New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1863-12-03
THy ALEXANDRA CASE AND CHHHF
BARON POLLOCK.

nretty mess Ito use one of their favorte phrases)
of their great Neutrality case. As long ago as
last June, they had trial of it in the Court Of
Exchequer, before the Lord Chief Baron and a
iury. which lasted three days, and in which all
the leading Crown lawyers, the Attorney-Gene-
raj. the Solicitor General and the Queens Ad-
yecate and an Solicitor General took part, 10
say nothing of host of untitled baristers on
one side or the other, and the result was-or
was promised TO be-a decision, that should last
IT, all ages. 1t was especially to serve as a
srietus to all American malgnants and discon-
tents on the subject of neutral rights and
duties. The Trent case had not exactly con-
victed and Convinced us automatically; but the
Alexandra case was to do it, judciolly. That
Americans should have the presumption to
question English knowledge OF international
law Had not the Foreign Office ordered the
,ezing of the Alexandria And had not the
Attorney General drawn an information with
ninety eight counts against her builders, or
whom it might concernl And had not Her
Majesty's High Court of Exchequer mot one
Of those United States District Courts which
Lord John regrets are so inferior to orr appel
late courtsl got jurisdiction of the easel And
would not justice be done, and the law settled
for all time after The most approved English
stylel
Well A verdict was rendered under my
Lords management and directions some four
months ago; and ever since then, the question
Of building and selling ships to the Confeder-
stes--a question Of war or peace between the
two greatest commercial powers of the world
has been kept in allegiance so far as possible, till
the important rulings accompanying this verdict
could be considered IN banco. Meanwhile what
comfort have not our Secession friends found in
the supposed law of the Chief Baron! Had not
the building and launching Of the Alabama been
rendered respectable Had not Mr.. Lindsay,
Mr. Roebuck, and that fearless champion Of
English privileges, Mr.. John Laird, been upheld
in all they had said about free commerce and
peaceful intervention in American atIairs7 Had
not the Prime Minister, himself, so far forgot his
functions as to be indorsing beforehand what he
thought the safest proposition of the Exchequer
Judge, that che could not see any difference,
for his part, between selling ships AID arms to u
belGgerent pa piece of friendly bostering-up,
By the way, for which the Chief Baron makes a
still more improper acknowledgement, if We
rightly understand his allusion "to the highest
possible authority who conceded with him 2"
In short, had not the law Of the Alexandra ease
become so important that England could afford
nothing more noticeable
1t now turns out, after all this premonitoIy
parturitioD that no law at all is going TO be
born of the Alexandra case. A motion (Or new
triaD has, at this present writing, doubtless been
heard lit was TO come off on Tuesday, the 18th
instant, according to appointment; but bill Of
exceptions, after three-dayS wrange between
the Attorney General and the Chief Baron, has
been refused, and only such lac points are 10 be al
oued TO be raised as the Chif Baron chooses. That
our readers may understand that no rulings
proper of his are to be canvassed, we need only
cite dialogue that occurred in the course of the
wrangle referred to. We quote The Daily Neus
and Morning Star Of November 4. TIE Times
is nearly identical:
attorney General (sir Rounded PslneIl"We believe that
Jury returned verdict upon your Lordshps inierpreia
ton of the statute"
tQfOn-'
attorney General" Then both des under Iassppre
henson and is the wish 10 raise the point by bh
Of exceptions II possible
SO the Chief Baron says he did not give any
instructions at all to the jury, and both plain
tffs' and defendants counsel are agreed that the
verdict was due to bis instructions. Rather a
queer court Of law, this
What the Chief Baron does admit, is, that
be made few passing observations while
holding the scales ofjustce, which might have
given rise to the reports spread about Of
his rulings, but he did not mean 10 express any
opinion to the jury at all about the constrae-
ton Of the statute Worse and worse.
What! Leave the lew as we'll as the fact to the
rryi Perhaps the following passage taken
rom the learned Judges charge to the jury, as
reported in The London Times of June 2G, may
partly bear out his statement:
ct asked the Attorney.Gensral II man eoud not
make vessel intending 20 sell it 70 either OF the being
erent powers that required it, and which would give te
largest price for II, would 1t not be a~fulf 10 ny sur
prse tie learned Attorney General declined 70 give an
answer 10 the question which think grave and per
tinent But. you. Senf!ensn. think, are 1Eyer'
enough 10 kn01 that man may MAKE ys'.a ana cg1
for sale II may build Vessel for the purpose OF
offering il sale 10 either Of the behgerens parties
may he not execute an order for 1T"
If this was meant to be al appeal to tho jury
ss constituting them arbiters of knotty point
of international law, and as being better lawyers
than the Attorney General [Sir William Ather-
toni, ia it not a striking commentary on tho
role,nn horror exnreSspd by EnClishmen Of