Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1863-07-23
The Decision the English Courts In the Case o


ss of the decision of the Epgsh Courts in the case of
the Alexandra, which vessel was seized on the susp
con that she intended for the Confederate service
Ihe Post says:
Nominally, the point left for the decision of the ju.
ry was whether the Grown firm of Liverpool mer-
chants were the rghtful owners of unfinished ship
but practically, the matter fer adjudication was wheth
the ship builders of this country are precuded FROM
constructing ships which may eventually be devoted to
warke purposes against State with which we are at
present peace On the side exists the Obligations
to preserve intact commercial rights and on the
other those which make it incumbent upon US to pre-
vent ports and dock yards being made available Tor
the equipping and fitting out of ships or ornaments
for the purposes Of aggression against friendly Pow
Passing from the purely legal consideration OF the
case, it is manifest that, grounds of expectancy,
maritime nation like Great Britain possessing CONNER
cal relations with every quarter OF the GLOBE is bound
faithfully and strictly TO fulfill the duties appertaning 10
strict neutrality. We neutrals to day may be
belIigerents tomorrow aud do to Others so we
must expect to be done by. The issue raised in the
case of the Alexandra was one consequently not less
imnorant in it's consequences to ourselves than to those
more Immediately interested IN the result We have
established precedent to which, when we are at war,
neutral nations may successfully appeal. 1t is thus
that we accept the law laid down by the Lord Chet
Baron AID as confirmed by the verdict of the jury
The Judge interpreted the particular statute intended
BIZ the Legislature to prevent the equipment Of ships
for the purpose of aggression against friendly Power
and the Jury applying the prnc thus enuncsted to
ents hesitation, that the act had not been lnrlnged
In this verdict we entirely concur.
x America has Tor upwards OF half century
had Foreign Enlistment act similar to our owp, and
the decisions Of American judges afford key to is in
pretations Ia case brought on appeal before the
Supreme Court of the United States, that great iIrist,
Mr. Justice Story, laid it down that although by the
terms of the Foreign Enlistment act the becs of
neutral State precuded from equpping arming
vessels for The purpose OF aggression against friendly
Power, they were not precudtd from eQulpplDg and
armng them Tor the purpose OF sale to acy one, oeIg
erent or otherwise, who chose to purchase them. In
other words neutral may equip shp-oiWar just as
be Elay construct Cannon II he intends no. to use or
have it used against friendly Power, but merely to
sell it. Adopting this ruling, the Chief Baron LAID 1t
down that British subject might equip shlpof-war
with view OF selling it 10 either belIgerent without
the provisions OF the Foreign Enlistment
Indeed Ill the OF the trafthe learned Judge ask
ed the Attorney General whether sucn would
not be legal and the latter declined to reply it may
| be taken that it is
The Chief Baron went so far as to say that the OBJ
ect of the Forgn Enlistment act could not have been
the protection of begerents, for otherwise the expor
taton OF contrabard OF would equally have been
prohibited, and that q1ently Eagsh shipbuiders
Lad as much right to sell armed ships to either beg-
erent as they had sell gunpowde Or cannon Or other
munitions Ct In this, however, before the Court,
it cid not become necessary to apply these principles in
their fullest Specification. The Chief Baron lef it to
the Jury whether the Al xandra was "eQupDed armed
|
the defendants to equip arm, turnssh tit her OUT
within Her Maj sys donnions for purposes Of aggres
sion against the government of the Uoed States. Ghe
act does prohibit the "huildng of ships of any de-
scrpton and it shown that she was not, at the
time of her seizure, "equipped or armed" and there
was nothing to show that it was intended that she
should be equipped within Her Majesty's donations,
| the defendants were entitled to verdict.
The Alabl frequently referred to in the course
of the trial. and it may possibly illustrate the interpre
tation which must BE- put On the Foreign Enlistment
act when say that the Chief Baron, in summing up,
pointed out that in her the act not nfrnged.
She was built in English port but she was equipped
and armed in Portuguese waters, where of the
English Grown possessed no jurisdiction IL may
be said that according to this Interpretation the
Foreign Enlistment act will prove dead letter -
Ii the Chief Baon's views of tie object of
which that act tramed-naIney, not 20 pro-
| tect beligerents, but to prevent vessels equipped
tor the rival Powers in neIghboring docks fighting
whilst still Ia harbOrs waters-is correct
it will not H. the other hard its object was the
protection of the OF friendly Power it Ger
y ito say the least of i that it's provisions can
be very easily evadtd However, with consequences
neither judges jurts have anything to do 1t is
a. all events, satisfaction to feel that the Lord Chief
Baron has acted ia accordance with high American
authority 10 his Interpretation of the law and it will
be impossible for the American Government to ques-
ton the soundness OF bis opinion without ase impugn-
ing that of the greatest OF their lawyers Mr. Justice
Story.
Il fleets of sire EYsr System.