Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1863-07-17

tuiuo SyuopSlS VI tile ueClSlOu VI lic LHSilsu
Courts in the case of the Alexandra, which
vessel was seized on the suspicion that she was
intended for the Confederate service. The
"Post' says:
Nominally, the point left for the decision Of
the jury was whether the Grown or firm OF
Liverpool merchants were the righttul owners
Of an unfinished ship; but, practically, the
matter for adjudication was whether the ship
builders Of this country are prccludcd from
constructing ships which may eventually be
devoted to warlkc purposes against State
with which we are at present 1t peace. On the
one side exists the obligations TO preserve in
tact our commercial rights, and on the other
those which make it incumbent upon Us TO
prevent our ports and dock-yartis beng made
available for the equipping and fitting out OF
ships or armamcuts for the purposes OF agsreS-
sion against friendly Power Passing from
the purely legal cosideration of tue case,
it is manifest tIat, on grounds of eNpedlen-
cy, Il maritime nation like Great Britain.
possessing copmcrc!al relations with every
quarter Of the globe, is bound faithfully and
strictly to fulfill tho duties appertaining To
strict neutrality. We arc ncutrals to-day: We
may be beligcrentS tomorrow; and us We do
to others 50 we must expect 10 he done by
The issue raised in tile case of the Alexandra
waS one consequently not less important in its
consequences to ourselves than To those more
immediately interested in the result. We
have established Il precedent to which, when
we are at war, neutral nations may success
fully appeal. 1t is thus that we accept the
law as laid down by the Lord Chief Baron and
as confirmed by the verdict Of the jury. The
Judge Interpreted the particular statute ILL
tended by the Legislature to prevent the equip
mcnt Of ships for the purpose OF aggression
against friendly Power; and the jury, ap-
plying the principles thus cnuncatcd to
the facts disclosed in evidence, decided, with
out a moments hesitation, that the act had
not been infrinsed. In this verdict we entire
~ concur.
= y America has for upwards Of half
a century had Foreign Enlistment act SINH
lar to our own, and the decisions cf American
Judges afford a key to its interpretations. In
a case brought on appeal before the Supreme
Court of the United States, that great .lurist,
Mr.. Justice Story, laid it down that although
by the terms of the Foreign Enistmentact the
subjects Of Il neutral State were prccludcd
from equipping or arming vessels for the pur-
pose of aggression against Il friendly Power
they were not prccludcd from equippins aud
arming them for the purpose OF sale to any
one belligerent or otherwise, who chose to
purchase them. In other words, neutral
may equip ship-oi-war just as lie may eon-
struct cannon, if he intends not to use or
have it used against friendly Power, but
merely to sell it. Adopting this ruling, the
Chief Baron laid it down that a British subject
might equip ship-of-war with view OF sell
Ing it to either beligcrent without infringing
the provisions Of the Foreign Enlistment act.
Indeed, in the course OF the trial the learned
Judge asked the Attorney General whether
such course would mt be legal, and us the
latter declined to reply, it may bc taken that
it is so.
The Chief Baron wen; 50 far a:ssIttfiGcnt as tn st act
the object of the Il. !E."fGic;' protection Of bel
could not a, 7Sthcrwise the exportation of con-
trnLund of war would equally have been pro-
hibited, and that consequently English snip
builders had as much right to sell armed ships
to either bclligerent as they had to sell gun
powder or cannon, or other munitions ut war
In the case however, before the Court, it did
not become necessary to apply these rrllcl-
pies in their fullest Specification. The Chlct
Baron left it to the jury whether the Alexan-
dra was equipped, armed, furnished or fitted
out" or whether it was the intention Of the
defendants to "equip, arm. furnish or tit her
out" withiLl[cr Majestys dominions for pur::
poses Of aggression against the government
Of the United States. The act does not pro-
hibt the 9 building" of ships Of any dcscrip-
ton ; and as it was shown that she. was not,
at the time of her seizure, "equipped or
armed" and there was nothing to show hat
it vas intended that she should be so equipped
within Her Majesty's dominions, the defend
ants were entitled to a verdict.
The Alabama was frequently referred to in
lustrate the Interpretation which must be put
on the Foreign Enlistment act when we say
that the Chief Baron, in summing up, pointed
out that in her case the act was not infrlnsed.
She was luilt in an English port, but she was
equipped and armed in Portuguese waters,
where Of course the English Crown possessed
no jurisdiction ltmay be said that, accord
ing to this Interpretation, the Foreign Enlist
mcnt act will prove II dead letter. IT the
Chief Baron's views Of the Object of which
that aci was framed-namcly, not TO protect
belligerents, but 10 prevent vessels equipped
for the rival Powers in neighborinS docks
fighting whilst still in our lIarbors or in our
wa crS-lS correct, IL Will nOl. III, oH lllc
other hand, its object was the protection OF
the commerce of Il friendly Power, it certain
~ seems ITO say the least of tl that its pro-
visions can be very easily evaded. However,
with consequences neither judges nor juries
have anything to do. 1t is, at I'll events, a
satisfaction to feel that tho Lord Chief Baron
has acted in accordance with high Amcri-
can authority in his Interpretation Of the law,
and it will be impossible for the American
Government to question tho soundness of his
opinion without also impugning that Of the
greatest of their lawyers, Mr.. Justice Story
From the London Times, Jauc o..
= + Had the Foreign Enlistment act
mentioned rifles, gunpowder, or shot and she'll,
instead of suips-ot-war, we may be sure that
the Confedcratcs would have spared no pains
to intercept the consignments Of Birmingham
hardware" For the purpose of watching
questionable proceedings agents must bc en-
ploved, and agents so employed are neither
more nor less than spies. Work Of this kind
is distasteful to very scrupulous men, and it
follows that it will generally be carried on by
persons Of easy conscience and uncnvlablc
character. In this case, perhaps, such extreme
=. l. ~ Gov