IS THE ALABAMA A BRITISH PIRATE? 27 state of a queen’s advocate’s digestion ; national honor, international justice, and the peace of great nations bound up with the bandages of Sir John D. Harding’s gouty toe! Moreover, although the culprit defies English revenue laws by sailing without a clearance ; and although the true nature of her voyage is soon made known in England by her burnings and destroyings ; and although she was known to be destined for the neighborhood of certain British ports, and does in fact make her appearance and cruise there for months, she is at the end of that time permitted to enter and lie in safety in a British port, without any effort to seize or detain her ; but, on the contrary, the local authorities of Kingston are seen coming actively to her assistance, and returning her escaped crew by force, the same as if she were a lawfully commissioned vessel, with whom the seamen might have a lawful contract of service. The legal liabilities which, under these circumstances, attach to the offending nation, are easily understood. Every nation, while it maintains the semblance of domestic government, is responsible for the execution of its own laws, especially such as are, in their nature, promises or compacts with other nations.* If the Confederate States were an independent and recognized nation, so that these vessels could have a bona fide national character, England would still, under the circumstances of their outfit, be responsible for them as if they were her own. And this would be so even if all the persons engaged in the matter were foreigners in England; for a stranger owes the same allegiance to the laws of a country, while he remains in it, as a citizen; and the law has equal power over him to compel his obedience; and, consequently, the government of the State has no ground here for a distinction as to the liability it shall bear. It was upon this principle that, by the treaty of 1794, this nation agreed to make com- * Indeed, a state may not take refuge behind defects of its municipal laws; for it is bound at its own peril to provide effective domestic machinery to execute its international duties. It was upon this principal that England stood in the matter of Alexander McLeod in 1838. McLeod had done an act for the British government, for which he was arrested as an offender against the laws of Wew York. Misgovernment avowed the responsibility of his act, and demanded from the United States his release. The Secretary of State, Mr. Webster, admitted, that since the act had been done under orders, it was no longer an individual offence, but a matter between the two nations, and recommended his release, but explained that the Federal Government had no power to take him from the custody of the state officers. England refused —very properly—to entertain as an excuse any defect in our system; saying, that every nation, pretending to hold relations with other nations, is bound to provide itself with the power to meet all just demands; and had not the New York jury disagreed at the trial, we should have had war upon that question.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=