The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1864-03-08


being built violation OF iaD-(cheors -anf for N.
purpose Of being used in tn bigerent serrfee OF me cor
fcAe ate Mites. When say ''in violation OF Our laws 10
Is not OF course the purpose OF entering INTO any eg
argument. lsut invite any who wishes to info IN
himself TO read the judgment OF Baron Bramweli which
was adverse TO the government In OF the Alex
auI IA. then would whether II is not perfectly
ce that applied ships or this character and descrp
tion II would not be an iniractin OF our poresn Enlist
ment xct. (Hear hear Tue House / hope viii believe
that the government have not merely stumbled on tie
prevention of aud most dangerous inracion Of
our laws-that have not done what we have only by
accident--bnt that had some iniormaon--ihat
inquiries did lead 10 result which, in the Judgment
of her Maesty's responsible advisers only au-
thorized them. hut made il their absolute duty 10
seize these vessels. (iear, hear AS to Bic Adams
despatch to Mir Seward STATING that tho had been
RECONSTRUCTED owing to the effect OF Mr. Adams of the
Sd instant. Nj Ad1ms may credit himself Uih his noe
Adcing such tfencs, but believe thlt the eject OF the
note OF the Sd The the previous which
hid not led her Majesvs government to determine
take action against these vessels until the OF their
inquiries led them to believe there evidence of
their destination Undoubtedly the Of Mr. Adams
was entitled to attention as the representations OF
friendly government But nothing is further rom The
fact than the suppostion her Maiesys
having other grounds the action which they took
except the suggestions OF Mr. Adams in that note took
1t only under the influence OF the considerations pre-
sented 10 them by him (Heay hear.) Her AajeHy's
government took the step OF OBTAINING the vessels
because thcse Inquiries that time had reached
a point which led them to believe they would lead
TO actual and positive information. making clear
or another that those ships were or were not intended
for he Confederate States II they we're not, there
would be satisfactory end Of the entire matter.
If they were, 1t was our duty 10 prevent any
evasion OF the law of the country. (Hear. hear.)
With regard 70 the present state OF the case, l
frankly confess that regret having to speak OF II ms
pending and awaiting decision. confess that 1t would
be satisfactory II the further advanced. All
say that the law officers OF the most
anxious II should be proceeded with with due despatch.
On other hand they not to blame that those whose
dAy it is prepare trial have take pans pro-
coed to trial circumstances most favorable
country and the government 1t was impossible 10
prepare for trial after last term and no trial can now
taxi ninrQn mt lint hn
quite ready, and IL will turn out, believe that no
time has actually been lost have stated now all that
this sub II is impossible that the Of the gov
eminent be brought before the House. But n
gopemeW hare acted ander serious sense Of their duty 10
hemsue, to her Majesty TO oar d'cs IN ne United Sates
and to every other nation with whom her Majesty Is In
friendship ana alliance, ana win whom questions OF TINS
kind liable arise Under Of that duty
they have felt that this is not question to be treated
lightly as one of no great importance II an evasion OF
the state Of the law really about 10 take place, was
the duty the government TO all possible means TO
ascertain the truth and to prevent the of vessels
of this kind to be used against friendly Power. 1t
their duty 10 make inquiries and to act IL there
good ground for seizure taking only TO adopt that
procedure which was justified by the circumstances.
On the other hand the government will act as they al
have acted upon the principle that no seizure OF
This kind ought 10 be made excer upon evidence Salts
factory their minds Of actual violation Of the law.
Upon such evidence we have acted In this (ear,
hear The only question which really arises is this
We're the government justified, were thew not justified,
in taxing upon themselves to say that pending inquiries
which might result in attaining and which, in their ude
SATISFACTORY eVlQcnC6,
permit the ships to be removed until that inquiry
complete, and until they had the means Of knowing
whether evidence which would prove the guilt limo
Of these vessels was likely to be forthcoming?
(Hear hear) The house will Judge whether not the
government did exceed their duty; but they would
tanly have been grossly wanting In their duty IT, after
the experience hv had had in the Of me Aiabon,a
and while their inquiries pending, they
had not been willing to take on themselves the RESPONSE
bty OF saying that they would permit justice to he
evaded until they could judge whether the ships ought to
b. seized nothear hesr)-and they had not relied
candid Judgment
the country must know, ev had been dctuated bu M
other notice t ha Of ndicatina the ao and of doing to
oher countries that Which they cpect other countries TO do
them. Cheers
papers to know what it that Mr.. Seward alleged
infringement Of international law in ships leaving
this and what tho government.
Referring tho Of the Alabama and the Oreto he
complained Of Lord Russes having stgmatized them
as a scandal 10 law, which he contrasted with
tain declarations OF Lord Pamerston with reference
to those Having stnted what he thought were
sufficient reasons why the House should have ull
count OF the correspondence between government
ard that OF the United States, he entered
criticism Of the proceedings Of the government In rsa
ton the seizure OF the and, ground for call
ing the production OF the correspondence with Messrs
Laird he charged the government with having done, on
their confession what was Illegal and without OK
cuse. we'll without law constitutional practice
The wretched pretence that Il done by them "on
their ow responsibility had been pleaded In former
times for the violent breaches OF tho law In the
OF the rams the government had taken course
which, that of the Alabama they had distinctly de-
clared the American government they could not take
1t was illegal and unconstitutional.
Mr.. FnzGKRALp having replied (more directly TO M
Barng) the House divided, whom tho motion as regard
cd the frst portion, was negatived by l.8 70 1885,