Polynesian., 1853-09-03
Che pnlpnesidas..

| "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 briefytheseoa In November last, diff
|culty which ended in blows, took place on
board the Hermann, in the port Of Southamp-
ton, between Mr.. Venus, the mate Of that
vessel, and a French waiter, shipped at Bre-
|men. 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
la warrant against the mate. With this war;
rant policemen boarded the Hermann in the
stream, an hour or two before she sailed ,and
demanded thu surrender Of Mr.. Venus
Captain Higgins stated that he could not, at
THAT time, dispense with his services-that in
lease of his own illness, the mate was the only
lperson 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 COM
Iply with the demand of the97police. In this
resolution 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. .-cs
The occurrence has given rise to a volumi-
nous correspondence between Mr.. Ingersoll.
the British Secretary of State, Mr.. Croskey,
and the local authorities at Southampton
Our Consul takes the ground that the magis-
jtrates at. Southamr ton had no jurisdiction
over an offence committed on board an Ameri-
can ship; and Understanding himself on
the weIl-known principle, that a ships deck
| is 10 al! intents and purposes, the soil of the
country whose flag she carries-denies the
right of the British police to board the Her
mann and arrest one Of her officers. On
these two issues, Mr.. Croskey has the mis-
fortune to differ entirely both from the United
States and the British authorities of State
Mr.. Everett was clearly Of opinion that the
facts charged against the mate by the waiter,
| g if correctly stated, not only justified but
required the interference Of the authorities y
at 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 a
! Just matter of complaint on the part of the
British government" Lord Palmerston, 10
like manner, considered .sthat Mr.. Croskey
was wrong in disputing the jurisdiction oi
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 il
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 prosecutor was forthcoming,
and the case was dismissed, the magistrates
contenting themselves with presuming that
6" there was some misapprehension on the
part Of Mr.. Croskey." But the practical
result of the case is the establishment OF a
principal which shipowners and shiPmasters
would do well to bear in mind. ,f-I =
It is now settled, so far as the concurrent
opinions of two foreign governments can set
title point of international law that where
Ian officer of an American vessel is charged
with committing an offence on board thai
vessel while she lies in foreign port, the
ship may be. boarded by the police Of the
port, the officer arrested and carried or
lshore, and the vessel deprived Of his services
lfor the voyage. Most Of our readers are
iacquainted with the general principle OF mari
ltime law, that vessels at sea are held to bt
part aud parcel Of the country to which they
belong, and that they are subject to her Ju
lrisdiction alone, or, as Napoleon cpigrafn
tmatically phrased it, that partout on est
Idrapeau Ia est la patrie. Our resistance Q
lEnelan s pretended right Of search, and ou
subsequent vindication Of the inviolability Q
our merchant navy, were based on this prln
|ciple. But it only sPpiesto vessels atasea
beyond any territorial jurisdiction. When
ship once enters foreign waters the municipal
lcode overrides the International law, and she
becomes. as Lord Palmerston says, as clear
Ily subject to the jurisdiction Of the country
lin whose waters she is, as if she were higl
and dry on the shore. Hence it was that
when the men of the Sardinian frigate Sai
lGioyanui infringed our laws, our police wer'
lenthled to pursue the offender on board tn
foreign vessel, and insist on his surrender
lBy the case of the Hermann the point !
placed in still clearer light. The ofenc'
lof the Sardinans was committed on shore
THAT Of the mate ofsthe Hermann on boar
lhis ship, while lying in the port Of Southamp
lton. BIT SO far as the question of jurisdic
Ition is concerned, the cases are parallel, an
as will be seen by Mr.. Ingersoll's letter
There is no disposition on the part of our 60
lvernment to quarrel with This interpretatio'
tof the law. "a
Still it must be obvious to all that such q
understanding may lead to grave incon
lyeniences.s Ocean mail steamers are boun
Ito sail on the day fixed under heavy penal
ties. As the law stands, any rascal ma
!. make an affidavit and obtain warrant agains
1.-The captain. or mate, Of one ,of, our steamer
Iiust as she i. on the point of. leaving Liver
lpool or Southampton, and so place the vesse
tapde. the. Alternative OF sailing without a
Indispensable officer. or delaying her dePsr
f,,,,-e = e !. t,,s;f,ons expense. The. same thin