THE CRUISER SHENANDOAH.

Timaru Herald, Volume IV, Issue 97, 23 March 1866, Page 5

THE CRUISER SHENANDOAH.

[From the Times.']

The prosecution of Captain Corbett for inciting 1 British subjects to enlist on board the Shenandoah appears at first sight a' somewhat harsh proceeding. While the arch-offender, Captain Waddell, is still at large with his officers, and no steps have been taken, so far as we know, to indict any of them under the Foreign Enlistment Act, why should an example be made of one who, on any supposition, played but a secondary part m the affair ? Such is the question which may naturally occur to anybody who is not m the secrets of our Law Officers, but it is quite possible that a satisfactory answer could be given to it. It may be — and, indeed, it may rather be inferred from the evidence against Captain Corbett — that no breach of our laws could have been brought home to Captain Waddell or his subordinates. At all events, the charge on which Captain Corbett has been tried was first brought against him long before the Shenandoah returned, so unexpectedly, into British waters. It had to be investigated, therefore, entirely on its own merits, and upon these no other verdict than one of acquittal could have \ been returned by an impartial jury. We do not say, as his counsel was bold enough to contend, that Captain Corbett himself was so innocent as to believe that he was on a voyage to Bombay until the circumstances occurred which led to the prosecution, but simply that the case for the Crown broke down fatally on all its essential points. These virtually resolved themselves into four — that the defendant, on board the Sea King (afterwards the Shenandoah), endeavoured to persuade his crew generally to join the Confederate service ; that m particular he solicited a seaman, by name Allen, to accept the terms offered him by Captain Waddell ; that bcth these alleged offences were committed while the bea King was still a British ship, and for this purpose within Her Majesty's dominions ; and that, at least, he engaged the crew and commenced the voyage with a guilty intention to aid Captain Waddell m manning the Shenandoah with British seamen.

I The admitted facts are, for the most part, already familiar to the public. On the Bth of October the Sea King", a clipperbuilt steamer of some 800 tons, which had previously made one voyage to China, left the Thames, ostensibly for Bombay. Her registered owner was a Mr. Richard Wright, and it appears that there was an entry on her register empowering the captain to sell her for not less than £40,000. On the 18th of October she arrived off Madeira, and signalled another vessel, called the Laurel, which had cleared from Liverpool. The two vessels proceeded m company to an island called Desertas. That evening and part of the night were emploj'ed m shifting* large and heavy packages from the Laurel to the Sea King*, some of which, bursting open, literally " let the cat out of the bag," for their contents were found to be shot, shell, and ammunition. What took place on this occasion and on the following morning was the main question at issue, and, like most questions which turn on the exact expressions used at an exciting moment, it gave an opening for a direct conflict of testimony. All the witnesses concurred m stating that soon after they joined the Laurel a " gentleman m gray," who turned out to be Captain Waddell, came on board the Sea King. The morning after the boxes had been transhipped the crew, suspecting that something was wrong, began to grumble, and, according to the witnesses for the Crown, the defendant, Captain Corbett, then ordered all hands to be called aft, announcing the sale of the Sea King to Captain Waddell, and advised them to enlist under him. According to the witnesses for the defence, Captain Corbett merely informed the men that the ship was sold, and the contract with them broken, offering them two months' wages if they chose to go on m the vessel, or a free passage home with himself m the Laurel if they chose to return. An attempt was made on the part of the Crown to represent the two months' wages as a bribe for taking ser- j vice under Captain Waddell, but it was obviously capable of a more favourable construction, as the consideration for releasing Captain Corbett .and his owners of their obligations under the articles which they had signed with the men. The real dispute was as to the words used by Captain Corbett m his address to the crew, and although it was positively sworn that he did urge them to serve under the Confederate flag, we think the jury were fully justified m giving him the benefit of the doubt. There was abundant proof that the very language attributed to Corbett was actually uttered by Waddell, and the presumption was certainly strong that an interested bystander might have forgotten, or failed to remark, where the one stopped and the other began. The allegation that Captain Corbett had pressed Allen to remain with Captain Waddell, telling him that he would be very foolish to decline so good an offer, was less easy to explain away. It was supported by the oath of Allen himself, ana a man named Ellison professed to have heard the conversation ; but the story of these two men was not m, all respects consistent, and could not be reconciled with the answers made by the defendant to others who consulted him about joining the Shenandoah. Upon the whole, the impression left by the evidence adduced on both sides was that Captain Corbett had been well pleased to get rid of the few men who consented to give him a release from all further liability, and would not have been sorry if more had followed their example, but that he abstained from influencing them m any way that might compromise him. Even had he done so, it was by no means clear that he would have rendered himself amenable to any legal penalty, for the Sea King was to all practical intents, if not to all legal intents, a Confederate cruiser,, and not a

British merchantman, when the colloquy took place between the two captains and the men. *A fiirther suggestion, however, made by the Solicitor-General, had it ap{iroved itself to the jury, might still have ed to a conviction. This suggestion was m effect, that Captain Corbett's knowledgeof the Sea King's destination (which it was scarcely prudent to deny), coupled with his subsequent conduct, was enough to fasten upon him the design of placing his crew m a favourable position for beingenlisted. The Lord Chief Justice intimated a grave doubt whether so purely constructive a breach of the Foreign Enlistment Act as this would have amounted to a criminal act, and as the jury acquitted the prisoner of any such breach, m point of fact, it will be left for the present unsolved.

We cannot affect to be disappointed by the result of this trial, for it was, from the first, inevitable. Whatever we may think of those who planned or abetted the last evasion of our neutrality, we must admit that it was so executed as almost to defy legal prevention or legal retribution. There really is no ground for the assertion either that the Shenandoah was m any sense " equipped," or that her crew were m any sense enlisted, m a British port. Theweakness of the Solictor- General's cas& betrayed itself m the far-fetched arguments to which he was compelled to resort For instance, an enlistment for warlike purposes was inferred from the circumstance that Captain Corbett asked some of themen whom he engaged " this significant question, ' whether they were single men.' " No doubt, bachelors would be generally considered more eligible for dangerous enterprises, though a famous Spartan. General always preferred married men and fathers ; but there is something comical m relying on such an expression for a proof of a crime of this nature. We may all have our suspicions of what Captain Corbett did or aid not contemplate, but the question is singly and solely what he did,, and he seems to have done nothing which was otherwise than innocent m law. Of course, it is a very strange and novel transaction to sell a ship upon the high seas, and as Captain Corbett thought proper to disguise it by stating falsely that he was bringing home a shipwrecked crewy our Consul at lenerifie acted most properly m arresting him. It was equally the duty of our Government to prosecute him, andi not to desist from the prosecution until a verdict was obtained.