The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-06-07

ANGLO-AMERICAN COMMISSION.
>s,~~~S,,~~-~>~~~~>~~~
Claams between the United States and Great
Bx1eain.
CASE OF THE BARK JONES.
We have received pamphlet containing the
ouiuion In tho case Of the bark Jones, by N. G.
Upham, American Commissioner under the conven-
ton Of the 9Th Of February 1885, sitting in London,
for the settlement of claims between the United
States and Great Britain. The case in which this
opinion was given was one Of the most important
that came under the notice Of the Commissioners,
and brief review Of it will not be uninteresting to
our readers.
The bark Jones, owned by P. !. Farnham Co.,
Of Salem, Mass, having shipped her crew for Mon
tevideo and other ports north Of the seth parallel of
south latitude, sailed from Boston in March, 1910,
for the West coast of Africa, having q valuable
sorted cargo, for trading voyage upon that coast.
She arrived at Ambreiz, on the coast Of Africa, on
the 18th Of june and landed and disposed of con.
siderable portion of her cargo, consisting Of -four,
biscuit soap, candles, tea, fish, furniture, lumber,
and gunpowder. After receiving on board guam
tty Of African produce she saileG .or noind1 On
ton of the rights Of her flag, boarded and overhaul
ed by her Majesty's armed brig Water Witch, but,
after examination of her papers and cargo was per-
mitted to proceed on her voyage.
At Loando the Jones landed considerable guam
tity of merchandise, and received in return ivory
and other African produce. From Loando she re-
turned again to Ambreiz, and afterstaking on board
more produce, sailed for st. Helena, where she ar
rived on the Oath of August, 1910.
She was regularly entered at the Custom House,
and had remained at St. Helena twenty-one days,
seving cargo, when she was seized by her Majestys
ship Dolphin, Lieut. Littlehales, commander and
taken from st. Helena to Sierra Leone for adjudca-
ton, on charges specifically set forth In the affidavit
Of seizure the opinion Of the court and other papers
in the case.
The grounds of the seizure Of the Jones, as set
forth in the afidavits, and subsequently stated by
the Judge Of the Vce-Admiralty Court Of Sierra
Leone, and by Lord Palmerston, were
First-Under the act 2 and Vic. ch. 70, for being
found in British waters without having ships papers
on board, and for being therefore without any ma
GOnal character.
secondly-Under the act Of Geo. w. CHI lI3, for
being engaged in and equipped for the slave trade.
Such are the facts Of the case submitted to the
Commissioners The damages claimed were sl40 900.
In delivering his opinion the American Commits
siOner in abiding to the grounds on which the Jones
was seized, said -
In each Of these statements two distinct and indepen
dant charges alleged separate grounds of seizure
perfectly clear however, that the rst charge Of being
found in British waters without having ships papers
I'd Vic and that no jurisdiction over or right Of Seizure
Of the vessel exists statute Whatever may be her
papers, except based her connection with the slave
trade and this view of the statute is important
construction In this respect has caused
due unwarrantable Importance to be given con-
toversy which has arisen to the papers of the vessel
brief reference to the Act of and Vic will sustain
In this position This act empowers British cruisers
ito capture Portuguese vessels engaged in the slave
trade and other vessels engaged in the slave trade not
being entitled to claim the protection of the flag Of any
State naton and BY its terms unless the charge Of
being engaged In the slave trade sustained 1t becomes
wholly immat whether the Jones had papers not
80 far as the statute Of and Vic is concerned
no national character, Is no allegation Of an offence
1t 10 based on that act, falls to the ground
The only remaining ground Of seizure Of the vessel is
cher being engaged in and equipped for the slave trade
which s charged violation Of the Act of Geo. ~.
that act We coneeds the charge being concerned
In and equipped for the slave trade Is we'll alleged
against that statute and the vessel to holden
sponsibe the charge sustained and the offence is
prosecuted agrseably to the requirements Of law;
By that act however it appears that all vessels seized
for being concerned in the slave trade sha and may
be sued prosecuted and recovered in any court Of
record or vice admiralty in port in nearest TO
which such seizure may bemaae, which such yes
sel3 seized sea, without the limits Of any Bri
By this act vessel: seized lat sea- or without the limits
Of any British jurisdiction to be taken to the nearest
and most convenient port for trial. but If within bar
Dor, and established and competent jurisdiction they
to be there ,red The vessel in this seized
a. st. Helena, where there had long been court Of
any felony Or capital offence against the laws Of Crest
Britan The REMOVAL therefore Of the vessel from this
npon the coast Of Africa, was illegal act.
The object Of the act Of and Vic. undoubtedly
% give authority to seize In the open sea- Porting nsse
vessels and vessels having national character
osrned in the slave trade.
In harbor or in British waters Portuguese and other
prior act Of Geo. ~ If their masters engaged in
Hitting them out for the slave trade. The act OF and
Vic was not = al required 70 give jurisdiction owe. the
being concerned in the slave trade there Whatever might
Be her papers, abe coudbs seized and tried ct once
sent and ready for trial. without removal to distant
jurisc lotion, where the very ISSUE Of being
therefore, to Sierra Leone without any excuse and
was rendered peculiarly oppressive against these owners
- their captain excluded from his vessel without
money means Of conveyance TO the remote jurisdic
ton Of Sierra Leone thousand miles distant by water
and the trial proceeded with without any attend,
eut ttlebaes were in clear violation Of the act Of
Geo w., and which the only valid offence against the
vessel vas charged and under the Of the
CASE Of character that should Of ITSELF render
him and his government responsible for all damage that
subsequently to the owners In the loss Of their
lad been solely set mp under the and Vic IL would
b my opinion have made no difference as there GER
the vessel at ST. Helena under the act Of Geo w. for
the only essential charge against herr and under the cir
cumstances Of this case It would have been the i'm
perative duty Of Lieutenant Littlehaes to have
proceeded under the statute His removal Of the vessel
10 Sierra Leone under any form Of process wond have
been In violation Of the spirit Of tho statutes relative to
the slave trade taken in connection with each other AMI
against the first principles Of right and justice in tn,
trial of offences.
After commenting the proceedings had at Sierra
leone, the learned Commissioner proceeds TO say We
bold for the set FORTH that the following points
sustained
l. The having ships papers Is not offence under
2and vc and Is OF consequence In any way except
- secondary and subsidiary TO the charge Of being
gagged in the slave trade.
II. Where no probable cause or ground of suspicion
exists Of being In the slave trade right OF
entry upon seizure Of any vessel exists either by
md Vic, by Geo. W. and whoever enters upon
sxes such vessel, 10 wrongdoer from the beginning
Ill In case Of entry upon, or seisure Of vessel under
ush the Is not bound to follow the
roIery and take appeal from any proceedings Of the
hrty but he has at once remedy on the wrongdoer,
his aiders and abettors, II he no elects
Nv. Where q vessel has been SEIZED on charge OF
ing concerned In the slave trade and acquitted from
grounds Of probable Of being concerned in such
se the court cannot impose costs against the vessel