New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1869-01-29
far, we have not advanced beyond the rudl.
ments of punishment, and hardly SO far toward
the prevention of crime.
BRITISH CLAIMANTS COMING FoRw1pn

BRITISH CLAIMAh1S CUNNING F0RWARD
A fair specimen of the class of cases in which
Great Britain hopes to recover from the United
States, should the Clarendon-J johnson treaty ho
ratified by the Senate, is the claim of the own
ers of the cargo of the bark Springbok. Tho
bark was seized and searched while on her wav
from London to Nassau. by an American
cruiser, on February 3. 1863. and being found 10
contain 10 dozen swords, 10 dozen rifle bayonets
$4,000 navy buttons marked &C. S. NJ mon'
federate States Navy, 10000 army buttons.
bales of army cloth, 20 bales of army blankets
considerable quantity of saltpeter. and
other goods of similar character was
brought into the port of New-Yo,k
and vessel and cargo were condemned
in the U. S. District Court. On appeal to tho
Supreme Court the vessel was discharged. ON
the ground that it did not appear that sbo
was going to carry the cargo into any Rebel
port herself, but was doubtless intending N
tranship it at Nassau for some port in the
Rebel States. A large proportion of the manu-
featured supplies for the Rebel army was then
reaching them from England via Nassau. "A
shown by the fact that we captured prisoners
with English rifles, English swords English
cannon, and pistols, and clothes, and not sell
dom with English features and accents.
Nassau being only about two hundred
miles from the Confederate ports, and the in
tervening three days run the most stormy and
difficult part of our coast, it was almost inn
possible to prevent vessels which could come
with impunity under the British flag to Mas
sau from completing their voyage in Charles
ton. Our Secretary Of State and Courts, how
IL 4l,oX D~.4sa
might carry all goods, whether intended for
army use or not, between British ports and
that such goods did not become contraband OF
war until it was shown that their destination
was q Confederate port. If ultimately destined,
however, 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 place of harborage for vessels
or goods bound for the Confederate States,
was itself a violation Of English neutrality.
and took away all its rights to be considered
q 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 Of our
Supreme Court, by Reverdy JohnsOns Commits
sion. BY way of preparing public sentiment
for the allowance of their claim, the innocent
"owners" of this cargo are circulating docu-
ments, on the title page of which is this
threat Lord PalmerstOn stated to Mr.. 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 COnfederates from receiving things that
(" are cOntraband of war;" To which fair
reply would be that =" it will not do for
British mercantile pirates to make hos
title port of the harbor of Nassau, for
"equipping Rebel privateers and sending
" army supplies into Rebel States, under
"pretense of carrying on commerce be-
tween neutral British ports" Should the
Commissioners themselves disagree, IT will be-
remembered that they are to decide by lot
whether the claim is to be decided by the
/" umpire" appointed by the two English CON-
missioners. or by that appointed by the Amer-
can Commissioners. If the lot falls to the latter,
the English Commissioners can withdraw it for
decision by some European potentate. Is IL
not q somewhat undignifed procedure to pull
straws to determine whether decision of our
Supreme Court condemning English pirate
vessels shall or shall not be reversed by some
friend of the English pirates
---------------