English Neutrality: Is the Alabama a British Pirate?

IS THE ALABAMA A BRITISH PIRATE? 31 Admiralty, declared, concerning the law of nations relating to pirates: “If it was clearly proved that the accused committed robbery and murder on the high seas, they were adjudged to be pirates, and suffered accordingly................ It does not follow that, because rebels and insurgents may commit against the ruling powers of their own country, acts of violence, they may not commit piratical acts against the subjects of other states. The same question arose shortly after the abdication of James II., in a manner to make it, in all essentials, precisely parallel to the one on hand. “ That case involved a discussion of the general principle, whether, a deposed sovereign, claiming to be soveieign de jure, might lawfully commission privateers against the subjects and adherents of the sovereign de facto on the throne; or whether they were to be regarded as pirates, inasmuch as they were sailing animo furandi et deproedendi without any national character.” And, after stating at length the argument on both sides, Mr. Phillimore gives as his judgment; “ That, after allowing every deduction in their favor, the reason of the thing must be allowed to preponderate greatly towards the opinion of Tindal, that these privateersmen were, bv the law of nations, pirates.” (1 Phiili. 398-406.) But, whatever may be the correct judgment upon this point, one thing is certain, that all the character these vessels possess, is British ; and that if they are pirates at all, they are British pirates, roaming the seas, with the implied permission, if not actual connivance, of that government; and that for the depredations of these vessels, Great Britain is, by the spirit of the law, the usage of nations, and, especially, the precedent established in her favor and on her demand in 1794, bound to pay, even to the last dollar of loss. 1 have undertaken this hasty investigation, on account of the importance which international affairs are assuming in consequence of the outrages of these lawless rovers, and because of the prevalent ignorance—in which I fully shared—as to the true character and extent of our right in the premises. Fortunately, the historical facts which have been cited, are such as carry the argument upon their face; and, for the few conclusions which it has been necessary to draw, it is not doubted that they will be found by those who may give this grave subject more deliberate consideration—to be, in all essential characteristics, sustained by both the letter and spirit of the law. For the purpose of a brief recapitulation, these conclusions may be 76 - H 55-

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=