The Sun. — 1864-01-30 (London, England)

JOHN SMITH. The crew, with the exception of the first and second mate, and the carpenter, who was a Dane, and a French seaman, were composed of a mixed company of vagabonds, collected from all parts of the globe—Greeks, Turks, Sclavonians, Malays, and Chinamen. With such an incongruous collection, the captain bad much difficulty in getting the ship properly navigated, and after two or three quarrels a portion of the crew surprised the ship, and having murdered the captain, first mate, and the captain's brother, who was a passenger, they compelled the second mate, whose life they spared for that purpose, to navigate the ship to the South American Coast. Here they landed, after scuttling the ship and disposing of the steward, and one or two others whom they disliked. Yet, strange to say, 'they spared the lives of the second mate, the carpenter, and the Frenchman, upon whose evidence they have been brought to justice. It is evident that the captain and his officers were at the 'mercy of the ruffians who composed the crew, when at any time they might determine to attack them. Including the captain's brother, the carpenter, and the Frenchman, there were but six Europeans on board. It is true that had treachery been expected those men, aided by the steward, who was a Malay, and the cook and lamp trimmer, who were Chinamen, might have defended themselves, and carried the vessel into some port, where they could have got rid of the riff-raff crew; bat amongst an assemblage, where the conspirators can converse together in an un known tongue, and mature their plans in secret, detection is very difficult. The captain was certainly remiss in not taking more precautions than he seems to have done, knowing the class of men he had to deal with. For this oversight he has paid a heavy penalty, but we consider it a disgrace to this country that a British ship should sail from an English port with such a disreputable ship's compuny. Before the repeal of the Navigation Laws, some sixteen or seventeen years ago, it was compulsory upon all ship-owners to have a certain number of British seamen and apprentices employed in their vessels, in proportion to their tonnage, but when the Free-trade mania was all powerful, complaints were made by those interested in the cheap carriage of merchandise. They said that the law which virtually excluded foreigners from competing with our shipowners, and likewise compelled the said shipowners to employ a certain class of men, who on that account required higher wages than foreign seamen would work for, was unjust, and that shipowners, manufacturers, and the world at large, were the victims of a monopoly. The agitation was successful, the Navigation Laws were not amended, as they very properly might have been, but they were repealed, and we are now reaping the benefit of our overliberality to those who do not care to meet us half way with concessions. Shipowners, like other men, naturally desire to have their work done as cheaply as possible, and, with the exception of a few large firms, apprentices are considered an unprofitable trouble; and when no longer compelled to employ British seamen, they are now too glad to obtain the services of Germans and Spaniards, who will work for less wages, and not be so exigent in their requirements as Englishmen. The natural consequence of this has been that a considerable proportion of our mercantile navy is manned by foreigners, while Englishmen are compelled either to work for indifferent wages or to seek foreign service, where their natural ability and general rectitude of conduct avail them more than they can do in their own country. America is thus supplied with seamen for her merchant service in the middle of the nineteenth century, as her frigates were manned at its commencement by the shortsighted policy of England, althouA h the ever increasing extent of our commerce and the nautical predilections of our population to a certain degree neutralise the effects of this system, it cannot be denied that our merchant service, the nursery of our navy, has not been benefited by the repeal of the Navigation Laws. We do not wish that the old exclusive laws should be re-enacted, but we think that certain restrictions might be placed upon shipowners, end that they should be again obliged to carry a certain proportion of British seamen, or at all events not jeopardise the lives of the officers by shipping desperadoes from Spanish America, and other resorts of bravos and cut-throats. England has derived much benefit from the development of her free trade policy, but we may have too much of a good thing. What is good for the goose ought not to be poison for the gander, and while en