New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1884-03-07
nYN4MLlE PRECEDENTS.


bama award as a precedent for the suppression
Of dynamite warfare. The argument Is that
there is no essential difference between the
construction and equipment OF vessels Tor the
purpose of destroying property on the high seas
and the organization of bands Of dynamite
workers for the pup ,se of destroying property
i'm foreign territory and that the plea that Fed
eral law and State statutes do not provide for
the emergency does not release the United
States authorities from responsibility to Great
Britain any more than the excuse that munich
pal legislation was inadequate exOncrated the
English Government in the Alabama case.
There is one radical distinction which is fatal
to the relevancy of the parallel. There was a
civil war in the United States, and the British
Government had issued neutrality procama-
ton warning the Queens subjects against
equipping vessels for privateering purposes,
supplying munitions of war or doing any act
calculated to afford assistance to either bel
ligeIent. There is no military rebellion III Ire
land against British authority; the dynamite
conspirators are criminals plotting in one conn
try against the laws of another. and cannot be
considered belligerents under the law of ma
TONS and consequently the provisions of any
Neutrality Act cannot be enforced. The dyna-
mite operations, moreover, are secret plots, in
which a very small group of miscreants are i'm
plicated. The work is not only carried on in
time of peace very clumsily and on a small
scale. but is denounced by Americans from one
end of the country to the other. Great Britain,
on the other hand, was the naval base of the
Confedcracy; five out of the seven pTivateers
which preyed upon American commerce were
built in English dock yards rams and iron
cladS were also constructed for Mr.. Davis's
agents, and a cotton loan was foated and
these operations were not only of magnitude
and openly conducted, but were publicly de-
Tended by the English press, the Queens Min
listers, members of Parliament and the govern
ing classes of English society. Mr.. Laird was
heartily applauded when he asserted in the
Commons that be would like to be known as the
builder of dozen Alabamas. Lord Palmcrston
emphatically declared in the same House that
England was not in the habit of altering its
laws to please foreign State.
The mention of Lord PalmcrstOn's name sug-
gests parallel which, unlike the Alabama
award, is wholly relevant. This is the 0rsni
case. Let it be granted that the Irish cOnspira-
tMs collect money, hire agents and purchase
their explosives and mechanism in America for
use in England. This is precisely what Felice
Orsini did in England when he formed his plot
against the French Government. 1t was in
London that he became possessed with the idea
of killing Napoleon III. in the interest of Italian
liberty. The general arrangements for the plot
were made on English soil. The bombs were
in Birmingham. An Englishman
ordered them for him and paid for them prob
ably with money collected in London, where
Orsini had large circle of acquaintance and
The agents were selected partly
in England and partly in France. The base of
operations was so unmistakable thatwhen the
bombs were exploded in Paris and ten persons
were killed and over 80 wounded i'll the Rue
Lepelletier, there was "A general Outcfy i'll
France against England as a country which had
the crime. The French Minister in
London Immediately demanded that the law
should De set in motion against Orsinis accom-
plices, and even suggested that it should be
if it were Inadequate for the sup
preston of such cOnspiracies. What was the
outcome Of these remOnstrancesf Lord Palm
erstOn upon introducing bill designed to make
conspiracy TO murder a felony and to impose
penalties for it. was accused Of trucking to the
French Government, was denounced by the
English press, and vas voted out of Office. The
bill was defeated on the second reading, and
the new Ministry made no effort to revive it.
An attempt to enforce the existing statutes
against DIR. Bernard, of Orsini's ac-
completes, was a signal failure. He was ac-
quilted, greatly to the relief and satisfaction of
Ihe English people.
This precedent, which has a direct bearing
ipon the dynamite OutTages, ought 10 render
he English Government exceedingly cautious
n giving advice to the United States Govern
nent respecting the enforcement of existing
statutes and the eXpediency of enacting new
avs for the suppression of conspiracy. If
lord Palmers )n was so emphatic In his
declaration in the debates respecting the w.