Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1862-1865, 1864-02-10
THE JUDGMENT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF
THE ALEXANDRA


II has already been announc d that q new trial had
been refused in the case Of the ship Alexandra in Eng
land, which was decision il favor of the COnedeates
and that the Attorney General minated his intention
to take an appeal
The following is the judgment rendered in the
by the Lord Chief Baron, in the Court of the E1-
chequer:
He sad the present was an information against the
ship Alexandra, charging that the defendants, with
Others had been guilty Of violation Of the Foreign
Enlistment act The Alexandra had been built and
partly rugged at Liverpool and seized by officer of
tue customs for breIch of the act alluded to. The
defendants Joined ISSUE and pleaded tia. the ship
not forfeited. The information charged the defendants
With every possible violation Of the act to tie fur
nishing euuppng &c but said nothing about arming.
The question arose. whether that established the warike
character of tie vessel twas urged that the vessel
not adapted for WaTke purposes, and although 1t might
be used as q yacht i. doubtless intended TO be
used BY the Confederate States Of America against
power with which her Majesty was friendly 1t
also urged that there intention to cell to
of the beigerents the hull of vessel suitable for war
but unarmed, but to do any Warike act Whatever
violation. His direction to the jury was that in
such case the defendants were i.her within tie
meaning of the act but the commerce OF this country
IN ships, for peace or war, 10 continue, and
ship left the ports Of this counuy in a condition 10
cruise out CT to commit no ritter, Il ought it might
be Of warike character, he should hold that
there had been no violation OF the statute, and
that the verdict Of the jufy was right. This
was the substance Of the case between the crown
aud the defendant-strppsd Of all technicalit e.
The learned judge went a. some length into tie
nature of his direction TO the jury at the trial. in
the course of which he stated that if the ship had
not been equipped furnished, and 6tted out the
did not come within the meaning Of the acr and there
had been violation of the statute. There had been
no direct evidence that wasin ended 10 the Alex
andra in any British port for tie purpose Of cruising
or committing hosttiss; indeed, there was no charge
in the information on the subject of armiDg at all
He, however, left the question TO the jury in the
terms Of the act of Parliament and they found YER
dict fer the defendants, which the attorney general
obtained q rule Hisi for trial. Cause was
shown during term, and the arguments lasted six
DAYS. Tie various charges IL the information
sisted Of nnety-eight counts. The first eight counts
were repeated twelve tines varying the charges Of
equippiDg furnishing, fitting out, etc, thus making
ninety-sx counts. The Attorney General bad, in fact
stated that the first eight counts represented all the
The charges therefore, resolved themselves into what
was by furnishing, equiPping, etc, With intent
The question then arose which was the true construc
ton of the Foreign Enlistment Act and what meant
by the prohibition to cruise or to commit hCstie.
The learned Judge quoted from Blackstone to show that
Judges we're bound to decide such according tie
strict letter of the law. Toe institutions OF the country,
he believed were more secure than now, blu lie
thought the country could not ord to lose any Of tie
grounds of security.
The learned Judge then proceeded TO inquire what was
the real Interpretation of the words used in the statute
and held that unless the alleged crime was plainly within
the statute the court ought decline to interfere. In
his judgment it was within the statute and that it
was never contemplated by those who framed the Inv.
He thought that he might declare that it lawful to
build ships in this country, for warke purposes.
Shipbuildng was one OF the most important Of our in
dustral pursuits and the building of ships even for
Warke purposes, was not unlawful provided that they
we're not equipped furnished fitted out in on, POI ts
with the intent stated in the Revertng to the Fo
reign Enlistment act the learned judge said they we're
familiar in Westminster ball with the phrase, to drive
coach and elk through act OF Parliament" 1t would
not he thought be difficult to sa whole feet of ships
through the act, SO clumsy it constructed. With
respect the rule he Of opinion that none of the
grounds which it applied for made ou' ard
that the rule ought therefore, for new trial. to be dis
charged
Baron amWel thought that the act ought not to be
made to extend TO anything which clearly within
lis meaning. The wore "ntent" seemed to explain |
was the Intention Of the Legislature; but he did
no. Ike % rely on one word. L. therefore, the word
was omitted it would be necessary, TO bring the case
within the meaning Of the act that the vessel should