New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1863-08-18

seized for a forfeiture when she came into IL,
British West Indies, " for clearing out or pro
ccedng to sea" " without having first obtained
the certificate of clearance required by the l.
aud - Vie, G. Il9, see. II. With still more
perinence might We ask if we can rely on The
statement Of shipmaster lin the columns o.
The DULY Ners), why was she suffered to lie
more than twenty-iour hours at the mouth 81
the Mcrsey within the control Of the Admiralty
process, after the Government ordered her Selz'
ure, without the order being enforced
But, without troubling ourselves so much
about The ship just now, we have TO call MS
Lordship's attention more particularly to Mr..
Laird himself, and to the case which Mr.. Lalrd's
own admissions establish against him. Did the
Alabama go out of his hands SO far equipped for
her voyage that, so soon ~ he handed Semmes
the builders certificate, she was ready to run
away from the Custom-IIouse authOrtiesl IL
so, We ask the British Midister to apply the
terms of the Foreign Enlistment Act in all its
rigor to the British legislator who makes bust
ness of Boosting that he has broken it.
His Lordship expressed apprehcnsionS in the
speech of the 23d of July, that it might some
times be difficult TO prove for whom ship,
built for war purposes, was intended. lie says
according to The London Times ''The hon.
gentleman assumes that parties may be IN COM
blnaton 10 eyade the law; but in that case
nothing can be easier than to show tLat ship
Ill L.. fgI a
which she is supposed to be built
In the present ease, nothing can be easier than
10 show that the Alabama ,oGS intended ior the
Confederate Government. Mr. Lard makes
his boast Of in open Parliament. Nay, not
satisfied with that, our Government can furnish
his Lordship proof, if the Crown-lawyers desire
il. that Mr.. Laird has even approached the
American Secretary Of the Navy with oilers To
build war-ship in England for he tndef suites
Gorernmsnf Mr.. Laird is clear and bold IN his
construction of the Foreign Enlistment Act, that
he has a right to make contract directly with
a belligerent government to supply them WIN d
war-ship. or fleet of war.ships, built IN the
neutral domain Of England.
Lord Palmerston, we are well aware, quotes
in Mr.. Lands behalf that there Is nothing IN
the Foreign Enlistment act, now against bH''d-
ing ships for a belligerent, and his LordSmp mas
very eraciously denied Mr.. Cobden's request to
amend it. hereafter, by adding that word
But. As A common-sense man, does Lord Pal
merston doubt that the Alabama was "eq~PPcH
when she was dismissed from Mr.. Laird's hands
in such a condition that she put 10 sea IN about
.and.tweuty hours aiterward' Doe be Toy
yet that the words Of the Foreign Enlistment
act are whoever shall equip, furnish, III out'
on arm. Nc.l And If vessel must be bu't
before she can be equipped, does not his good
scnsercjcct Baron Pollocks construction oil 'A'
act. that unless the vessel is fully armed She Is
not equipped And il Mr.. Laird, after con-
structing the Alabama's keel, furnished the firsi
rope ar spar toward fitting her to 90 to sea- does
he not believe that, in the language OF the act
he "adcd and assisted in equppng or was
a, least "ooncerned in equpping' vessel
which be knew was designed for Government
AT war with one of England's allies His Lord
ships legal advisers must be aware that Such Is
the construction of "A similar act given by the
United States Supreme Court in January, loi2
and uniformly acted upon by the Federal Gov
eminent ever since. The case was that OF
tinted States r. Quincy, reported Peters's
Rep, p. li5.
Lord Palmerston refers the American Gov
eminent for redress TO the decision OF
the Alexandra case, now pending III 'he
Court of Exchoqucr. As we read the learned
Chief Barons charge to the jury IN that
case. the Jury would have had a much palmer
state of facts for their guidance il the Alabama
had been on trial before them. We beg to ask
his Lordshp why none of the parties concerned
in the eduipping of the last named ship, nor
Mr.. Laird in particular who claims merit Tor
having participated in it, have been put to trial
before thisl Quincy the defendant whose
case we just quoted, was put to the bar, though
three years had elapsed before he came within
reach Of Government process, and though his
oiIcnse consisted only in fitting out the little
sailing schooner Bolivar, of 20 or - tuns.
We would call his Lordships attention to au-
other instance of the good faith of the Federal
Government in their enforcement of neutrality.
Gideon HenGcld was indicted in the Circuit
Court of the United States, sitting in Phladel-
phia. in 1893, before we had any statute of For
eign Enlistment, al common LaT, for cnlStmg
himself as a sailor on board a French privatcer
WHY does not the English Government bring to
trial those parties who enlisted William Pass
more and those thirty old mcn-ol-warS men
in Mr.. LairdS ship-yard at Birkenhead, as sworn