The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-08-26

There she obtained as matter OF fact $50 tons OF
without both OF these as wen as IMPORTANT repairs
OF her machinery, she could not have carried out
the naval project on which she had started. The
coal taken at Melbourne was sent by appointment
from Liverpool, and was there to complete her re-
htment. The naval operation would have failed II
power and resources at Melbourne az a base. Now,
this Shenandoah was able to sail sixteen knots an
hour.
Sir ALEXANDER CocKBURN-Do you mean to say
sixteen knots an hour That Is faster that any
vessel have ever heard or
MT. EvARTs-Wel we will not dispute about the
facts. There is doubt, however, that it is so-she
sailed on one occasion over three hundred and
twenty miles In twenty-fOur hours.
an hour.
Mr.. EvAErs-I have not said that she had sailed
twenty-four consecutive hours at the rate of six
teen knots. But she could sail sixteen knots
hour, and she could only steam ten knots an hour.
nave not invented this. Her remarkable quail
ties are stated in the proofs. Her steam power
was not necessary to her navigation or her speed,
assurance Of constancy of progress In adverse
weather. Her great advantage, however, was in
being
ONE OF THE FASTEST SAILING SHIPS EVER BUILT.
Tne great Importance OF her having abundance
was she ma csnur U
whalers who understood those perilous seas. and,
II they could only get up steerageway would be
CHIEF JUSTICE cocKBuRS INSTRUCTED.
Sir ALEXANDER CocKBURN-What! If she sailed
Mr.. EvARrs-H the Chief Justice will mark the
circumstances OF Arctic navigation he viii under
nd the aS OF 1er OF te ice
interpOslng barriers between themselves and their
pursuer They did. however, become her prey; but
IL was only when she found them becalmed. Now
this case Of the Shenandoah illustrates, by its
career on large scale, the project of bellgerent
In maritime war, which sets forth a vessel and fur
nishes 1t complete for war, plans its naval opera
tons and executes them, and all this from neutral
ports and waters, as the only base and as sufi-
WHAT THE VESSEL DID AT MELBOURNE.
Melbourne was the only port fcOm which the She
from the home ports Of Great Britain and it finally
accomplished the main operation OF it's naval war
Melbourne. Whether it could rely for the origin Of
It's naval power and for the means OF accomplishing
waters under the cover OF commercial dealings in
contraband Of war and under the cover Ofthe privi
lcge of asylum, was the question which 1t proposed
to itself and which 1t answered for Itself. 1t Is
under the application of these principles that the
case OF the Shenandoah Is supposed to be protected
| prohibits the use OF ports and waters OF neutral
as a base OF naval operations. do not propose to
but only to submit the principles on which they are
/ to be considered
A QUESTION ANSWERED.
Sir ALEXANDER COCKBURN-I would like to ask
you, Mr.. Evarts, whether your proposition involves
this: that every time a belllgerent steam vessel
puts into neutral port for the purpose OF getting
COAL and then goes forward upon her further object
of war, that there is violation of neutral territory
| Just want to draw your attention to this point.
what want to understand is, what difference there
is between the ships of one nation and the ships Of
another nation as regards this matter of coal.
| Would the principle OF your argument apply to the
| vessels Of other belligerentsS
| Mr.. EvARTs-Of course 1t is to he applied to all
| belligeren ts and when the case arises for COM
plant 1t is to be judged in view OF all the facts and
circumstances whether it falls within the license OF
hospitality or whether 1t Is resort as to base Of
operations that is to say whether the whole trans
acNon in all Its features amount to concerted
| Sir5ALExANDER CocKBURN-Planned by whomY
Mr.. EvARTs-Why, planned by the belligerent.
| Sir ALEXANDER CocKBURN-A ship goes into
neutral port without intlmatng its purpose or dis
closing whether 1t belongs to one belligerent or
another. ~ - -
| Lord TENrERDEN-Take the Vanderbilt.
| Sir ALEXANDER CoCKBURN-Wel, let US take that
case. She goes into neutral port and wants coal
for the purpose OF gong forth again on her mission
OF war. No question Is asked. The ship, l grant
you, comes with the object Of getting coal for the
one sense Uses neutral territory as base But the
neutral knows nothing about the course of the yes.
s or Its s excep ne ne taxes s Tor
territory to be made the pase OF operations, except
SO far as applies to the ships OF belligerents
that this alone rendered the neutral responsible
| have merely laid down the facts The magnitude
lations to the base of supplies do not alter the APP
plcation of principles: After all there is left, Of
or allowed these things or have used due diligence
to prevent them, and upon the discussion of that
subject shall not trespass; m, t,.+ !. ~, vorv
question.
until it was determined whether the belliRerent had
as matter of fact made the neutral port base OF
operations. All that have said has been intended
make the neutral ports base Just as much as II
shaop stationed at the mouth of neutral
river and sent out boat to commit hostities. In
either case the neutral is not responsible unless 1t
has failed to exercise due diligence But there Is
this further consequence carving Responsibility,
| until after 1t has been committed 1t is its duty
to resent it and to prevent its repetition AN, and
Certainly be kept distinct II the fact IS not
diligence, then the neutral is not in fault If the
facts are afterwards known, then the cruiser that
has committed the violation Of neutrality Is to be
prescribed to be denied hospitality to be detained
In port excluded from port after notice, or with
out notice, as the s case may ee: - Iii .,,,
dealt with by belgerent, and having the power
TO stop the course OF naval operations thus based,
Il y purp6sely omits SO to do does not make itself
| to be drawn into discussion upon the facts
which is not INCLUDED in the range s1 Of the
deavoripg to show that the illustrations
| OF Kent and Stoweu, taken from navigation and
maritime war then prevailing, do not furnish the
respect OF allowing such use Of naval bases nor OF
| circumstances which make up the prohibited uses
| of neutral ports for such bases.
| proceed to another branch of the subjects
1t is said that the concerted setting forth of the
| Iaurel from tHe neutral port 10 carry the ariua-
ment and the munitions ofwar, and the offcers and
the crew to be combined outside the neutral juris-
| dicton with the Shenandoah already issued from
another port OF the same neutral, is only dealing
in contraband OF war. deny that such transac-
ton has any connection with dealing in contra,
band of war. 1t is direct obtaining by projected
cruiser Of its supply OF armament, munitions and
| men and officers from neutral port.
There may be no fault on the part of the neutral
in not preventing It, That will depend on the
able ground to believen &c. But the principle Of
contraband Of war does not protect such transac.
ton, and that is the only principle appealed TO by
the British government in the discussions OF this
matter to Justify 1t. The facts OF this vessel going
| out were KNOWN
| Sir ALEXANDER CoCKBURN-Not until afterwards.
| Mr.. EvARTS--The law of nations was violated; ;
| your territory had been used. as matter OF fact,
| we claim. the base Of naval operations and 1t
was not dealing in contraband of war. It was