Opinion of Sir Roundell Palmer. Opinion of Chief Justice Marshall. upon the commerce of the United States, but also to release the responsibility of Great Britain therefor, then this arbitration is indeed a farce. Such, however, cannot be the case. Sir Roundell Palmer, the Attorney General of Lord Palmerston's Cabinet, as well as of the present Government, well said, in the House of Commons, in 1864, when defending the course of Great Britain as to the Tuscaloosa, a tender of the Alabama, "Can it be said that a neutral Sovereign has not the right to make orders for the preservation of his own neutrality, or that any foreign Power whatever violating these orders, provided it be done willfully or fraudulently, is protected to any extent, by International Law, within the neutral territory, or has the right to complain, on the ground of International Law, of any means which the neutral Sovereign may see fit to adopt for the assertion of his territorial rights?" "It is a mere question of practical discretion, judgment, and moderation what is the proper way of vindicating the offended dignity of the neutral Sovereign." * * The United States do not deny the force of the commission of a man-of-war issuing from a recognized Power. On the contrary, they point with a pardonable pride to the exhaustive language of 1 Hansard, 3d series, vol. 174, page 1595. Justice Marshall. Chief Justice Marshall on this subject' as evidence Opinion of Chief of what they understand to be the practice of nations. Nor do they deny that since Great Britain had, however precipitately and unjustly, recognized the existence of a civil war between the United States and the insurgents, and avowed a determination to remain neutral between the parties, she might, without a violation of the law of nations, commit the further injustice of allowing to such vessels of war of the insurgents as had not been built, armed, equipped, furnished, fitted out, supplied, or manned within her territory, in viola tion of her duty to the United States, the same rights of asylum, hospitality, and intercourse which she conceded to the vessels of war of the United States. They do, however, most confidently deny that the receipt of a commission by a vessel like the Alabama, or the Florida, or the Georgia, or the Shenandoah, exempted Great Britain from the liability growing out of the violation of her neutrality. To this point they are fortunately able to cite two from the many pertinent cases adjudicated in the Supreme Court of the United States, which show directly what the public law in this respect is understood to be, not only by the United States, but also by Spain and by Portugal. The Schooner Exchange against McFadden et als., 7 Cranch's Reports, 116. Decision of the Supreme Court of The first is the case of the Santisima Trinidad,' the United States the facts of which have already been given. The in the cases of the Santisima Trini Para. dad and the Gran property for which restitution was claimed in this case was Spanish. The libel was filed by the Spanish Consul at Norfolk on behalf of the owners. The capture was shown to have been made after a commission to the vessel, expressly recognized by the court rendering the decision. Nevertheless, restitution was decreed on the ground of an illegal increase of armament in the neutral territory after the commission. The second case is that of the Gran Para, also already alluded to. The libel was filed by the Consul General of Portugal. The opinion of the court was given by Chief Justice Marshall. The facts are set forth so clearly in the opinion that no other statement is necessary. The Chief Justice, in announcing the judgment of the court, said: "The principle is now firmly settled that prizes made by vessels which have violated the acts of Congress that have been enacted for the preservation of the neutrality of the United States, if brought within their territory, shall be restored. The only question, therefore, is, Does this case come within the principle? "That the Irresistible was purchased, and that she sailed out of the port of Baltimore, armed and manned as a vessel of war, for the purpose of Decision of the Supreme Court of being employed as a cruiser against a nation with the United States whom the United States were at peace, is too clear for controversy. That the arms and ammunition were cleared out as cargo cannot vary the case. Nor is it thought to be material that the men were enlisted in form as for a common mercantile voyage. There is nothing resembling a commercial adventure in any part of the transaction. The vessel was constructed for war and not for commerce. There was no cargo on board but what was adapted to the purposes of war. The crew was too numerous for a merchantman, and was sufficient for a privateer. These circumstances demonstrate the intent with which the Irresistible sailed out of the port of Baltimore. But she was not commissioned as a privateer, nor did she attempt to act as one until she reached the river La Plata, when a commission was obtained, and the crew reënlisted. This court has never decided that the offense adheres to the vessel, whatever changes may have taken place, and cannot be deposited at the termination of the cruise in preparing for which it was committed; and as the Irresistible made no prize on her passage from Baltimore to the river of La Plata, it is contended that her offense was deposited there, and that the court cannot connect her subsequent cruise with the transactions at Baltimore. in the cases of the Santisima Trini dad and the Gran Para. Decision of the Supreme Court of "If this were to be admitted in such a case as the United States this, the laws for the preservation of our neutral in the cases of the Santisima Trini dad and the Granity would be completely eluded, so far as this en Para. forcement depends on the restitution of prizes made in violation of them. Vessels completely fitted in our ports for military operations need only sail to a belligerent port, and there, after obtaining a commission, go through the ceremony of discharging and reënlisting their crew, to become perfectly legitimate cruisers, purified from every taint contracted at the place where all their real force and capacity for annoyance was acquired This would, indeed, be a fraudulent neutrality, disgraceful to our own Government, and of which no nation would be the dupe. It is impossible for a moment to disguise the facts that the arms and ammunition taken on board the Irresistible at Baltimore were taken for the purpose of being used on a cruise, and that the men there enlisted, though engaged in form as for a commercial voyage, were not so engaged in fact. There was no commercial voyage, and no individual of the crew could believe there was one. Although there might be no express stipulation to serve on board the Irresistible after her reaching the La Plata and obtaining a commission, it must be completely understood that such was to be the fact. For what other purpose could they have undertaken |