New-York daily tribune., 1863-08-01


Chief Baron's ruling is sustained by the whols
court, they will be under the necessity of pro.
posing q parliamentary amendment Of the law,
or else Of permitting judicial precedent to BE-
established against England of incalculable mis-.
chief for the future.
! But without interfering in the conflict be-
tween the Ministry and the Courts Of Law,
we propose to show that the doctrine set up
by Baron Pollock is as much at variance with
established law as it ia with common sense.
The proceeding against the Alexandra was
under the Foreign Enlistment act, so called.
by Section Z, under which the proceeding was
had:
"Ksuy person within any part o. the Unsd Kingdom
M,i..,x e9ao nf urps. g. saa cot, ''os' or arm; M
attempt endesvor to eqoiP furnish Il. out or arm or pro-
to be- equipped, furnished, httsd oa, or armed; o.
shall knowpyy aid b, o,seen'd IN the eqoppnt.
iafni,Lus fus out sruns Of any ship o. vessel VIII
nten. ths. ship vessel ,hd be employed 10 the
service Of any foreign prince state, or rotsatsts
transport storoshP, or with n.en. 70 cruise
with whom his Msjesty shall not then be -
war. Z. every such per.On so Offending shall es
deemed guilty ofs nisdemesnor and every sueA
ship or vessel shall be forfeited"
The information charged the Alexandra with
o violation of this section in ninety-eight dif'
ferent ways; among others (uuder tho words
which we have italicized above) with being
built by those who sought 10 aid, assist, or DO
concefded in the furnishing fitting out OF
arming of vessel, with intent to employ her
in the service Of the Confederate States.
The defendants took the point. that %
ofTense could be committed under this section
of the statute until the vessel was completely
equipped and armed; that, in effect, tho
words "equip, furnish, ft out, or arm," aim.
ply meant completely arm; 60 that if the Aex'
andra or Alabama (for the cases were made
idcntical) were in all other respects furnished.
equipped, and fitted out as hostile cruisers.
and had not their guns aboard. though they
designed to take them on three miles at sea,
they were not liable to forieitare. -
Now, to say that a person @ho gets up .
gunboat designed for war purposes aod nothing
else, and who has so far fitted ber Tor hoSslli-
ties as that she only wants her guns, Or .
single one of them, does not "aid,' nor as
sist," and is not concerned" in "equpping.
furnishing, fitting out or arming," such gun
boat is, to our thinking manifest overr'I-
ing of common sense.
l No special comment that we are aware Of
was made BY the counsel for the Crown upon
the set of counts which charged =" the bs'ng
concerned " merely, but the Chief Baron's
sweeping decision covered the whole ground.
20 that he must be taken TO have decided
what we have above Indicated.
But we will not set up common sense alono
against the Exchequer lew. The Alexandra
was unders stood to be an American case In al
its aspects; and at one point the Chief Baron
launched out into eulogy Of Story and Kent
whom ne quoted to his purposes, as 'iurists
who rendered the study Of the law pleasant"
He also so far honored American authority a.
70 quote Webster's dictionary to show that
"equip," furnish" and eft out, were SIM
ply SYNONYMOUS with "arm." Why, We would
respectfully inquire, did not he, nor any Of The
learned counsel for the Crown, the Attorney.
General, the Solicitor.General, the Queens
Advocate, nor Messrs. Locke nor Jones quote
the decision of the United States Supreme
Court in its best days. when Marshall was
Chief Justice, and Story, Mclean, and others
we're Associates, of United States agt Quincy,
& Peters, 4l5 fully to the point, that it Is NOS
necessary that the vessel should be complete
in order to bring one who is concerned 10 1T
ting her out under the penalty Of the Foreign
Enlistment actl
The English and American statutes, as 10
familiar to all who have examined the subject
are almost identical in terms. Indeed, the
former is said to have been copied from The
latter. Ours was passed in 1878, and tAs
English in 1919. In one respect ours is more
favorable for the offender, that it uses arm
ing" copulatively; e. G. aft out and arm,"
whereas the English puts it in the alternativos
" lit out or arm."
We give now Judge Curtis's marginal nets
Of the decision referred to. As he hes himself
been a member of that high Court, it may b
presumed to convey an accurate statement Of
tho case;
Under th. third section OF tho April Do 1913. he
not Necessary that tho vessel should 20 armed orn cond
tou to commit hesiiis, on leaving uo on,,e s,,.
couve, indicted or beng conesrped ia a1e
out vessel with intent that she should - employed Nc ~
stsc ~ ths dc endsit was kno~isy cosertnoo Nv
n out OF smins vessel with intent. SC though ths
should sppesr 10 have -on dsiss'sa asf s 'e's
,silrd" U. = at. Quincy Pet, s'o
This case il even thus much stronger for tns
Government than that of the Alexandra that
Quincy, the defendant did not intend to arm
his vessel outside the coast line, but sailed
from the United States for SAINT Thomas IN
utter uncertainty whether be should DO able "a
arm her even there from difficulty of procur-
ing funds.