Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1873-11-19

AadoAality Of q vessel IS governed by
! her papers, which must correspond with
her flag; but neither the flag nor the
papers are to be accepted ne conclusive
! evidence of her nationality, as the
admiralty courts frequently 90 back OF
both IN adjudicating prize cases. Re-
specting the location of the vessel when
captured, this point is one. not difficult
to be dealt with. During the late rebel
lion the privateer Florida, lying quietly
at anchor in Brazilian harbuF, was cut
out by vessel of the United States,
and forcibly conveyed to the waters Of
I the United States. This was an uD-
1onbted violation Of the sovereignty Of
Brazil, friendly power. The govern
( ment of the United States admitted this
TACT, and sent vessel to Brazil TO salute
the nag of that nation In a formal
| apology. The officer in command Of
the offending vessel was suspended.
After the expiration Of a comparatively
brief period he was reinstated upon the
active list, and promoted. In the case
now presented. however, the question is
complicated with the execution of the
officers crew and passengers of the YES
sei seized. Admitting that the vessel
was captured on the high seas, while
sailing under the American flag, with
American papers, and in every Tespetc
as 20 form in compliance with maritime
usages, the character OF her mission
might, after all, determine the question
as TO the legality of her seizure. The
blockade runners were British vessels,
and when captured in making nndoubt-
ed attempts to enter ports bloekaded by
the naval forces of the United States the
vessels were recognized as legal prizes,
and. no action whatever was taken by
the government of Great Britain. The
Alabama and kindred privateers bore
disputed character as TO nationality: yet
il was not disputed that they were fitted
out in violation Of the spirit aud letter
of international obligation. The final
settlement Of the Alabama controversy
exhibited the proof that this vessel, |
although flying the flag of the so-called |
Confederate government, was in reality |
a British ship unlawfully depredating |
on American commerce. The same |
questions arise and must be determined |
as to the true character of the Virginius. |
II il should be shown that the Virginius |
was engaged in the prosecution Of enter |
prises hostile to Spain, nation with |
whom we are at peace, the fact that she |
carried the American nag might not be |
sufficient to protect her. Congress has |
defined by the act above quoted the |
course to be taken, placing practically |
the determination of what shall be done |
in its own hands. The power vested in |
the President does not confer upon him |
the discretion to put in operation, with
out the assent of congress, offensive or |
retaliatory measures.
PROBABLE ACTION OF CONGRESS.
Senator Morton, in the course of an |
interview upon the subject. said that of |
course these matters would occupy a |
large share of the attention of congress
in the early days of the session. Speak
ing for himself, he said that nothing /
would be done except upon official infor-
nation received by the government and |
recommended by the President; that in |
a matter of this kind the government |
should act with deliberatioR, and that,
the enlightened sentiment of
the American people, and the apparent |
insult to the American flag have led to
an outburst of popular indignation from
one end of the country to the other, it
would be fitting for our people to show
their calmer judgment by awaiting the
action justified after careful investiga-
ton.