Year: 1863

sinai ams ana ammunition. She proceeded To BuenOs
Ayres was oommissed by the Government of that place
and sailed on cruise In June 1885, with crew consist


lug chiefly Of her original crew She made prizes the
perty came to this country and beed here as in the
other case and the question Of the legality of these acts
came before the courtsthc District Court aud Ciroujt
Court decreeng restitution the ground of Illegally and
the Supreme Court confirming the decree.


Here too copy from head note !" A vessel armad
and manned in of ports and sailing thence TO bell


gerent port with tho intent thence to depart on crnsa
with the aud armament obtained here so depart


ing and capturing belgerent property violates neu-
trality laws


This statement is fully justified by the language of the
JIdge who delivered the opinion. And that judge was
Chief Justice Marshall


With great pleasure quote from this decision the fol-
lowing passage 1t would be impossible to use language
more precisely applicable to the Emperor of Chnas
fieet now lifting out in England:


That the Irresistible was purchased and that she ;I
ed CUT OF tho port OF Baltimore, armed and manned as
vessel OF for the purpose of being employed as
cruiser against nation with whom the United States
were ut peace is too clear for controversy That be
arms and ammunition cleared out as cargo CANNOT
vary the case Nor it thought to be material that the
men We're enlisted 10 form as for common mercantile
voyage. There is nothing resembling deommercial AL
venture in any part OF the transaction The vessel was
constructed for war and not for commerce. There was
cargo on board but what adapted to the
OF war. The crew was too numerous for merchantmen
and was sufficient for prvaeer These circums,anoes
demonstrate the intent with which the Irresistible sailed
out Of the port of Baltimore.


But she was not commissioned privateer nor did
she attempt to act until reached tho River IA
Plata, when commission obtained and the crew re
enlisted This court has decided that the offence
adheres to the vessel whatever changes may have taken
place and cannot be deposited the termination of the
cruise in preparing for which it committed; and an
the Irresistible made prize her passage from Ba
more to the River La Plata it ia contended tbat hsr
oehce was deposited there and that the court cannot
connect her subsequent cruise with the transactions OF
Baltimore. -


IF this were to be admitted in snch case as this the
laws 0r the preservation OF neutrality would be com
pletely euded. Vessels completely fitted in our
ports for military operations need only sail to bellUerent
port and there after obtaining commission 60 through
the ceremony OF discbargug and reentng their crew to
become perfectly legitimate cruisers purified from every
faint contracted at the place where all their real
force and capacity for annoyance acquired This
would, indeed be fraudulent neutrality dsgracefu to
our own Government and of which no nation wond he
the dupe. 1t is impossible for moment to disguise ths
iaets that the arms and ammunition taken on board the
irresistible ut Baltimore taken for the purpose of
being used cruise and that the men there enlsted
though engaged in form for commercial VOYAGE were
not 30 engaged in fact There commercial voyage
AID no individual OF the could believe that there as
one Although there might be express stpuaton to
board the Irresistible after her reaching the ia
Plata and obtaining commission must be completely
what other purpose could they have undertaken this vow
age Every thing they saw, every thing that was done
spoke language too plain to be Misunderstood"


IL 1T asked how can be that the same youme con
tans two decisions rendered by the court within
few days OF each other VIII ch different the frat
answer s that Story viewed the of the Sautssma





all he says about it that foundation And this supnos
tlon Is efectualy disposed Of by Marshall


And, IN the next place. it is fair that the at
tenton Of the court not carefully directed to the re-
marks OF Story ignoring all difference between munitions
of war and ships of He proposes dispose of the
point in few words apparently regarding the question
OF no moment in the and these words were pro-
baby less carefully considered by him and by his brethren
because the itself to be determined upon entre
grounds which considered not in few
words, but very fully.


pa fh,su hara .,,4L
atve statement of the law in case and in form which
precisely meets the of the Confederate ships sailing
r England and which has the highest Judicial authority
which American law have But there appears tn have
been reference haeuerto this case by court or
in the trial Of the Alexandra.


IT, however it be said in England that the statement in
the of the Santssma Trandada had the sanction of
the whole court and is not denied contradcted by the
OF the Gran PARE and that both must therefore
now regarded of equal authory-even 90 let it be-
From one case the English may learn that honest sale
)f even warship to beigerent, if il be nero mer
,antle tansacton IS no violation of the neutrality law
And then they may learn from the other case that the
mere buying and selling does not suffice to constitute
mercantile transaction in this or with this effect
hey may learn from it that such Transactions as those
which now enable the Conederaes English ships to
esroy our commerce are precisely those which the law
intended to prevent and to punish They may learn
rom IT that Government which permits such transac-
ions establishes ga fraudulent neutrality" which would
'e dlsgraceul to the Government which sanctioned it,
md OF which fraud would be transparent that no ma
ion" (clearly not this naton) "wll be the dupe"


The American courts have before them only the ones
ion OF restoration of property captured But in deciding
hat our neutrality laws violated by the IDdepen
ienca they render it certain that she would have been
rrested prevented from thus violating our neutratv
lad this question been brought before them by the Spansb
government against whom she was to cruise by inorma
ion or Indictment through the proper law officers and at
proper time.


That the foreign enlistment laws or neutrality laws as
hey are sometimes called OF England and the United
STATES are very simaentrey so far as they appear
o bear upon these questons-may be from compare
on of them.


The American statute is follows


u 8 Statutes 1878, chap. SO. sect g. "If any person
hall, within the limits of the United States ft ont and
rm, or attempt to fit out and arm procure to be fitted
,ut and armed shall knowingly be concerned in the
urnsbng fitting out or armng Of any ship vessel with
ntent that such shpor vessel shall be em poyed in the
ervce OF any foreign prince state or of any COLONY
strct or people, TO cruise commit hostites apanst
he SUBJECTS citizens property OF any foreign prince
,r state or OF any colony, district people, with whom
he United States are at peace shall issue or deliver
'ommlsson within the territory Jurisdiction of the
United States for any ship vessel to the intent that
The may be employed Aforesaid every person 80 offend
ng shall be deemed guilty of high misd meanor and
hail be fined not more than ten thousand dollars and i'm
'risoned not more than three years. and every such ship
'rvesse with ber tackle apparel and furniture together
With all materials, arms, ammunition, and stores which
nay have been procured for the building and equipment
hereof, shall be forfeited; one-half to the of the
nfcrmer and the other half to the of the United
States"


The English statute ia as foIlows-59 Geo 3, QS1o)
H. CD sec 2: " If any person within any port of the Uni
ed Kingdom, any port of his Majesty dominons be-
'ond the shall without the leave and license of hs
Majesty for that purpose Grst had and obtained EQUIP
urnsh ft out arm, attempt endeavor to equip
urns, ft out to be equipped furnsb