Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1869-11-05
L" G IT B A j."
Argument of Counsel Ira the Case of Conn
modore Higgins "a nd his 0ficers-Ei nth
Days Proceedings Friday.

The Court met for the purpose of hear
ing arguments from counsel The fact
that the speeches would be made attracted
a large number of spectators. While We
will endeavor to convey to the readers
mind some idea of the character of the
arguments, we by no means attempt to
give these speeches in full-and We confess
in the limited space afforded US our ina
bility to do the able counsel justice--the
publication of their arguments in full
would only DO that. The speech of MIR.
Davis was especially able and eloquent and
was highly appreciated. The arguments
occupied something over four hours and
half, yet the spectators attention scarcely
tagged.
Mr.. Phelps opened for the Government
He spoke of our international obligations
and relations and the responsibility they
entail. Great stress was laid upon the
international code, that which was crys-
talized and took form in the act of 1918,
the act of 1894 being more or less tempo
rary in it's nature and provisions. The
duty of the CO mmissioner was two-fold, to
examine, first, if On offense has been COM
mitted, and, second, if there is sufficient
ground for the belief that the parties
charged are guilty. The fact of the Hornet
coming in here as manof war was ad-
when she left Philadelphia she was to all
appearances peaceable vessel-at Halifax
also she appeared thus, SO that between
leaving there and her arrival here she
must have been fitted out as an armed
vessel. The question is whether she was
fitted out in the United States, and if any
of the officers charged were knowingly
concerned in fitting her out in the United
States. Messrs. Munro, Cook and Dornin
were evidently concerned. The intention
existed when she left Philadelphia. A
man who carries vessel to be armed is
manifestly ss guilty as he who carries arms
on board. AS to the others, the question
is whether they were knowingly con-
cerned in the armament of this vessel
within the limits of the United States.
The territory of the United States is that
whole extent, be it land or water, over
which the authority of the United States
extends-wherever it has dominion and
Jurisdiction and bears sway. vessel of
country is part of the territory of that
country wherever she may be-this doc
trine is fully laid down in the elementary
books. The United States always has and
always will assert and mai ntain its control
and jurisdiction over certain waters con-
tiguous to it's coast. Whether vessel be
in 2, 3, or 10 miles of the shore she is
within the jurisdiction of the United
States. The testimony of witnesses
abundantly prove that this vessel was
actually within a marine league of the
shore. In contradiction of Gordon's tes.
timony, under the ruling of the Court,
the whole ships company might have been
brought forward /; but why did they not
bring them Not one word has been
heard from Commodore Higgins or Capt.
Esling or che other officers, with the ex-
ception of one Or two, in regard to this
matter. The testimony of Gordon, Glib
son, Cepts. Maffitt and Reed were then re-
| viewed and criticized at much length also
| that of Chevers, Christian and Fowler.
| This prosecution is instituted for no pur-
poses of persecution or punishment, but
| to ascertain the truth and maintain the
honor and dignity of the Government in
tact The Government does not prosecute;
it clamors not for punishment, but for
| truth.
| Judge Meares led off for the defense
He stated that in almost every instance in
the various decisions of the Supreme Court
on the act of 1918, it had been where the
ship was on trial and not the officers that
the statute had been construed. He agreed
with the Government counsel about the
propriety of the neutrality laws. The
counsel might have been weak in sheir
Judgment when they introduced only suf-
ficient testimony TO rebut the testimony of
Gordon but when the Court ruled that
the testimony of the defendants was ad-
missible, the same door was open to the
prosecution as to the defense. If the coun.