The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-06-08

SSsfF %aSi %sfs E S Of ss
% al sIyH been equipped az sss AsHFGs spf Gi in
NO Hsrcourt Buildings Feb 8, isss"
We entirely in "a. OpniOns given by Mr. Mollish
Str S b .g 9s SS s sa d d ar s
of the Confederate Governments
April II, 1863 JAMES KEMPLAY."
We also give the opinion OF Chief Baron Pollock
the trial OF the Alexandra, June, 1885,
% R s6s S Rc q
Liverpool Yns.med and as simple ship an she ESQ eSwmsed nm &
tns At % S a. h armed and converted
We have stated that the Alabama left the Mersey
an unarmed ship, and was not fitted or furnished as
man-of-war. This is confirmed by the following
eXtreCs from the letters and speeches Of Lord Cla
rendon and Sir Rounded Palmer, the Solicitor
General.
Lord Carendons letter to Mr.. Adams, December
r. iSSt 1865 auO''' " N@'' '"'''" " '' 'p'''' ''
1T is nevertheless duty, in closing this correspond,
the war from British port to cruise against the com
Solictor-Generals (Sir Rounded Palmer's) speech
in the House Of Commons, March 27, 1885,
ut not till the Alabama reached the Azores that
that she hosted the Confederate flag 1t is not true tnat
she departed from the shores Of this country as ship
armed for war"
Lord Palmerston Also in the debate OF the 9th of
March, 1863 makes the following statement
81 have myself great doubts whether had seized
the Alabama should not have been liable to consdera
this country unamed and not properly out for war
and that she IeGeyed her arnGRen and crew
hGdad tt they T founded as ii aft SNsG
seizure"
he correct by the result of the trial in the Alexandra
case, which vessel released after the decision of
the House OF Lords, and e3700 damages and costs
paid by the Government to the owners. See memo
randum attached to Earl Russells letter to Mr..
Adams, dated Nov. 3, 1866
1.-THE trial ended in the discharge of the vessel and the
costs and damages having been compromised for Es7
me was GSvereb % 70 .ne 9n9 @ was % ra SEM % o
of violation of the Foreign Enlistment act and again ac
We now come to the question OF the price paid for
the Alabama and her machinery.
The price we received for constructing the hull,
masts, rigging, sails, anchors, cables, and general
mercantile outfit OF the Alabama and her machinery
was less than the cost Of similar vessels in her
Najesty's service, although she was built and her
engines made in every respect equal to them The
details Of the price we quite willing to give to
| her hajestys Government, should they desire 1t.
1t has been stated that in the conduct Of our busi-
ness in these transactions we sought our gain ire
spective OF municipal or international law, thereby
endangering the relations between this country and
| America. The opinions OF the eminent statesmen
| and lawyers we have quoted show the building OF
| the Alabama to have been in accordance with the
existing laws of England, and in 1861 when we un-
derook the contract and for long after, there was
| nothing to show that doing so was at variance
with the opinions Of our own counymen or with the
| practice Of foreign nations,
| But in 1854 other questions had arisen as to the
| rights OF neutrals and belgerents, which rendered
1t apparent that strict Interpretation Of the exist
ing law would not satisfy those whose interests
affected, and in that year declined 10 accept an
order to build large ironcad vessel for an agent OF
| the Confederate Government, although one condi-
ton OF the contract was TO have been that the snip
should not be delivered until the conclusion OF the
war. The cost, however, was to be paid to us by
| nstalments in such way and SO secured as
to make it for us perfectly safe and and
we were advised by the best authority that there
nothing in our municipal or international law to
prevent us taking the contract Our private gain
here was willingly sacrificed, because we felt that,
from the complications that had arisen In reference
to neutral and beligeren rights, strict nterpreta-
ton of the law might tend to aggravate the then
existing differences between this country and the
American Government and had there been the same
feeling on the subject in 1861, the Alabama would
not have been built by us.
ions to the building OF the Alabama TO clear that
| transaction from the erroneous statements with
which it has been surrounded
| II cannot be to the interest OF this country to
| allow public opinion to turn on imperfect nforma-
| ton; and as the Johnson-Clarendon Treaty has
| been rejected, inquiry instituted by Royal
| Commission or committee OF the House
| of Commons into the support given to the North
| and South during the war, In reference to ships
WarliRe stores, guns, ammunition, armor-plates
the enlistment OF men to serve Tor either OF the
belligerents would tend to place all the matters in
| dispute clearly before the British Parliament and
| people, and enable them to approach any further
negotiations with the United states more salts
factory basis than they have hitherto done.
| Should general inquiry OF this kind be decided
on, we shall be glad to give any information and
assistance in our power.
1t is constantly asserted in America, ana Dy many
persons in this country that Mr. j. Laird, NJ 7. for
! Birkenhead, was the builder of the Alabama
This is not the case, Mr.. Lairds interest In our
firm ceased before the Alabama was built, and some
time before his election to in Parliament but
| we NAV add that Mr.. Laird knew were building
| this ship, and for whom we were building her.
We must apologize for the length OF this letter. but
hope that the Importance Of the subject Will justify
| our requesting its insertion
| We are, respectfully, your obedent servants,
Birkenhead Iron Works Birkenhead, Nay %.