IS THE ALABAMA A BRITISH PIRATE? 29 sidered belligerents, and no contract between a citizen of a neutral state and a belligerent, to aid in any way the prosecution of war, is lawful; on the contrary, every such agreement is, ah initio, void, and these vessels still remain the property of the British citizens who built them. The principle of law here stated has been decided solemnly in both England and America. The English case is Demetrius de Wiitz v. Hendricks (9 Moore, C. P. Rep., 586-7; tried in 1824). The facts of that case involved a contract to raise money to aid the Greeks in their revolt against the Porte, the plaintiff claiming to act for the exarch of Ravenna, under power of attorney, and the defendant being an English broker. The contract was declared by Lord Chief Justice Best to be void by the law of nations. The principal American case is Kennett v. Chambers (14 How. U. S. Rep., 38, 44). The facts were that Chambers, a Texan general, had agreed to convey a large tract of Texan lands in consideration of advances made, and to be made, at Cincinnati, for the purpose of aiding the Texans to carry on the revolution against Mexico, with which power we were at peace. The contract was made at Cincinnati, in 1836, and the independence of Texas was not recognized by the President of the United States until 1837. A bill having been filed to obtain a specific performance of the contract to convey, the Court refused to enforce it, saying, “ the contract is not only void, but the parties who advanced the money were liable to be punished in a criminal prosecution for a violation of the neutrality laws of the United States.” Thus, it is seen that the Oreto and Alabama, originally sailing from English ports, manned by English law-breakers, are still the property of English owners; because all attempts on their part, if any such have been made, to convey their interests to our rebellious citizens, or any one of them, are absolutely void and of no effect. And it is a fair question for judicial and professional consideration, whether, in addition to the criminal proceedings given by the Foreign Enlistment Act, the owners of the Jacob Bell may not have their action for damages against Fawcett, Preston $ Co., of Liverpool, the owners of the Florida; and the owners of the Brilliant, and other vessels destroyed by the Alabama, their respective actions against Messrs. Laird, of Birkenhead, the reputed owners of that vessel.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=