New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1864-01-29
ssx DAYS LATER PROM EUROPE.
Ocrttr-e6 FROM Ptrst Pare,

nat the Attorney General had more IAN once IN the
.cnrse 81 bis argument advered 10 the CONSEQUENCES
tSst might arise from their holding hat what the 0e.
Ssndapts had done was not contraJ municipal
law That not contrary 10, the law Of nations
the learned ATTORNEY General hf distinctly stated and
Be had made It the foundation 81 argument In what
was termed another place, thai other countries had
tight to complain OF 1t as olaon Of the law OF
tons His lOrdshp then referred 10 the autbor
tee cited by the Crown. sAd said he given TO sus
rect the soundness Of any proposition of law which
blurred such arguments and authorities 10 support It,
The learned Attorney General had said that the Leg
ssare had declared that the peace Of the word and
ihs welfare of this kingdom depended upon their main
sning the statute by their decision. He had reracted
tits the second day. and acknowledged that he might
taye gone too far, and he (the Lord Chief Baron)
thought he must have done So he could nothing
tn the preamble TO the statute about the peace Of the
world at all 1t wos the duty Of the Court TO construe
the statute according its strict meaning and accord.
ing 10 the letter of the law and unless the alleged
Crime plainly within that meaning the Court ought
% declare that it never contemplated by those who
Framed the law. In his Judgment the acts laid in the
Information did not within the spirit the letter
d the statute or within tho meaning Of those who
Framed IL. What statute forbds must be construed
BY considering also what 1t permits.
The seventh section forbids any 10 equip, arm,
%, but omts the word build and this leads irresist.
by 70 the conclusion that building is permitted and
shst whatever might have been done in the way OF
building ships before the Foreign Enlistment act was
passed might still be done. The Legislature could hoI
Intentionally omit the word build" and then say they
meant to forbid the building and he therefore held that
tny vessel. even for warlke purposes might De law
fully built in British ports provided they were not neo
cat In the manner provided in the seventh secu D
The act left the great commercial interest OF shippn9
ors untouched. Its object not 10 prevent the ouu
ing Of ships but 10 prevent the ports OF thus country
hom being made ports Of hostile equipment agslnsi
reign begerent The act must be so construed as 20
bake it complete harmonious whole II possible ah1
hAt construction which gave the greatest harmony ano
seast Inconsistency ought 10 prevail
The Attorney -Geueral however, seemed 10 WISH 70
snforce against English shipbuilders what the United
Bates repudiated applicable 10 their own eltnens
r the Government Of the United States does not say
Syable against building ships even Of war bat permits
IL citizens to cell such ships 70 any belgerent what
ever. 1t was oontended On the one hand that the
seventh section never contemplated that 80 long as
ship ives incapable Of cruising for warLke purposes
could come within the meaning OF the word equip
ping" 1t was, the other hand contended that no
Ihip even Of unwerke character ~ be furnished
20 belgeren Powers 1t could be afterwsrd used for
bossiltes this was the intention OF the Legislature.
might have been so clearly expressed as TO leave 10
eoubt about it. and not in the awkward phraseoogy
witch the Attorney General wished us 10 believe had
Sbat meaning.
He Che Chief Baron thought he might assert that it
Wa lawful build ships IN this country for war
HE purposes. English builders had built ships for diff
krelt foreign countries for more than 8 century, and
yhp building was one of the most productive Of our
Industrial pursuits. There great difference be.
tween crime and an act Of commerce; and SO long As
ships not equipped in our ports with intent to
commit hostities il perfectly lawful 10 build them
Of any kind. He thought the Foreign Enlistment act
wa most loosely expressed II sometimes said by
well known in Westminster Hal that be could drive
coach with six horses through an act Of Parls- /
pent; but he thought he could drive whole feet
through this statute. He Of opinion that none Of
the grounds which this rule applied for had been
made out and that IL consequently ought TO DO dis
charged
Baron Bramwen agreed with the Lord Chief Baron. |
shat the rule ought to be discharged His opinion With
regard to the true meaning Of the statute that the
words equipment" fitting out" &c, only came /
within lite operation when they applied TO vessels pnr.
Sosely built and designed 10 cruise with the object Of
commencing bostilities once. which were in con
eition TO do 90 II required. He conouTed with the
learned Attorney cnera that the statute should not
construed az an act of international but Of municipal
law but he thought that every one OF its words ought
p be minuey serutinzed with all the light that could
b possibly thrown upon 1t; and this were done, he
considered that the construction contended for by the
Crown was shown TO be wrong. he thought the word
ns hSHsR be- 70 did no IKE nS
word The act clearly defined to be intended as
preventive act 70 prevent the country IRON &
6gerents with whom We were az peace He agreed
With Mr.. Karslake's argument that party may sell
sven vessel Of war TO abegerent, he do not equip
His Lordship then referred to section 6, and stated
his opinion that strongly in favor OF the defend
ants. According to this section q vessel may come
ksre II fully armed but dismanted and have all her
damages repaired and her efficiency as an armed ship
restored; whereas if she be not already armed she
may not receive any wsrlike equipment whatever.
6lrey precise idea was in the mind Of the author
Gle using such different terms. 1t might be said that
this was a narrow lawyerhke way OF constituting the
set but he thought that judge considering the words
81 q statute should look at them as lawyer and not
speculate 70 what might be the higher but mex
dressed intentions Of the author The act forbids
Enlistment Of British subjects everywhere. but it dd&
not forbid the building OF ships 1t forbds tho fitting
cut for bengeTent purposes Of any ships within the
Queens dominons whether by British subjects not
Il personal and local act as regards the Queens
sovereignty but ii did not prevent her subjects from
Building for bellgerent ont Of the dominions.
He quite aware that according 10 this con.
StruotioD vessel intended for belieerent might 90
out few miles from our coast unarmed and then re-
ceive board warlke armament; but although this
pight be evasion Of the statute he did not how
h could be prevented and had illustration Of Il
IN the Of the Alabama he saw no way however, |
81 reading the Act consistently but by drawing sharp
Ene a. Sir Hugh Cairns had described it, and here he
Shought that line had not been passed. He fully be.
teyed that the Alexandra being built for the Con-
fderate Government and that they intended 20 her
Tor cruising and committing hostes but he did not
think there any intention Of arning eQuippng
end fitting her out In wsrke manner In this country.
On the contrary hs thought that the intention TO
avoid infringing the statute.
The learned Baron then adverted with great com |
eEdat0n 10 the perspcuity and ssgacity OF American
lawyers and said that the learned Attorney General
pst rejoice IN such fearless Administration Of justice
Nv those who descendants Of our country; |
Sut the best way OF showing admiration was to initiate
&her Independence and decide according to what they
BELT be the strict ega Interpretation Of tho ActE
Where nothing 70 show that this vessel had been In
landed to be equipped in this country and he thought
therefore that she not TO have been seized. The
construction Of statute its history the American
view OF the Statute, international law, all confirmed
Ahis view Of the He concluded by saying that he
considered the direction Of the Lord Chief Baron
Substantially If not verbally correct and he thought
hhe rule ought TO be discharged.
Baron Channel said that with the utmost ditdence
aud with great regret be dssented from the opinions
ust read he considered that the act not passed
10 define what ofense under the law as 1t stood
nor 10 create new ofense for the first time and aftx
tts punishment but % aim at it's prevention Fanty as
the words Of the 7h section may beand he considered
&hem faulty and u-exprcssed In the eXtremesnD by
She construction Of lie words and by the assistance OF
Sther clauses and evidence define It's correct
ere We carefully NJ,