CONFEDERATE CRUISERS

Southland Times, Volume III, Issue 11, 2 December 1863, Page 5 (Supplement)

CONFEDERATE CRUISERS

* The question as to the legality* and propriety of sufFeriug vessels of War, designed or supposed to be designed for > the service «f the Confederates, to, be , constructed in oar building yards and to leave our ports, has again been brought prominently forward during the past week from several distinct sources. : It is alleged that two formidable iron - clads, fitted with steam engines and cupolas, are now ready or nearly ready , for sea in Mr" Laird's famous establishment at Birkenhead ; that there can he no doubt that they are vessels of war $ and Very little doubt that they are ordered by and intended for the ■ Southern States of America. It is understood that Mr Adams, the Federal Minister at iur Court, has made repeated applications to our Government to have them detained and seized, for.warding a host of similar affidavits to those presented in lhe case of the _ Alessandra. The " Emancipation Society " has add'essed Earl Russell urging their seizure on the plea that they are designed to commit hostilities on a nation which loves the negro much, aud is honestly fighting for his freedom. Mr Goldwin Smith has written to the Daily News, advocating the same course, apparently as an opportunity of exposing and denouncing the inconsistency and tergiversation of the leading journal. Mr Nassau Senior has written to The Times recommending instant action in the same direction, because he is satisfied that the United States will declare war against us if we do not act — and that Mr Dayton, the Federal Minister at Paris, has solemnly menaced us with this danger, while admitting that his ■countrymen would be mad to venture on such a step. The Times itself has inserted one or two rather singular articles, arguing also in favor of prompt 'Government interference in the matter, ■on the ground that, if ive were the belligerents, toe should not tolerate the fitting out of cruisers for our enemy in a neutral port. Finally, in the columns ■of the same journal, and not before they were needed, have appeared two very able letters, signed v Phocion," pointing out that the only real question -which we have to consider is, not whether the construction and sailing of 'these cruisers will damage one of the belligerents, or retard the emancipation •of the negro, or bring down upon us the furious anger of a powerful and excited nation, or be a proceeding which we •ourselves " should not like," but simply and solely whether it is illegal, and whether, if not, it ought to be made SO. *■- The subject has already from time to tfcime undergone much discussion, and •ccr f «in may be«considered as now l \^&jtty *ne&rly agreed 'upon among the controversialists. It seems clearly established, by American legal decisions as well as by. British ones, that 9ieutrala may, by 'international Jaw and usage, supply,*, c,, that is sell and send not only ordinary merchandise but munitions of war to either or both belligerents, at their own risk and subject ; to the 'chances of capture in transitu-; and thtft neither belligerent can cem<plain to the 'Government of the neutral so long as it permits its subjects 'to supply both belligerents impartially. It seems ateo settled that " armed ships" may be furnished to the belligerents in the same way, and subject to the same risks, as guns or gunpowder or any •other article contraband of war. Judge Story's decision in the famous Buenos _A.yres case, leaves ne doubt OB thl3 point. So far, then, as mere international law and the obligations of neutrality are concerned, any British •merchant might sell an Alabama -or an Alessandra to any agent ef the Con Ifederate Government,- rjirst sishe might j sell an Armstrong or a Blakesly rifled ■cannon to a Federal agent ; and any federal cruiser might capture the first ■and any Confederate cruiser the second commodities, as soon as they were I beyond three miles of the British coast. I Neutral merchants may sell anything to I 'either combatant, but cannot claim the I protection of their Government or their I flag, if the thing they sell is contraband I of war, and if their venture be seized I on the high seas. I But now there comes in the " Foreign I Enlistment Act," one clause of which I seventh) forbids Englishmen "to I -equip, furnish, fit out, or arm" storeI ships, transports, or vessels of war, I " with intent to commit hostilities I against any Power with which we are I at peace, o* to be employed ho tilely I in the service <of any foreign PotenI tate ;" and also empowers the GovernI sient to seize such vessel and indict the ■ owners and furtherers. On the inten- ■ tion and the range and reach of this I Act, there has been nmcfa -dispute; — it I being argued on the one side, first, that I the purpose of the Act, as its name and I the circumstances of its origin show, ■ was, not to prevent the building of ■ ships of war for foreigners, inasmuch as ■ such ships are among the special objects ■of English industry and ingenuity, but ■ merely to prohibit British subjects from ■enlisting without leave in foreign serBvice, and fitting out privateers on their Hown account, and sailing them under Hletters of marque from new and unacHkno* ledg-ed states, such as the Spanish HSouth American Republics. And, Htecotu#y, that care has been taken by Hthe builders of the ships in question, Alabama, Ore to, &c, not to " equip furnish " them in this country, so as Hto bring them within the letter of the clause. On the other side, plea is treated as a mere quibble, it is maintained that to build a of war, and send out her '' by another ship, to be on board of her elsewhere, is in to violate the law as effectually if she sailed fully armed and with ammunition from the of departure. We need not say

to which side our own judgment leans. The important point is, that the mean-* ing and grasp of the law is disputed, and, till the other day, had never been decided. During the forty -three years that have elapsed since the passing of the Act in 1819, though several deten--1 tions have taken place under its pro- j visions, no case had ever been brought for decision, before a competent tribunal — all inchoate suits arising out of detention having been invariably compromised or abandoned. It became important, j therefore, to ascertain in the only way j in which it could be ascertained, viz., '■ \ by the decision of a law court, what the correct interpretation of the Act was. Accordingly, at the earnest instance of the Federals, the British Government 'determined to try the matter by the seizure of the Alessandra, which Mr Adams considered was a strong case-. A^s every one knows, the Government were beaten, and a verdict recorded against them. jßat they were not satisfied with the ruling of the Chief Baron, and an appeal to the fudges at was ordered and is still pending. Till that appeal has been heard, the ■ law, as described by the Court of Exchequer, declares that the Govefntfient would have no right to seize the iron-; clads just launched, since they Were held wrong in detaining the Alessandra. One consideration, however, which certain peculiar circumstances that have transpired in reference to these two vessels make very clear, will, we think, suffice to show that the Foreign Enlistment Act, as it stands, will not (what- | ever may have been intended) enable I the English Government legally to prevent the building or sailing of such vesssels as those which have issued from Mr Laird's yard. It is stated, and we believe with truth, that the trial of the Alessandra, having shown the parties therein proceeded against exactly where their danger lay and where there was still some possibility of the law reaching and arresting them \ has induced some change of plan, and that they are now quite safe from any interference. We understand that the ironclads now in question, though they may be originally designed for and will ultimately reach the Confederate Government, are not ordered for, nor paid for by, nor will be delivered to, any agent of that Government ; but are made for a Frenchman who professes that, knowing that such things are in demand and are likely to fetch a high price, he has purchased them as a promising speculation, and that when he gets possession of them he intends to sell them to the highest bidder, or to such customer as he may prefer. It is said that he has already given notice of the formalities requisite to obtain a French register and the protection of the French flag, so that when the vessels leave Liverpool they will leave eicher as British ships going to a French purchaser, or as French vessels bearing 1 .the French flag, — in either of which cases the transaction is a perfectly legal one. j There is no law, nor could there well j be one without trenching on the comity , of nations, to forbid an Englishman selling anything to a Frenchman while both nations are at peace with each , other and with the rest of the world. The present law, then, as interpreted j and likely to be interpreted by British , judges, as administered and likely to be administered by British juries, and ' manipulated and evaded as it is pretty sure to be by British shipbuilders, will ntft be found stringent enough to prevent the construction and the departure from our shores of vessels of war which may ultimately join the Confederate navy, and prey upon Federal commerce. How it can be made stringent enough, and whether it ought to be made thus stringent, is an altogether distinct branch of the question, which, we will discuss in a further article. Our ' object in these remarks is merely to show that the anger of the Federal Government and people, which Mr Dayten and Mr Senior depict, and the war with which they menace us if we allow these ironclads to sail, however natural, is neither just nor rational, since the law has not reached the case of the Alessandra, and cannot reach the case of other vessels purchased by and forwarded to a French subject. We could scarcely be expected to quarrel with France in order to gratify America.