The Evening critic. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1881-1885, 1884-02-18
THE ALABAMA COURT AGAIN.



why There IN Much Dissatisfaction.
Tho dissatisfaction caused by some recent
decisions Of tho Alabama claims Commission
is on the increase, and closer examination
OF tho matter develops more Interesting facts.
A CRIT1c reporter talked to some OF tho gen
tlemen who were before tho House Judiciary
Committee on the subject on Saturday and In
quired OF one OF them concerning tho points at
Tho gentleman complied by saying; az
have here number OF tho decisions OF the
court and also tho act OF juno o, 1882, under
which the court was re.established. You 500
here are all tho papers,"
"Yes, I zee; please expiainp'
"Well, the difficulty Is on account OF tho nb.
eurd constructions and interpretations by the
courton section 8 OF the act, which has resulted
IN an absolute miscarriage ofjpst,ce. Here Is the
section, Noto IL down as road section ..
That tho flrst class shall be for claims directly
resulting from damage done on the high seas
by Confederate cruisers during the late re.
bellioD, including vessels and cargoes attack
cd on the high seas, although tho loss or dam.
aged occurred within four miles OF the shorc.'"
"Yee, have It,"
snow please read It carefully and give your
Interpretation OF It,"
We read It over and over and said we had
'come to the conclusion that the frst clause
means Just what IL says, but We fall to In
terpret the second clause, and give 1t up, as
we are not quick at solving conundrums. Now,
giyo me your Interpretation OF lt7"
"Well, my Interpretation Ia this: That the
high seas have but one natural boundary, and
that has boen conceded by the courts OF oil
maritime powers to bo at low.water mark, and
wo claim that tho frat clause OF the act Of
fectually covers all claims for damage done by
Confederate cruisers outside OF low-water
mark, tho natural and lcgal boundary OF tho
high seas; and the second clause OF section .,
u II can be construed to moan anything at all,
II was TO provide for vessels attacked out at
sea somewhere and got within four miles OF
tho shore on some neutral coast, and received
there. But the 'conundrum' might be ap.
m n ana
the fret clause OF section fully provides
for the payment of all damage done on the
Nigh seas by Confederate cruisers, aud no
change In the high.sea boundary whatever Is
mado or attempted In the act.'
"Yes, see that is clearly so; but what has
been done about 1t to cause the trouDlo?"
"Woll, II Is this: Tho Court has presumed
to uttorly disregard the nrst clause OF tho
section and to adopt In Its stead these words
OF the second clause, viz: Although the loss
or damage occurred within four miles of the
shore rs Its authority for changing the high
sea boundary out four miles from the shore.
or, in other words, tho Court has adludged
that tho seashoTe, which forms the sea boundary,
Is actually T6m0ped four miles from ne shore or
| from ttstlf. And In rendering this profound
decision another matter is rakod In that was
in no way applicable TO the questions at bar,
and seems to have been dragged In for the ac-
complishment OF some Interior design. Here
IT rs: 'And the entrance of merchant ships for
the purpose OF trade into the harbors and on
the Interior waters OF the Confederate States
had been prohibited by the United States be-
fore the sailing of any Confederate cruiser.
United States within the marine league OF tho
Confederate coast tCds presunlnb!V iHe1dL, being
In defiance OF tho laws OF Its sovereign Or,
proclai%s MOf ali g0''v' Vessels "0 that OsF were
captured within four miles OF the shore
were only blockade runners, and claims for the
payment Of such losses have no standing In
court, and Judgment was recorded against
the claimants for all such losses. Now tho
truth fs that not one Of ne UessetS 1cere 'egdLly'
mt sal1 NJ anfe ehnr.,
which claims have been filed for loss were, In
the fullest meaning OF the words, legally Mere
and on legitimate business, and having regu-
lar clearance from the customs at the port
from whence they sailed or had legal author
tty from tho War Department 1t would seem
that neither the court nor Its advisers have any
knowledge OF either maritime law or of mill
tary usagoB in times OF war. You understand
that the war powers that establish blockades
are the proper authority to direct as TO where
not approach the blockade coast. Hundreds
OF vessels carrying military stores for the Gov
eernment were passing and repass-
ooSfederats coz @ STATE States nS and COAST rreSaontiS
anchorlng In their harbors and bays In bad
weather under the protection OF our blockad-
times In the night, right under the nose, as 1t
were, Of our gunboats. / would ask, where
the court discovered It's authority to adjudge
those vessels illegally there In defiance Of
the laws OF Its sovereign ana to condemn
them as blockade runnersi Itmust have been
the law preceptors' day OUT and that
common sense had fallen Into q deep sleep at
the time those absurd decisions were made
| public. According TO this decision, oil trans
ports or other merchant vessels that were de-
stroyed at Hampton Roads, or elsewhere In
tho Chesapeake Bay, at the time OF the de.
struction OF tho U. 8. frigates Cumberland
and Congress were blockade runners or I'll.
legally there IN defiance OF the laws OF Its
| sovereign I will quote the court In war
premium case lately. tried before II, wherein
II refused TO render judgment for the United
hut la ~ lnIo Nina
the following grounds
"If Congress intended to shut out this class
| OF claims We should certainly expect to flnd
| that intention clearly and specifically OK
pressed In the act itself and not left to the
| construction OF doubtful phrase
~ am anxious to know II the court had any
| legislative authority as above quoted In the
| act OF 1882 TO authorize 1t TO change the
boundaries OF the high seas, and condemn all
| merchant vessels that approached 'within
blockade runners"