THE AMERICAN DEMAND FOR THE RESTORATION OF THE EMILIE ST. PIERRE.

New Zealander, Volume XVIII, Issue 1715, 16 August 1862, Page 5

THE AMERICAN DEMAND FOR THE RESTORATION OF THE EMILIE ST. PIERRE.

[From the " London Globe."]

However greatly we may admire the skill and intrepidity by which the rescue of the Emilie St. Pierre was accomplished, our Government would have felt it its duty to comply with the request made by the American Minister for her restoration, had that demand been founded on international obligations. Questions of tbis kind must be settled by the law alone, to the exclusion of all false pride or sentiment. Applying that test to the case of the Emilie St. Pierre, we find that our Government had no choice in the answer given . to the demand of the American Minister. The ship lies at Liverpool; her captain and owners are not accused of any offence known to our law ; and interference with her would be entirely unjustifiable, and could only take place by a violation of every legal protection by which liberty and property are happily surrounded within these kingdoms. * * The whole question upon which this capture Tests appears to be one of force and force alone. The vis major of the James Ad<;er captured the Emilie St. Pierre, and the vis major —or we may rather say the mens divinior—oi the captured vessel brought about her deliverance. Inasmuch as the English government would not have interfered if the rescue bad Dot taken place, and the forms of law bad been complied with, it follows, on the othei hand, that the English government cannot come to the assistance of the captors, and complete an act which they were not themselves able to complete. When a blockade is declared and recognise J as effective, a neutral Sovereign warns his subjects that if they violate it they do so at their own risk, and cannot claim his protection if they are punished for the act. The Queen of Great Britain said so to her subjects at the commencement of hostilities between tbe Federals and the Confederates. She declines to associate herself in any way with such attempts. If an Engli.-h vessel succeeds in breaking the blockade with impunity, the American government cannot make any demand upon us for the punishment of her owners or master. If, on the other band, a British, vessel is gseized, we decline to vindicate her interests further than, perhaps, to see that they are adjudicated upon in the usual manner by the proper tribunal, which in the United States is the Supreme Court. It is wholly a question of force, resting between the ability of the blockading force to carry out its object and of those who try to violate it to accomplish theirs. We do not thwart or impede the blockading power; but,on the other hand, we will not assist them or supply their deficiencies. The real and only question bearing upon this demand of the American government is, " Did Captain Wilson commit any crime which, under the treaties between this country and the United States, him liable to be given up, or his vessel to be restored to her captors ?" It is very simple, and can be at once categorically answered, especially as the humanity with which the recapture was effected was scarcely less admirable than its gallantry. Captain Wilson committed a simple act of rescue. We have, therefore, only to inquire whether a rescue is an offence which one country has a right to ask another country to aid it in punishing or remedying. Now, so far from being a crime, we find the great jurists speak of rescue almost as a duty. A chief justice (Marshall) of the United States, has laid down that in the case of a capture with a small prize crew, it is not indeed the duty of the master to try and retake the ship, because he may, if unsuccessful, expose an innocent vessel to the condemnation which would be incured by the act, but rescue is spoken of quite approvingly. The attempt is attended with risk, because, as Lord Stowell says, the neutral master thereby " violates a duty imposed on him to go into Court, and renders his ship and cargo liable to confiscation," —of course if he be unsuccessful. But the same great authority has settled the question of the non-criminal ty of a rescue in the clearest and moat succinct manner. In the case of tbe Despatch, he defines a rescue as " a delivery from force by force y* and in that of The Two Friends he declares rescue to be " a meritorious act, but not a compulsory duty." It is impossible, therefore, to say that Captain Wilson hat committed any wrong for which his Government can lay hands upon him, or that the United States officer! had at any time acquired such an interest in his ship as could give them a shred of justification for claiming her restoration to their hands. The case seems very analogous to one which sometimes becomes the subject of trial in our own courts. If a debtor arrested by the Sheriff escapes from the officers and completes hfi rescue, he cannot be again arrested for the debt which, so far as he is concerned, is cancelled. The only remedy left to the creditor is an action against the Sheriff for loss sustained by reason of the negligence of his officers. In this instance the Emilia St. Pierre may be taken as representing the debtor (although tbedebt,had yet to be pronounced fairly due), Lieutenant Stone the sheriff's officer, and the United States' government the creditor. The remedy of the United States, therefore, would be against its own agent, and not against the escaped debtor. We know not on what grounds a claim so utterly unfounded can have been preferred, and if it be persevered with, we shall be curious to see the reasons by which American jurists will endeavour to give it substance.