The Sun.
London, England, 1871-01-13 00:00:00

TIIE SEIZURE OF THE
INTERNATIONAL.
n the Court of Admiralty an application has been
,le to Sir Robert Phillimore, the judge, for the release
ni custody of the ship International and cargo, which
been seized by the English Government on the ground
Jt it was about to commit a7brea,ch of the laws of
Ltrality, by supplying and layii)g a cable for the French
,vernment to connect Dunkirk, Cherbourg-, and Bor-
Inx. The seizure was made at the request of the North
nan Ambassador as far back as the 21st December,
,e matter came before the court on Tuesday, and
_ourned pending some private negotiations between
.e owners and Lord Granville.
'J'he Att3rney-Generel (Sir R. Collier, Q.C., M.P.), the
Solicitor-General (Sir J. D. Coleridge, Q.C., M.P.), Sir
Travers Twiss, Q.C., and Mr. Archibald, were counsel
for the Crown, and Sir John Karslake, Q.C., Mr.
Thomas Hughes, Q.C., and Mr. Pritchard, for the

was a

,u•uers.

Sir J. Karslake in making the application briefly re
capitulated the leading facts of the case and the circum
stances connected with the seizure. He produced affi
davits proving that the necessary permits and documents
from the Customs had been granted, an I the
witnesses declared it was well known on the 16th
December that the cable was on board the vessel and
what was to be its destination. Notwithstanding this,
the vessel was seized, which, he contended, was an ex-
traordinory proceeding. On the 28th December the con-
tract between the French Government and the contractors
was placed in the hands of the English Government for
the purpose of satisfying them that no breach of neutra-
lity was intended, but that the transaction was a perfectly
legitimate one, and yet Lord Granville, after the cable was
on board, and the vessel wes ready for sailing, issued the
warrant upon which the vessel was now detained. He
denied that there was any ground, legally, upon
which the vessel was seized, and, having quoted
largely from the various sections in the Foreign
Enlistment Act bearing on the point, said it
could not be held that the vessel or the cable was intended
to be used for the naval or military service of a foreign
cauntry at war with another friendly nation. It was
somewhat startling to hear it argued that persons who
were engaged in ordinary submarine telegraphy were,
under the circumstances of this case, to be considered as
in the service of France, and therefore liable to the penalty
of imprisonment set forth in' the act. He argued that
military telegraphy was quite a different thing from
ordinary permanent telegraphy, and the instruments and
wires were of a totally different character. Military
telegraphy, in the strict sense of the word, was for use in
the field, and an ordinary submarine cable could not be
held to have any connection with military operations.
If the persons who were going out to lay this cable could
be said to have infringed the Act by becoming connected
with the military and naval services, it was impossible
not to contend that persons who went out as clerks in the
Post-office were not also acting contrary to the Act, be-
cause the Post-office might be, and was, used for military
purposes. It never could have been intened that persons
laying a telegraph cable which might be used
for war purposes should be looked upon as in the
military or naval services of the country. Now it would
seem that at the time the contract was entered into the
seat of the French Government was at Tours, and it was
not until three weeks afterwards that it was removed to
Bordeaux, which town is situated fifty miles from the
mouth of the river where the cable was to be laid. The
learned counsel then read an affidavit made by Mr. Gray,
manager of the Company which constructed the cable,
stating that the ship was purchased for the purpose of
laying a submarine cable, and had been engaged in laying
the cable to Jersey. The contract was entered
into for the cable in -question with the Director
General of the Post-office in France, who was
a civil functionary, and he believed it was to be used as an
ordinary submarine telegraph, and for no other purpose.
Sir John Karslake proceeded to say that the Director-
General was a civil functionary, answering t P
o the ost-
master-General in this country, and he had the entire
management of the ordinary telegraphs, military tele-
graphy being under the guidance of the Minister of War,
and naval telegraphy under the control of the Minister of
Marine. He produced specimens of the cable in question,
and that used in military telegraphy, and said that the
company he represented had never been in communication
with any but the civil functionaries, and the
cable, though it might be used for military purposes,
was intended simply for commercial and private business
messages. The learned counsel pointed out that the
company had nothing whatever to do with the land lines
to connect the cable with the places intended, but all
they had to do was to lay an iron rope at the bottom of
the sea, and then they would have completed their con-
tract. Now, it had been said that the cable was not to be
a permanent one, but it was not likely to be taken up as
suggested, after the war, when he said that the company
for their part of the work alone received
£89,000. He said this notwithstanding the affidavits
of Mr. Stephen M. Clare, secretary to a rival
company, and Mr. Scudamore, who thought
the cable would be useless on the cessation of hostilities.
He held that the cable could not be held to be contraband
of war, and if so it could not matter whether it was deli-
vered on any given quay or at the bottom of the sea. He
therefore held that the seizure was illegal, and if that was
his Lordship's opinion he should ask that the ship and
cargo should be released, and, according to the practice of
the court, that such damages as have been sustained by
the company should be awarded.
Sir It. Phillimore remarked that it must be shewn
before damages were awarded that there was not reason-
able ground for the detention.
Sir John Karslake said he thought this was a case for
damages, inasmuch as the character of the vessel and her
cargo was well known, the destination of the cable was
known, and the Customs officers had given permits for her
sailing.

Scotsman

Mr. T. Hughes and Mr. Pritchard having been heard
on the same side,
The Attorney General replied on behalf of the Crown,
and combatted the idea expressed by Sir John Karslake,
that the cable in question was not such as might be
considered a military cable. If it - might be
used for commercial purposes, it might still be
a military cable, inasmuch as it might be
a most valuable means of communication and
form an important part in military operations. It was
confining the point to a very narrow limit to argue that
the Act which' referred He mil
wasitaralmost goingy telegraphy
to say it simply
meant field telegraphy.
was an absurd proposition. Suppose there was a war
between France and England and France had pos-
session of Jersey and Guernsey, could it be
said that a cable laid from St. Malo to those
islands was not a military cable ? Would it be said that a
telegraph erected by the Prussians from Versailles to
Sedan or Berlin was not a military cable ? The proposi-
tion was ridiculous, and he contended that it was of no
consequence whatever how the telegraphic communication
secured— it was portable and might
was s
be removed from place to place in a cart ;
whether it was carried on poles or sunk to
the bottom of the sea—so lonv a-s it might be
used in support of military operations. Then it became a
military telegraph, although it was true commercial mes-
sages might pass through it as well. The existing French
Government, he contended, was a purely military
government, and the contract for the cable
being with that Government necessarily ren-
dered it a military cable. It could not for a
moment he argued that the French Government
were studying the commercial interest of France, its
whole and sole object was to save the country, One
might just as well say that a man engaged in a life and
death struggle, and having his enemy's knife at his
throat, would give a thought about his balance at his
banker's. It had been said that Mr. Scudamore
in his affidavit declared his belief that the cable
would be no use for commercial purposes. He was not
surprised at this, and why ? Simply because it would be
blocked by the messages of M. Ga,mbetta, and the com-
mercial men of Bordeaux would get very little chance of
using it. One of the greatest difficulties which France at
the present time was labouring under was defective
communication, brought about by the Prussians
having taken possession of such a large por-
tion of French territory. The want of communi-
cation between the armies of the north and south was
one of the greatest difficulties what the French had to
contend with. Their great aim was to act in concert and
to march to the relief of Paris at one and the same time.
There were the armies of Chanzy on the Loire, and
Faidherbe at Lille, near Dunkirk, and what
they required was to be able to communicate
Had they a direct line doubtless it would be worth to
France an army of 50,000 or 100,000 men, but could the
English Government allow that communication to be
established by British subjects. There could be no doubt
but that that this cable would supply the want, hence the
interference of the English Government. Sire
Karslake
argued that the company he represented only dertook to
deliver the cable, and that the laying of it was simply a
delivery. But the very words of the contract were that
the company were " to lay " the cable, and the vessel

itself was bought and constructed expressly for such pur-
poses, and he contended that the Government would have
been guilty of dereliction of duty if they had not inter-
posed an order to prevent British subjects from
supplying a want which the French had been
deprived of by the military success of the
Germans. lie was quite prepared to admit it was an
error of judgment on the part of the company. He did
not pretend to attribute niala fides, and he was not at pre-
sent inclined to prosecute anyone, or to take proceedings
against the vessel. He thought his lordship might exer-
cise the power given by the Act, and allow the vessel to
be released on proper security being given ; but he must
suggest that the undertaking should not be in general
terms not to violate the Foreign Enlistment Act, because
the company might carry the cable and lay it, say it was
not a breach of the Act, and thus reopen the whole
question. The bond should stipulate that the cable
should not be conveyed to France. These were the terms
he should insist upon, and he thought his lordship would
agree with him that it was a case in which the Govern-
ment had very properly intervened.
Sir J. Coleridge followed on the same side, and
argued against the idea of Sir J. Karslake, that the cable
was necessary to keep up commercial relations between
France, England, America, &c., because communication
between those countries already existed.
Sir Travers Twiss and Mr. Archibald were also heard
on behalf of the Crown.
Sir John Karslake in reply, said the question was not
whether the cable might be made use of for military pur-
poses, but whether the International had been engaged in
the military service of France.
At the conclusion of Sir J. Karslake's address,
Sir R. Phillimore intimated that the court would pro-
nounce judgment very shortly.

EPOR,TED ILLNESS OF MR. GLADSTONE.
It is said that Mr. Gladstone is not at all well, yet
sere never was a time when it was more desirable that
Le right hon. gentleman should be in vigorous health.—

ACCIDENT TO THE ROYAL PARTY AT
BERKELEY.

The Prince of Wales is on a visit to Lord Fitzhardinge
at Berkeley. He arrived on Tuesday night. On being
driven from the railway station to the Castle, a brake
containing Lord Fitzhardinge and other noblemen
capsized. Lord Fitzhardinge and the other noble occu-
pants were slightly injured. On Wednesday the Prince
went out shooting with a party of noblemen and gentle-
men. His Royal Highness is expected to stay till Satur-
day.