The New York herald., 1869-06-08

entirely concur tn the opinions given BY Mr. heisn on
ACT :sS:' ses rs.
| APaIL IL, 1853 JAMES KEMPLAY.
| on the trial Of the Alexandra, June ls63:-"Many
illusions In the course OF this case had been made
TO the Alabama, but he held that as that vessel left
Liverpool unarmed, and as simple ship, she COM
| mitted no unlawful act, and we mad nothing to do
with the fact that at subsequent period she was
armed and converted into vessel OF war at Ter
celra.n
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
extracts from the letters and speeches OF Lord Car
| rail-
LORD oLAREsDoN's LETTER TO MR.. ADAMS. DECEMBER
| = 1850, o9geTED BY EARL RUSSELL, IN HIs SPEECH,
is nevertheless, duty, in closing this correspondence
ha no armed vessel departed during the war from
brsh port TO cruise against the commerce Of the United
SOLICITOR GENERALS sIn noUNDKLL PALMRn,sl SPEECH
IN rIE HOUSE OF ooMSoTs,. MAnoH q, 1853.
wds not III The Alabama reached the Azores that she re-
hosted the Confederate ag It is true that departed
from the shores or this country ship armed for war
Lord Palmerston also in the debate of March 81,
1858, makes the following statement:-"I have my
sell great doubts whether II we had seized the Ala
bama, we should not have been liable to considera-
bic damages. IL is generally known that she sailed
from this country unarmed ald not properly fitted
out for war, and that she received her armament,
equipment and crew In a foreign port. Therefore,
Whatever suspicious we may have had-and they
were Wei founded as it afterwards turned outas to
the intended destination OF the vessel her condition
al that time would not have justified q SEIZURE"
Speech, March 81, 1889 And the views he then ex
the trial IN the Alexandra case which vessel was re-
leased after the decision OF the House OF Lords and
The owners. See memorandum attached to Earl
RnsselIs letter to Mr.. Adams, dated November B.
l8e5:-"Ihe trial ended In the discharge OF the ves
sci, and, the costs and damages having been COM
promised for $4,000, she was delivered to the
owners She was then sent to Nassau, where she
was again tried o similar charge of violation Of
the Foreign Enlistment act and again acquitted
We now come to the question OF the price paid for
the Alabama and her machinery:-The price we re-
ceived for constructing the hull, masls rigging,
sails, anchors, cables and general mercantile outfit
ofthe Alabama and her machinery was less than the
cost OF similar vessels in her MaeSty's service,
although she was built and her engines made in
every respect equal to them. The details Of the price
we are quite wiling TO give to her MaJeStyS govern
ment should they desire 1t.
1t has been stated that in the conduct our business
In these transactions we sought our own gain irre
spectlve 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 1851, when we undertook
the contract and for long after there was
variance with the opinion OF our own coun-
trymen, or with the practice Of foreign nations.
rights OF neutras and beligerents, which rendered
1t apparent that strict Interpretation OF the exist
affected, ana in that year we declined to accept an
order to build large iron-cad vessel for an agent
OF the Confederate government aIen0nGh one cOndi-
delivered HfSs NE 0ssa nas se sae
war. The Cost, however, was to be paid to us by
instalme4ts In such way and 30 secured as to
mercial transaction, and we were advised by the
best authority that there was nothing in our muni
cipal or International law to prevent us taking the
contract. Our private gain here was willingly
sac rinced, because we felt that from the complca
tons that had arisen in reference to neutral and bel
lgerent rights strict Interpretation 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.
We have given these facts and quoted these
opinions the building Of the Alabama to clear
that transaction from the erroneous statements with
which 1t has been surrounded. 1t cannot be to the
interest OF this country to allow public opinion to
turn on imperfect information, and as the Johnson
Clarendon treaty has been rejected, an inquiry nsti-
tuted by royal commission, or q committee of the
House OF Commons into the support given to the
North and South during the war, In reference to
plates and the enlistment OF men to serve for either
OF the beligerents would tend to place all the mat
ters IN dispute clearly before the British Parliament
and people, and enable them to approach any further
negotiations with the United States oni more
satisfactory basis than they have hitherto done.
we shall be glad to give any information and assist
ance in our power.
persons in this country, that Mr. J. Laird, member
Of Parliament for Birkenhead was the builder Of the
Alabama. This Is not the case as MIR. Lard's inter-
and some time before his election TO In Parla
were were building this this ship and for whom e we were
We must apologize for the length Of this letter. but
hope that the Importance OF the subject Will justify
our WE sr vonr obeoep
LAIRD BROTHERS.
BrRXENHEAD IRON WORKS.
BIRKENHEAD, 25th May, 1869.