The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1853-07-04

"
erto been worse than deaf to the urgent plead
ings Of the dead.
Rights OF American Vessels Abrond-At-
tempted Arrest OF the Mate OF tho Her
mann.
A most important principle of international
and maritime law is involved in the case of the
mate of the steamship Hermann, which will be
found in another column. The facts are briefly
these. In November last difficulty, which
ended in blows, took place on board the Her
mann, in the port of Southampton between Mr..
Venus, the mate of that vessel, and French
waiter, shipped at Bremen. The latter having
been placed in irons by the captain. sent ashore
at Southampton, and discharged from the ship,
applied for and obtained from the authorities
of that port warrant against the mate. With
this warrant policemen boarded the Hermann
in the stream. an hour OF two before she sailed,
and demanded the surrender of Mr.. Venus.
Captain Higgins stated that he could not at
that time, dispense with his seryices-that in
case of his own illness the mate was the only
person competent to navigate the ship-that
were the vessel to sail without him and any
accident to occur to himself the insurance
would be lost-and formally refused to comply
with the demand of the police. In this reso-
luton he was confirmed by the opinion of Mr..
Croskey. United States Consul, who informed
the bearers Of the warrant that the mate would
not be surrendered. The police then went
ashore, and the Hermann sailed, with Mr.. Venus
ON board.
The occurrence has given rise to volumi-
nous correspondence portion Of which we
publish Observation-Disclosures Mr.. Ingersoll. the
British Secretary of State, Mr.. Croskey 81 the
local authorities at Southampton. Our Consul
takes the ground that the magistrates at South
ampton had no jurisdiction over an offence COM
mitted on board an American ship; and further
founding himself on the well-known principle,
that ships deck is to all ntents and purposes
the soil Of the country whose flag she carries
denies the right Of the British police TO board
the Hermann and arrest one of her officers. On
these two issues Mr.. Croskey has the misfortune
to differ entirely both from the United States
and the British authorities Of State Mr.. Ever
EFT was clearly of opinion that the facts charged
against the mate by the waiter if correctly
stated not only justified but required the in
reference ofthe authorities" lat Southampton
and that if when the police boarded the ship.
she was within the local jurisdiction of England,
all attempt to resist them was unlawful, and
would form just matter of complaint on the
part Of the British government" Lord Pal
merston, in like manner considered THAT Mr..
Croskey was wrong in disputing the jurisdiction
OF the magistrates. as it was clear, and univer-
sally admitted, that merchant vessel of one
country within the waters Of another was as
fully liable to the laws of that country as if
the ship was high and dry on her shores"
The matter Of the arrest ended, as such affairs
generally do, in smoke The mate surrendered
himself on his return to stand his trial but no
prosecutorwas forthcoming. and the case was dis
missed the magistrates contenting themselves
with presuming that there was some misap-
prehension on the part Of Mr.. Croskey" But
the practical result Of the case is the establish
ment Of a principle which shipowners and ship
masters would do well to bear in mind.
1t is now settled, so far as the concurrent
opinions oftwo foreign governments can settle
a point OF international law that where an Off
Ger CT an American vessel is charged with COM
mittirg an offence on board that vessel while
she lies in foreign port, the ship may be
boarded by the police of the port the officer az
rested and carried on shore and the vessel de-
prived of his services for the voyage. Most of
our readers are acquainted with the general
principle Of maritime law that vessels at sea
are held to be part and parcel Of the
country to which they belong, and that
they are subject to her jurisdiction alone.
or, as Napoleon systematically phrased it.
that pdrtoW or est ie drapeou, la est Ii pn-
trie. Our resistance of England's pretended
right Of search, and our subsequent vindication
Of the inviolability of our merchant navy were
based on this principle. But it only applies to
vessels at sea, beyond any territorial jurisdic-
ton. When ship once enters foreign waters
the municipal code overrides the international
law, and she becomes, as Lord Palmerston
says, as clearly subject to the jurisdiction of
the country in whose waters she is as if she
were high and dry on the shore. Hence il was
San Giovanni infringed our laws, our police
were entitled to pursue the offender on board
the foreign vessel, and insist on his surrender.
by the case Of the Hermann the point is placed
in still clearer light. The offence OF the Sar-
dinians was committed on shore that Of the
mate of the Hermann on board his ship. while
lying in the port Of Southampton. But 50 far
as the question Of jurisdiction is concerned the
cases are parallel, and as will be seen by Mr..
Engersoll's letter, there is no disposition on the
part of our government TO quarrel with this
Interpretation OF the law.
still il must be obvious to all that such an
may lead to grave inconve-
niences. Ocean mail steamers are bound to sail
on the day fixed under heavy penalties Az the
law stands, any rascal may make an affidavit and