The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1863-07-15
The Deeisiea ia she Case OF the Alexaadrs-
Great Britain Drifting into Asstilisies with
the u tied tstes.

Great Britain Drifting into Asstilisies with
the u tied tstes
The LONDON correspondent thinks Greet
Britain is in earnest 10 attempting 70 force hos
| tili;ies en- the United Sssses- The decision re.
leasing the chip Alexandra was intended TO be
an aifront to Yanks edom, and the correspond
ent thinks tbs verdict was q foregons coneiu.
| zion months ago, aad is preeissiy what Earl
| Russell and Lord Palmersion intended 1t should
| be- /. wes perfectly wsii snterstood and ar
ranged what ihs ruling of the Court ahould be
| on every point likely to BE- raised, and as per-
| feet.y understood what the verdict Of Che jary
| would lbs under such ruling.
Hsslso fssrs a private understanding be-
tween Napoleon and Mr. Slidsll. The latter is
too frequent visitor and. too cordially re-
csived 3, Fontainstiesnx TO hoae any good for
the United Skates We take from the Loniol
, Posi- : synoysis Of the decision IN the case af
ths Alexandra The vsssei was seizsd on the
suspicion that she was intended for the Con.
fsdefase service. The Poss sayss
Nomi aaily, the point left for the deoision OF
| the jnFy was whether the Crown or irm OF
Liverpool merchants were the rightsul owners
Of an unfinished slaip; but, practically, the
matter for adjudication was whether the chip
builders Of thls country afe pTeeiaded from
ccns.rset,ng s-ips H,.sshss ag-s gsnsDssiy be
| devoted TO warks purposes aKaiasi State
! with " hieh wa are st present at peacs. Od
| the one side exists the obligations to preserve
intact our comn erciai rights, and on the other
! those which make i, incumbent upon rs TO
! prevent our ports aud doek-yards being made
! available for the aquippiIg and fitting out Of
| ships or armams.7ts FOR the purposes Of ag-
! g:esaion agasust friendly Power Passing
, froul the purely legal consideration of the
:. hat an Nf az yns
! ii sncy maritjnls nation iks Great Britain,
, posss.sipg commercial relations with every
quarter Of the globe. is bound faithfully and
strictly to faihi ths duties appertaining 10 strict
neutrality. We are nsa.rais to-day; We may
| be beilig,erants to morrow; ana do TO
/ others so nee mast expect to be tone 6y The is
| sue RAISED i'll the case of the Alexandra WAS
| one consequently not less important i'll its eon-
| sequences 10 ourselves than 10 those more im-
msdiately interested in the result We hare
established precedent 10 wh5ch, arhea acc are az
: aoaf neulsai nafiGas nay successfully 0ppeal.
| Il as thus tdat accept lie faw asl laid dora by
! he Lord Chjef BaroR and co"frmea by tie
! rerdict Of tie jurv. TIE JHdga interpreted
! the partioG,ar statute intended by the Leglsla-
| lure To prevent the equipment OF ships tor tle
! purposes of aggression against i1ennly
| Power; aud this jury, applying the pr!neiptea
! thus anuGclaied tn the iacts diaclosed III eVl-
| dance, decided, without Il n1orisnsa hesitation,
tagt the act had not been iafringsd. ln THIS
! vsrdiGE we entirely concur.
| = Ariesics has for upwasa5e O.! half a
! century mad Eorsign EulietmaDs act similar
| 10 our own, and tbs decisions OF American
! judges siFord key to It's Interpretations. In
| a case brought Oh appeal before the Supreme
| Court of the United States, taat great jarist,
/ Mr. Justice Story, laid it dtT Tu that although
| by the terms of the Foreign Enlistment net
/ the sal ieets of a neutral State were preciuded
| from eQuipping or arming vessels Tor the pur-
| pose OF aggression against friendly rover,
! tnay were not precldded from equippins and
aruiipg thsm for the purpose OF safe to any
| one, bellgerent or otherwise, who chose TO
| pure ase thern. liz 0titeI EGrfs a nenfrdi Huy
| eg,ip q ship Of m"r inst as he rtay coastT"ctu Il
! caairoa II IL letsAks n0t 10 Hsr or h0re a nSt@
agasa1 u trtcadiy PoweF, bat mereLy 10 sci 10.
| Ad0ptipg th5s rui4ag, The Chisf Baron .2id 1t
! DIVA tnaG d British snhlset iaisht equ'pa shie-
| ofwar With /. Wow 10 setting 4 - eitarr teltig-
/ e,eat wi{hoEt in}riHgias Tie provisions y TIE
| foreign EnltStmeat act Indeed, III tae course
! of ths t.i.,; the le Irned Judge asked the AZ.
. torney Gsaaral whelasr such a course wonld
| not b3 legal aad as the Latter declined 10 10
yiY II mag ba t2EEan Esls Il - 10.
{, The Chief Baron went 80 far rs 10 say that
F.. tie object of The Fareign Enlistment aet could
| not have bssI the protection of bei!iBsrents,
! for otherwise tina expectation OF eoEtraband
! of war would equally have been prohibited,
and that consequently El9!iah ship builders
htd as much riSDL 10 Scii SrIGou SutpS W cieHOi
! baiiigeront as they had 10 seii gunpowder or
! cannon, or other munitions Of wGr. In the
| case, however, before the Court, it dill not
! become necessary to apply these prlleiplss in
I their fullest aignitication. The Chief Baron
| lefs it TO the jury whether the Alexandra was
| equipped, armed, furnished or f:ted o1.,' or
| whether IL was lhe intention OF ln3 defendants
| to "equip, arm, furnish or lii hor out within
! her Malsstys doln!uions for purposes OF az
/ grssslon against the Government OF the Y al
| ted States The aCJ doea no. prohibit the
''building Of chips Of any description; aid as it
/ was shown that she was not, at the time oi
| seizure equipped or armsd,3 and there WAS
nothing to chow that il was intended that she
| should be- 80 equipped within her Majssty's
dom,nions, the defendants wago entitled to
| verdict
The Alabama was frequently referred to in
t.e coui 80 Of the trial. AID i may possibly IL
! iustrate the Interpretation which must be put
on the Foreign Enlistment act when Wa say
that the Chief Baron, i'll Summing up, pointed
out tina. ii her case the act was not ilirlnged
She wss built in au English port, bus she was
| equipped aud armed in Portuguese waters,
! where of course the Eag, ,ish Crown possess
ed no jurisdiction. L. may be said that, sc
cordiHx 10 this Interpretation, the Foreign En-
iistment act will prove dead letter. l.: tue
! Chief Barons views u tne Ob)5ct OF which
tiiaa act WAS framed-p4msiy, not 10 protect
bstissrentg, tut to prevent VESSELS elulpped
for the rival Powers III nsigh5oring docks
tQhtinZ whilst still iu our hai bors or III our
/ watars-is correct, it will not Ii, on ths
othar hand, its object was the projection OF
tae commerce Of friendly Power, 1t certain
ly aeeus 10 say the lsast OF III that its pTovi'
sions eau be very easily evated. However,
with consequences neither judges nor J1riss
! Asye an7thlpg to DO. Il IL, at all etenis, d
satisfaction 10 fasl that the Lord Chief Baron
| has acted in accordance with high American
authority III his Interpretation Of the law, aad
F, il viii bs Impossible tur the American Gov
erniasHt TO question the sonntne.s OF hl5 opin-
, ion without s.iso impuga!ug thai Oh the great
est of their lawyers, Mr.. Justlca Story
! Iyso.n shs T.oaaca Timss .uas 2sl
! Had the Foreign Enlistment act
! Iasntionei riil 3d. gGnpo wder or si Ut and shell,
instead OF saips of Waf, " may 10 sure tnat
the Confedefates would have spared 40 pains
10 intercept the eonslgqnents OF Birmingham
"hard ware" For the purpose OF watching
! questionable proceedings agents must % en-
| ployed, and agents so employed are neither
! more nor iess than spies Work Of this kind
/. ,iistas.sfui to very scrupulous men, aud i.
follows that it will generally be carried On by
! persons Of eaev conscience and aEeUvlsb!s cha
! Tacser. In this case, perhaps, gaeh extreme
S.ilancs wa. hardly regulate, fos there ssems
to have been little coacealmens. No evidence
was produced for the defendants, because they
did not rely on their ignorance, bnt onthe cha
racLer Of tho transaction, as proved by tie wit
/ nesses tor the Crown. IL was on the latter that
the burden Of proof lay, and the result shows
! not tas. our courts are disposed To favor lilo
gal privateering, bat that law against eimp
! ping priga.esrs il this country mass bo dead