Year: 1863

men could not stop English ship about to sail from
English port to be converted into Confederate shp-o
the high seas. Richmond paper thus speaks OF
| this decision


"The advantages to which affirmation OF the de-
csion in this Alexandra will afford csnnot be
estimated If they are promptly avaed of by naval
authorities we will be In position not only 10 give the
deathblow to the of enemy but to strike
at OF his Northern cities In the present state OF
the habor deences of New York. Boston, Portland, and
smaller Northern cities, such vessel as the Warrior
would have little difficulty in entering any of those ports
and niictng vital blow upon the enemy. The destruc-
ton of Boston alone would be worth hundred victories
in the field 1t would bring such terror TO the blue
to them to wish eagerly for peace despite
their overweenng love of gain which has been freely
administered to since the opening of this Vessels of
the Warrior class would promptly raise the blockade Of
ports, aud would in this respect confer advan-
tages which would soon repay the cost of their con-
structon."


Let connect with this the following extract from
private letter just received from Liverpool and published
in our papers:


One of the irOn-cad rams building by the Messrs
Lards at Brkenhead for tho rebels launched the
4th instant. They fitting her out with much expe
dinon as possible She is to have two turrets has ram
on the stern and plated with iron plates 2 inches
thick Their speed will be from twelve to thirteen knots
per hour No pains expense has been spared to make
them the most perfect and invunerable ships afoat"


And then add the declaration of Lord Pamerston, that
he could distinction in principle between selling
arms to the Federas and selling ships to the Conederaes
And he appealed to the principles laid down by the Ame
ricans themselves


The of the Alexandra, reported in the London
Times of June 23 June "a and June 25 is very long
and could not be condensed into moderate space
TO show all the points raised. wish to speak of it
only in reference to the assertions made by the court by
English newspapers and in Parliament that the decisions
Of Baron Pollock applied to the the principles Of
American law.


The was decided against the confscatioa of the
Alexandra on two gr0unds-one that her armament
ship Of war was not actually on board Now while many
American referred to, the case, in which
this question before the Supreme Court of the Uni
ted States not referred to by court counsel 1t
the case of the United States Quncey Peters 445.


copy from the decision Of this (rendered by Mr.
Justice Thompson the following promising that
the defence that the Bolivar although fitted ard in
tended for ship of war; sailed from this country with
ont arms


I'VE of opinion that it is not necessary that the
jury should believe fud that the Bolivar when she left
Baltimore armed in condition to commit hostil
ties, in order to find the defendant guilty


The collectors not authorized to detain vessels al
though manfesy built for warke purposes and about to
depart from the United States unless circumstances shall
render 1t probable that such vessels intended to be
employed by the to commit hosttes against
foreign Power at peace with the United States.


A the latitude, therefore, necessary for commercial
purposes given to citizens and they restrained
only from such acts calculated invove the country
IN scaT."


1t is worthy of notice that the American statute thus
construed, reads throughout, ht, equip and arm To
what extent this little word and should give rise 10 this
question considered by the court But the English
statute reads fit equip, or arm" The English statute
enacted in 1919, year after the American statute
1t follows the American statute almost verbally although
little more fully and to appearance carefully
drawn. And it is reasonable explanation of this change
of phrase that it intended to exclude the very
strucon put upon it by English court and rejected
by an American court


The case of the Alexandra seems also to have been de-
cded on the other ground that there difference be-
txxaap Linz tn hall anF.. a
"ships of war"


The Eng-h Court and Government find their best au-
hory for this in decision of the Supreme Court Of the
United States rendered by Judge Story the of the
Santissma Trnidada in I522.-(7 Wheaton, 2S3)


The head-note in that says among other things


Though vessel armed and equipped for and sent
to bell gerent port for sale is liable to capture by the
other begerent party, it is commercial adventure not
prohibited by our laws by the laws of nations"


This language Of the headnote is justified by that which
Story uses. He says, p. $40:


" The question to the original illegal armament and
outfit Of the Independence may be dismissed in few
words 1t is apparent that, though equipped vessel
of war; she sent to BueDos Ayres commercial ad
venture coutreband indeed but in shape violating
laws our national neutrality II captured by Spanish
ship OF war during the she would have been justly
condemnabe good prize for being engaged in traffic
prohibited by the law OF nations But there is nothing
Los in the low of nations that orbids our citizens
from sending armed UssselS nell munitions Of ,oar,


Here, then, may seem to be all the law the English
courts or Government the Confederacy desire on
this point.


But if this statement of Judge Story TO be taken
authoritative declaration of American law there is
still wide difference between English ship-buiders send
ing ship constructed for warke purposes to belgeent
port and therein selling her to belgerent Government
snd their building her in England for the Confederates
selling her there, and sending her out to port but
he friendly English colony to take her papers
aud commission the high to continue supply
herse with food and coal and munitions of war either at
British colonies from store ships sent to her from
England aud thus to sbtan the of an unlimited de-
probation upon commerce.


1t also to be remarked at least by LAWYER or court
that all this part OF the decision to some extent oJr
in far it not involved in required by the de-
cson Of the and therefore has n force of a
hority To make this apparent it is necessary exhibit
briefly the facts of the case


During the OF 1912 with Great Britain the schooner
Mammoth built ard equipped at Baltimore priva-
After the peace she sold by the original owners
and in 1916 her loaded her with cargo Of muni


ons Of and armed her with twelve guns part of her
original armament and sent her osensiby TO the North
west coast but actually to Buenos Ayres The supercar
90 authorized writing to sell her to the Govern
ment Of BueDos Ayres This DONE and that Govern
ment fitted her out man of-war, under the of
the Independence del Sud- She crused about and then
came to Baltimore and there enlisted about thirty men
Sailed thence with tender called the Atravda and cap
ured the Sansima Trndada and part of hor car
go 10 ths country Here the consul Of Spain belIed it, on
the ground thait bad been unrwuly and practically taken
from the Santssima Trindada


The District Court in Virginia sustained the libel and
decreed restitution to the original On appeal to
the Circuit Court that court confirmed the decree And
the in Wheaton the Supreme Court again confirm
ed the decree, ordering restitution.


This decson was put on two grounds--one that the |
enlistment Of in Baltimore was unlawfu the other
thaft tha of tho ocg