t►e Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York,
dated February 10, 1000, on Maritime Intercourse in tints
of War:

I-3irrieopold Bierwirth, from the special committee on the
resolution'', adopted by the merchants of Bremen, December
• 2nd, 1650. relative to Nse inviolability of private property on
the ocean in time of war, although belonging to citizens or
subjects of the aountrim engaged in the contest, made the
following report :
i The inviolability of private property at sea in time of war
is a question to which no notion can hare a deeper interest
thee our 4. That question is now being agitated throughout
Europe, and the New York Chamber of Commerce, as one
of the principal orpns of the commerce of the United
States, would neglect its mission if it failed to bring the
subject before the forum of public opinion.
The principle, that bee morels make tree goods, was
acknowledged by car pvmument almost coatempoiniair
randy with its foematioa. It has ever since adhered to
thawl, nchnitting all the time the logical deductions
, until. in 1854, the PreUdsut of the United Staten
submitted to the amnions metier of Europe, and asked
their assent to the Id ollowieg propositions, via :
1. That free ships arise bee goods, i.e., that neutral ves-
sels protect enemy's property.
2. That the propatty of neutrals on board an enemy's
mesa is not sub ject isilimation.
Even here our goverment did not stop. A gratifying
proof of its steady advents be Sbanl sad enlightened neve
to found in the Presitheith meow to Compete of Decent-
bur 4, 1854, in which be Mae the broad ground that
private property upon the ocean should be exempt from
ensure by national ship of war as well as by privateers ,•
that it should not he clptured nor molested by any kind of
armed weasel, but that therms itimonity which it enjoys
an land should equally attach to it at see, inasmuch am "it
would be difficult to find any substantial rumens for the
distinction now recognised in its appfication (the doctrine of
immunity) to such propr. ty on and not to that which
is found upon the coma.
The famous " Declaration " of the Congress at Pane—
l* Privateering is and remains abolished ; 2nd. The
oeutral flag covers enezt.ar geode ; 3rd, Neutral goods are
sot liable to ,upture enemy's flag 4th, Blockades,
in order to be binding, mint be effective—is, in its im-
portant f.atur,i, nothing more than an endorsement of the
previously expressed views of the United States ; oeverthe-
less, the latter had to mhos its adhesion, because the
congress imitated upon the indivisibility, of the four
principles, and, by acceding to the ' Declaration,"
the United States would surrender the right to
employ privateers is time of war. To the sur-
render of that right the United States demurred ;I
but, said our Secretary of Stele, " Add to the first propo-
skim the following worth : ' And that the private property
of the subjects or odium' of a belligerent on the high seas
shall be exempted from seizure by public armed vessels of
the belligerents, unless it be contraband :' thus amended,
the government of the United States will adopt it, together
with the other three principles contained in the Declare-
lion.'

This comprises, as far as generally known, the action
of the respective governments on the subject. The "De-
' almanac" was not amended as proposed by the United
States. What might have been done, had the suggestions
of our Secretary of State reached the congress m time
mint remain a matter of conjecture, but the Prime
Minister of Great Britain, in addressing • few months
later, the merchants and traders of Liverpool, used these
words : " I cannot help hopog that those principles of
war which are applied to bosh ileaby land may be ex-
tended without exam*iea Is hostilities by see, so that
private property shall an kart be the object of aggression
on either side.' And the )emperor of the French, at the
close of the late war,
_roolored to Austria all private
shipping cupttued by Fria& ashen under the Austrian
flag. Thus it may be maid, that the principles advocated by
the Lnited States sad Lord relmenton have already found
their practical application in Fiance.
But it remains to have these principles incorporated into
the declaration of 1 into the code of maritime law ; and
to reach that end, the congress, which is expected
to meet shortly at Paris, le thought to offer a ft opportu-
nity. The Hams Towns were the first to move in the mat-
ter ; their appeal has already met with • favourable re.
qmse from many points in Europe, and it is not doubted
that the agitation will lead to the desired result. if at this
juncture the voice of the United States be heard once more
m favour of the best latenste of commerce, and of justice
sad immaaity.
Claistisaity and civilisations have not been able to banish
war, whatever they have done in mitigating its ergs,
and if by • solemn and " decimation" war ran he
made " an affair of gormasseals." and came to be a license
wanton pillage Land asampesealed appropriation of
Wielded propwV," it is the duty of a right-thinking
to do all in he power to teriag about the change.
resale to
hesitates to wurraeder the right of employ-
ing privateers in time of war, believing that by the nee of
that right only can we place ourselves upon an equality
with • great naval power as to the means for inflicting in-
jury. It is tot oar ppoolicy to maintain a powerful navy-es
• permanent establihmsnt ; we rounder it "detrimental to
motional prosperity and dangerous to civil liberty." If
forced to vindicate their rights by arms, the United Status
are content to rely, in • considerable degree, upon pri.
'Menu

AlWomb not prepared to advocate the surrender of this
prerogative. except on the terms proposed by our govern.
meat, the committee, for the purpose of eliciting correct
views on the eubPsct, deem it their duty to look at the
weapon, not only as to its value in the vindication of Ilft•
timed ts, but also se • question of ethics. Privateers
are net latended—artainly not solely or ma mainly—to
fight an enemy's ships, but to capture or destroy the private
property of a people with whose government another go-
vernment is at war. It is not love of country that arms
and equips them, hut love of lucre ; not in a nation's grata.
tads for patriotic and beret,• deeds are they content to find
their reward, but in the prises they make, in the proceeds
of property belonging to them only by the rot of might.
The views reipecting privateering, its character or nature,
have changed within the last half century. It is no longer
the policy merely of the law that is questioned ; the present
age sees m it a licensed violation of the established prin-
ciples of morality. The assertion in • celebrated public
document. No better reasons can be given for the sur-
render of the right to resort to privateers than for fore-
going the right to receive volunteers," will not beer the
test of strict crutiny. When, during the late Mexican war,
our government accepted the services of volunteer+, it did
not permit them to go whither they might choose, and
seize or ,i-droy the property of Mexican citizens, but it re-
tained absolute control over their movements, and used
them for Jo other purpose than to fight and vanquish the
Mexican armies.

And now, admitting that in former wars privateers were of
great serrios to us, it does not follow that the resort
to the same means of aggression would lead to equally esti,-
factory results in • war at this time. The party having the
largest amount of private property at sea will be the most
espoused to injury from privateers. In our last war with
England, the American property upon the ocean in the
shape of vowels land cargo was truly insignificant compared
with the Elglish. Our privateers had before them • field
covered with riches to gather from ; while the eilemfa pri-
vateers found nothing, so to speak, but • barren waste.
Look at the difference now ! Our mercantile marine equals
in teenage the largest in Europe, sod the amount of Ameri-
=rate property upon the ocean can be counted by hun-
of millions of dollars only ! No other nation now
could tempt the privateer with richer booty than ours.
Again, if ,team be the source of wealth and prosperity,
it is also the most powerful engine for the destruction of
life and prpertv. The navies of Europe now consist of
ntranishipi, and the lore mention of this fret suggests
ilinost iii,urniountable difficulties in the successful prose.
cution pnvateering by any other than steam vessels, and
even then not much more than the destruction of property
could he Attempted or expected. To bring the slow sailing
prize into. port, without beingovertaken by the swift cruiser
of the enemy, will be a nee exception. Privateeriag will
be too cistly and unprofitable to embark in. To surrender
the right ~f resorting to it will not prove too great • sacri-
fice, if thereby the immunity of private property can be
purchased.

But, we are asked, why surrender the right, when there
is no need to apprehend that thto United States should ever
be,ome involved in a great maritime war? If such a war
is to break out, we shall not be a party to it. Be it so!
But we .re not overlook the identity, the solidarity of the
interests of commerce throughout the world. Whether the
private property seized or destroyed be called American or
European, the loni will affect us aIL A commercial crisis
cannot sweep over Europe without prostrating America, and
rrrr recd. The fate of commerce in the one hemisphere
shapes its destiny in the other.
And finally ; however remote the danger of any great
maritime WM', we cannot expect to be, for any grad length
of time, without exciting and critical pot.tmsl questions,
without the alarm consequent thereon, and the ruinous
loans resulting therefrom. What with the destruction of
coo&lenee and the suspense. of business,the fear of war will
for a time work es much injury am war itself.
But sada crises, if not entirely to be avoided, will become
more, rare, if the inviolability of private property at see, in
time of war, not lees than in time of pea." its exemption
from seizure by national ships of war as voiles by privateers,
be aohieLay.ganarinteed. net guaranty, it is believed, may
new be i ed by an energetic expression of the wishes of
the people and government of the United States ; and with
the view of *Alban forth such expression ; the committee
respectfully recommend the adoption of the annexed rtru-
Nimes.

Respectfully submittal—Leopold Bierwirtb, Robert B.
]harms, John D. Jame, eluvial H. Marshall, Henry K.
&MJames G. Mei, committee.
ired. —That the perfect immunity of all private
prorrty upqn the OMB ill time of war IA demanded b, an
eallichtenert sentinient et Pattire and the improved spurt of
eivilimason, sot Isms then by a doe consideration of the best
interest? of ocesanf.

Resolved:- That the go►ernment of the United State* be
respectfully solicited to take such mouuros ike it may deem
dt, to bare the principle expressed in the preoetnig reet.
Izabal incorporated In the code of maritime law.
Remised, -no eopiss of them resolutions he mot to
the elimohms of emnmerre tad boards of trade 111 other
cities of the Cited &atm, with an earned request to aid
is ie obtaining the important object in Mew.

LONDON OrarriAL OffirEloll COMPANY (LlkirreD).
rectiut. week ending Apra 1, AM. 14s.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORTHERN ClROlTlT.—Lriseroon, Ana 5.

(Before Mr. Justice HilL)
ALLZOZD PALM nuaxemormrr ON SHIPBOARD.
A seaman named Brown brought an action against a
muter mariner named William. to recover damages for
altedfalse imprimummt on shipboard.
plaintiff shippedm board the Brunel as an ordinary
seaman, for the romp from Liverpool to Bombay and
back to Liverpool ' • but on the outward voyage he suffered
so much from a disease contracted on shore that he was
001111pletely incapacitated for work. When the vessel arrived
at Bmbay the plaintiff applied for hie discharge but
Captain Williams refused to accede to the ,•regnant • and
when the plaintiff got on shore be refused to
return to the ship. He was given into cos.
tad), taken before the magistrates, and sen-
tenced to four weeks' imprisonment. He was then sent
back to the ship, but as he still refused to work he wss
sen-
toted to a further imprisonment for twelve weeks. Before
the expiration of this term, however, Brown was taken on
board, and the ship proceeded onhrvoyage, but as the
plaintiff still to work he was by the captain's orders
confined in a small cabin during the remainder of the
voyage, which occupied three months and a half. When
the Brunel arrived in Liverpool Brown was given into
custody, on the charge of refusing to work, but the magis-
trates dismissed the owe, and the present action was
brought, to recover damages for the confinement during the
voyage
eedefence was that the plaintiff feigned illness in order
to avoid work, and that he had no roisonable excuse for not
working.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—damages, 20s.

(Before Mr. Justice Blackburn.)

CLUN BY A DITECTIPS FOR

LUCKY CATCH.

rsormery.—A

Joseph Bates, a private detective officer is Liverpool,
sought to recover the sum of 1251. from James N'Henry,
'merchant, also of Liverpool.
It appeared that in July, 1858, the plaintiff was em-
ployed by the defendant to follow and arrest a person
named Archibald Montgomery, belonging to New
Orleans,
who at the time of Wlienry's bankruptcy, 1864, owd
him the SUM of 15,0001., which "am was still owing in
18158. The plaintiff went to Southampton, where it was
expected Montgomery would land from the steamer then
due from New York. The plaintiff was 'applied with a
description of Montgomery, a warrant for him apprehension,
and instructions how to proceed • but as Montgomery did
not land at Southampton, Bales went to Paris, where
he had an interview with the defendant. With the
assistance of a Parisian officer it was found that Montgo-
mery had landed at Havre from the steamer. Bates pro-
wading thither, it was discovered that Montgomery had left
Havre for Paris on the day preceding. After returning to
Park, Bates with mach difficulty f-ound the hotel in which
the delinquent was residing. At this place the defendant
had an interview with Montgomery, and left him on an ap-
pointment to roast him on the following day. la the mean-
time, however, Montgomery attempted to make his escape
to the railway station, and thence to Geneva ,• but Bates,
being on the watch, followed the cab to the railway station,
and there arrested both Montgomery and his wife. While
in custody the defendant had an interview with Montgo-
mery, the result being that the latter paid 3,0001., and was
allowed to go at large. The plaintiff's usual charge for
his services was V. 2s. per day, and his outlay
for travelling and other expenses had been 35/. ; but over
and above these sums he claimed a commission on the
amount of massy recovered through his instrumentality.
He had been paid 501. on account, and he now claimed the
further sum of 1251.
The defence was that the claim of the plaintiff was ex-
orbitant ; that the sum paid was amply sufficient to cover
all the services of Bates, and was equal to what is paid to
London officers for similar services ; and that in respect of
the 501., the plaintiff had given a discharge for the whole
claim.

The jury, after a brief consultation, retuned a verdict
for the plaintiff for the amount claimed.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

OLD COURT.

(Before Mr. Justice Williaau and Mr. Baron Channel].) II
George Brown 25, was charged with stealing a quantity
of plat., the property of Charles Frederick Phillips.
Mr. O'Connell conducted the prosecution ; the prisoner
was defended by Mr. Taylor.
This robbery, it appeared, was committed in January,
1859, and the circumstances connected with it were of •
somewhat peculiar character. The prosecutor is a gentle.
man residing at 48, Inverneseterrace, Bayswater, and on the
day the robbery was oommitted,a servant in the establishment,
Denied Mary Anne Creggs, who had been out on an snood,
upon her return found the prisoner in the kitchen carrying
a quantity of plate. The moment the prisoner saw her, he
said he was very sorry for what he bad done, and if she
would forgive him he would band over all the property.
He then put down • quantity of plate that be had in his
bands and took some more out of his pockets, and he was
then about to go away, but the girl Cregge very courageously
laid hold of him. He, however, broke away from her and sea
off, but WY pursued and brought back to the house.
Mrs. Phillips then ascertained that ell the plate
was safe, and the prisoner was allowed to depart.
Nothing more was heard of him until about a month ago,
when he war taken up on • charged committing a robbery
of plate under similar circumstances, and the girl Cregp,
and two other witnesses, swore positively to the prisoner as
being the man who wee in possession of the property under
the circumstances above stated.

Mr. Justice Williams, in summing up, complimented the
girl Crew upon the gallantry and good sense she had ex-
hibited upon the occasion, and he said that the only ques-
tion for the jury to consider was whether the identity of the
prisoner was established to their satisfaction.
The jury at once returned a verdict of Guilty.
A mtinaite was then put in by which it appmred that
the prisoner had been summarily convicted of ►a robbery of
the same character at Marlborough-street Police Court, and
sentenced to four months' imprisonment.
The prisoner was sentenced to three years' penal ser-
vitude.

&churl Dyer, the lad who wu convicted of forgery under
very aggravated circumstances, was brought up for judg-
ment ►nd sentenced to six years' penal servitude, with an
intimati,m that the court would recommend that he should
be sent to Parkhurst Prison.

THIRD COURT.
(Ware the Common Serjeaot.)

. .
Yaltalerrell, 47, was indicted for that
he, being trustee oil a certain property—to wit, 106
shares in the London and Westminster Bank, value 4,000 f.
—for the benefit of Ann Bruce, did unlawfully convert and
appropriate them to his own use, with intent to defraud ;
and another indictment charged him with unlawfully eon.
verting and appropriating to his own use certain stock in
the London, llrighton, and South Coast Railway, valued
at 210/;, of which he was trustee.

Mr. Hawkins, Q.C. (with whom was Mr. Sleigh), said
that, although the prisoner had pleaded not guilty to both
indictments, be desired to withdraw see of those pleas, and
plead guilty to that indictment which charged him with
having unlawfully appropriated the stock of the Loudon,
Brighton, and South Coast Railway. The prosecution,
which was under the Trustees Act, had some peculiar cir-
cumstances connected with it, and those who prosecuted
had no desire to press hardly upon the prisoner,
and what he had to ask was, that the court
would allow the prisoner to go out upon bail,
to appear the ant day of next session, to aarwerthe other
indictment. He (the learned counsel) would then be pre-
• to call numerous gentlemen, to whom the prisoner
had been known for years, anti who would speak to the
• b character he had borne up to the present time.
Metcalfe said he had no objection, and the court
directed the prisoner to be admitted to bail, himself in
2,0001., one surety in 1,000/., and two in WO/.
Ifiatrd, a gentlemanly-looking man, surrendered to
•
take his trial forperjury.
Mr. Metcalfe and Mr. T. H. Lewis prosecuted ; and Mr.
Serjeant Parry and Mr. Thompson Chitty defended.
The case arose oat at some proceedings taken by the de-
fendant against • Mr. Charles in the Marylebone county
court. The defendant bad contracted to put up some
blinds for the front of the shop of Mr.
Charles, who at the finis was in business
se • fishmonger in Queen's-terrace, St. Join's-wood. The
blinds were made to the spode' order of Mr. Charles,
but blew down twice, and were then sent back to
defendant, who not being paid, brought his action against
Mr. Charles for the amount, about 11/. Defendant then
swore that the blinds were sent home complete with pulleys
and ropes, and the court gave to the defendant the amount
which he claimed. He then left. Mr. Charles positively
insisted that the ropes and pulleys bad not been sent, and
that the present defendant knew it.
This was the perjury assigned, and witnesses were called
upon both sides, and the jury, after patiently investigating
the case, A• pitted the defendant, adding that it ought
never tv have been brought there.