Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1864-07-07
H az AND

We have all eady stated that II T Mejasty's Govern
ment has put ED &c the expected litigation IN the
case Of the Attorney q eneral Laird by pu chasing
the steam rams FL Fouasn ard III Monassir. Last
Thursday the Solicitor General into the Court OF
Eyche quar at w sniuBttr ard said, have to Inform
the Court that the case Of The Attorney Gene'a y.
Laird and others, in aspect Of which your ordsh ps
were peas TO rider trial at bar at the instance OF
the Attorney General will cot now he tried The Lord
Chief Barou said, Not 1T all neither in blnco at
nasi pfius p The Solctor-Generel replied No 10
pursuance OF arrangement come to between the crown
and the claimants the case ta been withdrawn and
the Judgment of tie Court will paas for the Grown.
It is right [ should state that the obj ct of Her
Maestys Government is not 10 punish individuals by
fine or forfeiture, but to prevent vessels Issuing from
our ports to make nations with which we are
at peace That object has been obtained in this in
stance and, therefore, tie is at an end We
have quoted tie FXact .WOr used by the Solicitor
General in order hat he sequel of the sorry may be
fully appreciated. The law officer Of the Grown is
presumed to be capable of expressing 10 ineligible
language that nearing which be desires to convey.
That the Solicitor General from some cause failed TO
do co. may be collected from what follows Va Friday,
the Attorney. General, with Sir Hugh Cairns, @ O.,
came into Court and desired to max estaement with
reference what had fallen from his colleague on the
previous day. He said that the Solicitor General did
to convey the impression that the formal steps
OF entering judgment for the Crown lad either heeh
actually taken at the tnie hat the form had been
finally resolved On He would state in a few words
the true state OF the a1ir. The Crown had asserted
that there was valid for valid Cause of for
fciiure. Tue claimants had to the last asserted, ana
still asserted that tAtre no such velid CT use OF
forfeiture but the matter hcd heen by arran cement
withdrawn from he cognsanca of the Court 80 that no
determination Of it would be :cessary, and t1at had
been done upon the footing that the Grown had agreed
TO pay TO The claimants the value which the Crewn
themselves had placed upon tie properly; aud that,
too entirely without prejudice to the position OF the
Grown Or the claimants with regard to tt question
that would have required 70 be tried if the arrange
ment had not been mad The mode OF doing 1t and
giving eff, ct to hai arrangement had not been finally
arrived at hut ode ou!d b. adopted that would II
any degree whatever authorise any one to say that
there was any admission hy the claimants that it was
:. valid forfeiture The Lord Chief Baron observed
that tie explanation c2ssary after what was stat
ell BY the Solicitor General or undoubtedly bis state
ment was that the claim o the part OF the claimants
YVES withdrawn, ard therefore the sczure stood as al
uncontesed seizure OF The vessels the Solicitor Gen
era had uEquesonably us d rhe words 1.-The claim had
been withdrawn" there no doubt about'that =
Baron Martin also said, that he could perfectly well
understand how tie isapprehension did arise, from the
last two or three words used by the Sclcior-Genea
TIE learned Attorney General seems to be as unfor
tuaate in being dragged into difficulties by his coea-
gufs as he is eku il rescuing them their difficulties.
London IadeG.