The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1868-06-24
The Bark Golden Fleece

menti anu we hali with gladness every effort towards
| making these PRINCIPLES living reality on every
| inch of American SOIL
The Bark Golden Fleece
The case OF the Golden Fleece, under con-
sideration in the United States Senate last
Thursday, was of more than ordinary inter-
est, because 1t was understood to be a test
case. If the joint resolution instructing the
Secretary OF the Treasury to issue an Ameri-
can register to this bark had prevailed, the
owners of all the vessels which took refuge
under foreign flags during the war would
have been applying for the same privilege,
and the law which denies it would either
have been formally repealed OF the matter
would have been referred to the Secretary of
the Treasury in such terms as to have been
equivalent to repeal. The Committee ON
Commerce reported adversely. Senator Ferry
OF Connecticut, who is ON terms of personal
friendship with the owners of the Golden
Fleece, favoie the resolution as an excep-
ton to the general rule. Senator Sumner
favored it as measure tending to bring
about the "era of good feeling" which he ex-
poets to witness before long, regarding it as
part OF the programme of general amnesty
which Mr.. Greeley marked out year ago.
Mr. Ferry insisted upon the duty of the gov
eminent to protect its subject, or failing, to
allow them to shit for themselyes-a fallacy
very happily exposed by the author of the
measure when the original bill was before
the house Representatives in 1866 "That
Is cowardly argument" said Mr.. Lynch; "it
is for the people to protect the country in
time of war; they are part of the government
and ought not to desert it when in danger"
Senator Chandler, of the Committee on
Commerce, defended the report of the COM
mittee against the resolution, and was sup
ported by Mr.. Fessenden, who showed with
his usual clearness and force, that the main
tenance of the law of 1866 is demanded by far
other than temporary considerations as an
assurance to patriotic citizens in future wars
that they might not on the cessation of hos
tilities be straightway put on a common foot
ing with deserters. We copy Mr.. Fessenden's
remarks from the Globe:
Mr.. Fessenden.-It strikes me this is very
III. L
circumstances OF this particular case are for
have not heard them stated. 1 inter, howey-
er, from what has been said by the Senator
from Michigan, that the flag was not in this
case changed by the direction of the owners,
but by direction OF the master, the owners
not being aware OF it.
Mr. Chandler.-It was acquiesced in by the
owners during the war, alter it was done.
Mr.. F Fessenden.-Then the case does not
q q fro nfh ,laro H.
change was made originally by direction of
the owner if he acceded and availed himself
OF the benefits that accrued. 1t strikes me
that the question is very simple one; and it
is, whether man engaged as one of our
people in our great contest should be per-
mitted during the pendency of that contest to
withdraw his property to his own particular
benefit from risk which others assumed in
consequence of the war, and thereby put
MONEY into his own pocket, and during the
war derived all the benefits from that course
OF action which he expected to derive from it
and then when the war is over Just come
back again upon an equal footing with those
who exposed their property, and did not
shrink or skulk from the dangers properly ap-
pertaining to their position. | cannot con-
ceive that the question presents itself in any
other light.
I unite with the sentiments which have
been advanced by the honorable Senator from
Massachusetts Mr.. Sumner] as to the impor-
tapce OF Kindness and conciliation, and an
endeavor to do away with the asperites that
have grown up during the war. 1 am very
glad to hear him express these sentiments;
but it strikes me that 1t is very singular
appllcation OF them to apply them in the
hfst instance to owners ofproperty belonging
to men who were OF ourselves, and being of
ourselves chose to avail themselves of that
position among ourselves to escape partially
fInrr rscl he Il l,.o L. u
to withdraw themselves or their property by
change OF flag, by concealment of fact, by
so lar just putting themselves outside of their
country for the sake of gain or to escape loss,
and then claim to come back again on an
equal footing with those, and perhaps to the
injury of those, who did not resort to that
course ct action.
In consequence Of the withdrawal of such
large amounts of shipping during the war
other people put their property into that dis
cription OF business. and any one can see
that the Introduction of foreign shipping
largely into our commerce must affect their
interests to very considerable degree. 1t
has been against the policy of this country
always to nationalize shipping not built by
ourselves. 1t is only done under very pecu-
liar circumstances; generally in cases of
wreck, where the amount OF repairs put upon
a vessel exceeds the original cost, and those
the policy of the nation, is it right so far to
controvert it, 50 far to act against it, as to in
troduce this large quantity of shipping at
once among ourselves, when the owners
have chosen in time OF national peril to de-
nationalize it? Sir, am Tor letting them
| take the consequences of their own act; at
any rate am not disposed to pass laws here
in Congress for the mere purpose of giving
additional value to property which the own
of hot ,fo,,
draw from the protection of our flag l see
no justice in it, and therefore 1 shall vote
against the bill.
Mr.. Chandler send to the desk the pc
tition of the owners of this vessel, and ask
that it be read as it sets forth their own case
fully.
The Chief Clerk then read as follows:
To the Honorable the Senate and House of Rep
resentdtiUes Of the United States IN Congress
assembled:
The undersi med, merchants of New Haven,
Connecticut, and loyal citizens of the United
States respectfully represent that for a period
of more than fifty years their house has been
engaged in foreign commerce; that during the
great rebellion they were owners and employ
ers of many vessels in their own trade; that
in 1862 they contracted for the building of a
fine bark for their business at a large expense,
namely, for about thirty thousand dollars; that
in the autumn OF 1868, when the vessel was
cOmpleIeu duu Ieduy tOT scd, tue T6Del cruisers
were making such havoc with the United
States vessels that your petitioners having
nearly their whole fortunes exposed to capture
by the rebes-and as this bark with her cargo
wouln amount to fully $4,000 additional
thought it prudent to make use of an opportuni-
ty to seek protection by selling the vessel to a
friend who was British subject and taking a
mortgage on the said vessel. They according
ly sold the vessel, calling her the Golden Fleece
and thus she passed under the English flag
but has never passed out OF the actual owner
ship of your petitioners. They now wish to
have the said vessel returned to the American
flag and in accordance Herewith humbly DE-
| titon that the American register be granted
| to the said bark Golden Fleece formerly OF
| New Haven.
III. TRowBRIDGEs' Sons.
NEW HAVEN, Feb IA, 1868.
Mr.. Fessenden-That makes a worse case
than had supposed 1t seems now that at
| the time the vessel was being built the own
ers deliberately came to the conclusion that
| they would put her under foreign flag, and
| Tor that purpose made sham sale. SO it
seems they are solely responsible for it, and
| it was deliberately done. l do not see how
their case differs in the slightest possible de-
gree from great many other cases where
the same thing was done in precisely the
| same way.
The vessel was built early in the war, when