The Hancock Jeffersonian. [volume] (Findlay, Ohio) 1857-1870, 1869-02-05
BRITISH CLAIMANTS COMING FOR.
WARD


A fair specimen of the class of cases
in which Great Britain hopes to recov-
er from the United States, should the
Clarendon-J ohussn treaty be ratified
by the Senate, is the claim of the
owners of the bark SpringbOk. The
bark was seized and searched while
on her way from London to Nassau,
by an American cruiser, on February
3, 1868, and being found to contain l6
dozen swords, 10 dozen rifle bayonets,
5000 navy buttons marked sc. S.
NJ Confederate States Navy, l5O,-
600 army buttons, bales OF army
cloth, 90 bales of army blankets, con-
siderable quantity of saltpeter, and
other goods of similar character, was
brought into the port of New York,
and vessel and cargo were condemned
in the U. S. District Court. On ap-
peal to the Supreme Court the vessel
was discharged, ON the ground that it
did not appear that she was going to
carry the cargo into any Rebel port
herself, but was doubtless intending to
tranship it at Nassau ior some port
in the Rebel States A large proper
ton of the manufactured supplies for
the Rebel army was then reaching
them from England via Nassau, as
shown by the fact that we captured
prisoners with English rifles, English
swords, English cannon, and pistols,
and clothes, and not seldom with Eng
lish features and accents Nassau
being only about two hundred miles
from the Confederate ports, and the
intervening three days run the most
stormy and difficult part of our coast,
| it was almost impossible to prevent
vessels which could come with impu
nifty under the British flag to Nassau
from completing their voyage in
Charleston. Our Secretary of State
and Courts, however, were willing to
concede that British ships might carry
all goods, whether intended for army
use or not, between British ports, and
that such goods did not become con
traband of war until it was shown that
their destination was a Confederate
port. If ultimately destined, howev-
er, for Confederate port, they claimed
the right to seize them between the
neutral ports of London and Nassau.
Indeed, it is evident that the use OF
Nassau by British merchants, as a
place of harborage for vessels or goods
bound for the Confederate States, was
itself violation of English neutrality,
and took away all its rights to be con-
sidered a neutral port.
The Supreme Court of the United
States having discharged the vessel,
but condemned the cargo, the English
owners of the cargo are looking to a
reversal of the decision ofour Supreme
Court, by Reverdy Johnson's COmmls-
sion. By way of preparing public
sentiment tor the allowance OF their
claim. the ''innocent owners of this
cargo are circulating documents, on
the title page of which is this threat :
"Lord Palmerston stated to MIR.
Adams that it would not do for the
United States ships of war to harass
British commerce on the high seas,
under pretense of preventing the Con-
federates from receiving things that
are contrabaBd af war; To which a
fair reply weuld be that sit will not
do for British mercantile pirates to
make a hostile port of the harbor Of
Nassau, for equipping Rebel privateers
and sending army supplies into Rebel
States under pretense of carrying on
commerce between neutral British
ports.'' Should the Commissioners
themselves disagree, it viii be remem-
bered that they are to decide by lot
whether the claim is to be decided by
the ''umpire" appointed by the two
English Commissioners, or by that ap-
pointed by the American Commission
ers. II the lot falls to the latter, the
English Commissioners can withdraw
| it for decision by some European
petentate. Is it not a somewhat un.
dignified procedure to pull straws to
determine whether a decision of our
Supreme Court eondemning English
pirate vessels shall or shall net be
reversed by some friend of the English
pirates ?-N. y Tribune