The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1858-03-11
The American Barh Adrist,e.

Our readers have already been informed
that the American Bark Adriaiic. CAPTAIN
Durham, after being seized In the mort OF
Marseilles and condemned, under tho French
Admiralty law. to pay tho full amount Of
damages claimed by tho owner Of the French
steamer Iyonnais, escaped. and that French
war steamer had gone In pursuit. Of her.
They have also seen that she was overtakcn
and captured In thu small Gulf Of Spexxls,
an inlet In the Gull OF uonoa, taken back
10 Marscills and that shc has escaped again.
She had not been rctaken at the last 90.
counts.
This affair has given rise 70 many com.
ments In the American press some for and
some against, tho proceedings Of Captain
Durham. The conduct Of tho Captain has
been severely ccnsurci, and at first view,
justly. But, u the explanation Of tho owners
OF the vessel Ia the correct one. Capt Dun
ham 10 entitled 10 our sympathicS and 70 The
Wotection OF thc United States Government
However indiscrcetly he may have acted In
escsping from tho authority Of the French
courts. he had tho host excusc for doing ~
for utter pccuniary ruin and . prospect Of
imprisonment for an indefinite period, were
the stern alternatives that stared him In the
face.
Tho facts In the case. a communicated 10
the New York Herald. src these On the
I'd Of September, 1896, about Hny miles
from Nantucket Shoals light, the American
bark Adriatic came Ia c0llision with the
French steamer I.yonnsisc. and sunk her,
At the time of the collision, the Adriatic
did not seem 10 have her lights e. Some
time afterwards, the Adriatic, being In the
port Of MAneiIles, still under the same CON
mandr, Capt. Durham, was libell,sl by the
owners II the Lyonnais, and was condemned
In the full amount Of damages ciaimcd--some
$500, 900, IL Ia said.
The ground Of the Judgment was a French
Admiralty law which requires ,ca-going
vessels 70 carry lights al sra under penalty
Of being responsible for all damage by COLI.
sions No such law exists in the maritime
codes II the United States, Great Britain or
other countries Hence it appears that the
French court held that the peculiar maritime
laws OF Francs govern not only the French
cOast and French waters, bat The high seas
m well, and even the waters adjacent 10 the
coast u the United States. This pretension
In likely b. attract some notice here I, was
not generally known that our ships. Off our
coast, were within French jurisdiction or
subject 10 French laws. II might be worth
inquiring whether any other French laws
are 10 force In The same locality what parts
OF the earth, In plain truth, The Emperor's
dcspotism covers.
II IL not unlikely that the Adriatic will b.
caught again. 10 that case, the expenses u
hsr two captures, added 10 tho judgment nj
ready obtained, will swell the demsnd against
Capt Durham 10 an enormous amount, far
beyond the value Of the vessel. How the
balance Of the claim u To be recovered re-
marks the New York Herald. els not no
clear France recognizes imprisonment for
debt In the case Of foreigners. II may be
presumed, therefore, that our counirymcn
will No the inside Of . French jail. There
have been men at Cliehy who have lain 10
jail twenty years. Capt. Durham could
hardly 10 kept there quite 40 long without
some effort bsing made by his countrymen
for his rcIease - Boston Hsraid.