FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   325   326   327   328   329   330   331   332   333   334   335   336   337   >>  
monstrous doctrine to admit that one nation may inquire into the title by which another nation holds her ships of war. And there can be no difference in this respect between tenders and ships originally commissioned. The flag and the pennant fly over them both, and they are both withdrawn from the local jurisdiction by competent commissions. On principle you might as well have enquired into the antecedents of the Alabama, as of the Tuscaloosa. Indeed, you had a better reason for inquiring into the antecedents of the former than of the latter, it having been alleged that the former escaped from England in violation of your Foreign Enlistment Act. Mr. Adams, the United States Minister, did in fact demand that the Alabama should be seized, but Earl Russell, in flat and most pointed contradiction of his late conduct in the case of the Tuscaloosa, gave him the proper legal reply, to wit: that the Alabama being now a ship of war, he was estopped from looking into her antecedents. One illustration will suffice to show you how untenable your position is in this matter. If the Tuscaloosa's commission be admitted to have been issued by competent authority, and in due form (and I do not understand this to be contested except on the ground of her antecedents), she is as much a ship of war as the Narcissus, your flag-ship. Suppose you should visit a French port, and the port admiral should request you to haul down your flag on the ground that you had had no sufficient title to the ship before she was commissioned, or that she was a contract ship and you had not paid for her, and the builder had a lien on her, or that you had captured her from the Russians, and had not had her condemned by a prize court, what would you think of the proceeding? And how does the case supposed differ from the one in hand? In both it is a pretension on the part of a foreign power to look into the antecedents of a ship of war--neither more nor less in the one case than in the other. I will even put the case stronger. If it be admitted that I had the right to commission a tender, and the fact had been that I had seized a French ship and put her in commission, you could not inquire into the fact. You would have no right to know but that I had the orders of my Government for this seizure. In short, you would have no right to inquire into the matter at all. My ship being regularly commissioned, I am responsible to my Government for my acts, and my Government, i
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   325   326   327   328   329   330   331   332   333   334   335   336   337   >>  



Top keywords:

antecedents

 

commission

 
Tuscaloosa
 

Alabama

 

inquire

 

Government

 
commissioned
 
seized
 

French

 

ground


competent
 
matter
 
admitted
 

nation

 

admiral

 

issued

 
request
 

sufficient

 

Narcissus

 

contested


understand

 

Suppose

 

authority

 

orders

 

responsible

 

foreign

 

regularly

 

pretension

 

tender

 

stronger


Russians

 

condemned

 

captured

 

builder

 

contract

 
supposed
 
differ
 

proceeding

 

seizure

 

conduct


commissions
 
principle
 

jurisdiction

 

withdrawn

 

alleged

 

inquiring

 
reason
 

enquired

 
Indeed
 

monstrous