« EdellinenJatka »
I now come, gentlemen, to state shortly the witnesses who will be called before you, (and that I will do very briefly,) and the substance of the evidence which will be adduced. We shall begin by proof which probably will admit of little or no question. I mean the evidence of workmen and others who were engaged in the ship-building yard of Messrs. Miller and Sons and in the foundery of Fawcett and Company, during the progress there of the Alexandra, and you will see when I mention the substance of their evidence, how important it was that I should give you some description of the various persons whose names have been mentioned as the names of individuals who from time to time, without any kind of hindrance or obstruction, resorted to the yard and took part in giving directions for the construction of the vessel and in taking counsel with those who were more immediately concerned. Now I shall call before you a person by the Dame of Acton, who was a watchmen in Messrs. Miller and Sons yard, and who will speak to you of the frequent inspection of this vessel while building by Mr. Hamilton, whose name I have mentioned to you, and by Captain Bulloch, a very prominent person in those proceedings, and also by Mr. Mann, a member of the firm of Fawcett, Preston and Company. With reference to the character of the vessel you will find the evidence of a person by the name of Barnes, who had been engaged in the yard by those very gentlemen, Messrs. Miller and Company, in the building of two gunboats which were built for the British government, and which were handed over to them—two gunboats, one named the Penguin and the other the Steady. He will give you his general observations which led him to the conclusion that this vessel is a guboat and was so intended, and, as far as that is of importance, will state the resemblance to the two gunboats I have mentioned. You will also have evidence as to Captain Tessier, equally and under like circumstances inspecting the progress of the Alexandra; you will have the fact that the machinery for the Alexandra was constructed in the foundery of Messrs. Fawcett, Preston and Company, and that one large gun aud two small ritle swivel guns were also constructed in the foundery for the purpose of being placed in and forming part of the armament of the Alexandra. You will also have cases of interference spoken of with reference to the proceedings at the foundery of Messrs. Fawcett, Preston and Company, by Mr. Hamilton, and by other persons whose names will be mentioned
That, gentlemen, will be the substance of the evidence in respect to the construction of the vessel, and with respect to the visit and inspection of various persons during the progress. But then, to put the character of the vessel still more out of doubt, I shall call before you Captain Inglefield, the captain of the Queen's ship Majestic, stationed at Liverpool. I shall call before you Mr. Green, a very eminent and experienced ship-builder; a man of the name of Black, a very old experienced ship’s carpenter; and the testimony of those gentlemen will place the matter beyond doubt that the destination of this vessel was a warlike and not a mercantile destination.
Then, in order to establish the character and connection of Frazer, Trenholm and Company, I propose to show you by the actual conduct of those gentlemen and by the business transacted at their office by Captain Bulloch and others, that they also are agents of the confederate government. Now, that will be, I think, satisfactorily proved to you on the evidence of a person named Yonge, who was formerly a paymaster in the confederate navy, and formerly a purser of' tlie ship I have named, the Alabama. He will tell you it was his duty to make payments to naval officers and others on behalf of the confederate government, and that he received a regular formal appointment as paymaster in the confederate service from Captain Bulloch; and that with reference to the payments that he made, and they were numerous, he drew upon Fraser, Trenholm and Company, who honored his drafts; and that payments were made will be proved beyond a doubt. Then, in order that there may be no doubt, and only for this purpose, as to the character and relation to the confederate government of Captain Bullock and Captain Tessier particularly, I shall show to you their connection with the ship I have mentioned, the Alabama. We are not, as I said before, trying the case of the Alabama, but it does so happen that the Alabama has become and is, and the fact will be proved, a ship of war incorporated into the confederate navy, sailing under the confederate flag, and under the command of Captain Semmes, an officer of that navy, and, therefore, I shall show you that Captain Bulloch, when that vessel left its moorings at Birkenhead, to which it never returned, went with the Alabama-at that time it was called the No. 290, but there is no doubt about the identity of the Vessel-he returned from the vessel after she got to some point on the Irish coast, but afterward, the Alabama having sailed without armament, the ship called the Bahama was dispatched under the command of Captain Tessier; under whose command and orders and iu whose interest he was acting, you cannot doubt when I tell you the result. The Bahama was dispatched from Liverpool for the purpose of doing that which it subsequently accomplished, I mean meeting with the Alabaina, and she took out on that voyage Captain Semmes, whose name is so well known to us all, she took out Captain Bulloch, and was commanded by Captain Tessier, and when the Alabama was met with, Captain Semmes left the Bahama and then assumed that character which he has since sustained, of the captain and conmander of the Alabama, and Captain Tessier returned to Liverpool, bringing Captain Bulloch with him. I mention these circumstances for the purpose of leaving no real practical doubt on your minds that these persons are and have been acting as the avowed and undoubted agents of the confederate government. It is of importance for the case of the Crown that you should adopt that conclusion, if the facts satisfy you it is right, because then the fact of interference, meddling, and control during the construction of this vessel, and its arrangement on the part of these persons comes to have its significance, of which it would be entirely devoid unless this connection between the individuals and the confederate government was satisfactorily established. Other supplies of arms and ammunition were transferred from the Bahama to the Alabama, and those entirely or in part (we shall find how that is by the evidence) came from the stores of Messrs. Fawcett, Preston and Company. We know from what has happened, I may treat it as a matter of history, that the Alabama has a very formidable armament of guns, and those were manufactured and furnished by Fawcett, Preston and Company; they make no concealment of it, because you will be told that their names are on the guns to this moment. Therefore, I think the matter of connection between these individuals and the confederate government is really placed beyond any reasonable donbt.
Now, gentlemen, this is the substance of the evidence which on the part of Crown it is intended to lay before you.
Gentlemen, there is another part of the case which I had hoped to have been able to state to you as being as complete with reference to this matter of agency as the case of the Alabaina. It may turn out to be so, but it would perhaps not be fair in my present state of information on this subject (for the evidence in a case of this description comes very much by driblets) to pledge myself as to another vessel which I will mention, I mean the Oreto, which did pass to the confederate government, and is in their hands under the name of the Florida; certain evidence may be laid before you as to that vessel, but at present I should hardly feel justified in stating to you details.
The LORD CHIEF BARON. What is the name of that vessel ?
The ATTORNEY GENERAL. The Orato, or Oreto, my lord. However, I shall show to you that a vessel called the Oreto originally was built by the same builders, Messrs. Miller and Sons. You will hear the circumstances under which that vessel left Liverpool, I think Captain Bulloch on that occasion, as on the occasion of the Alabama, going out on the first or trial trip. You will hear the proceedings with respect to the crew of that vessel, the circumstances under which they were taken from Liverpool, and under which many of them returned, refusing to take naval service, and those who did return received their pay from the firin of Fawcett, Preston and Company. We shall see how the evideuce will affect that vessel, and if the evidence is what I hope it will be, but I am not absolutely in a condition to say at this moment, then you will have the case of the Alabama over again in the case of the Oreto, which is now passing under the name of the Florida.
Now, before I sit down and proceed to call the witnesses, let me say a word or two as to the substance of the proof that I have detailed and on which I rely. I rely on the proof of the agency of the various individuals as satisfactory and complete. I rely on the evidence of the interference of those individuals with reference to the Alabama as not in all probability admitting of dispute, and then I rely on some important admissions which I have stated to you. Then if it be true that these persons, thus being the agents of one of the belligerents, did interfere in one or the other of the ways I have described, the question arises, Why should this be and how is it to be accounted for? I will leave my friends who appear for Messrs. Fawcett, Preston and Company, unless they may be able to displace the facts which I am instructed will be proved before you, to answer that question. What business had Captain Bulloch with the Alexandra ? What business had Captain Tessier with the Alexandra ? What business bad any member of the firm of Fraser, Trenholm and Company with that ship? I cast about in vain for an answer to the question. I can only answer it in one way. I can only answer it in this way, that they had a like interest which they or others like them had in the construction and arrangement of the precursor of the Alexandra, the Alabama, that is to say, that interest which belonged to them as agents of the government for whose warlike purposes this ship was built and intended. At all events I think I may ask you to adopt that conclusion in the absence of some evidence which may clear up this which I venture to think is already clear, but which however may be thought, on the part of Fawcett, Preston and Company, to admit of solution in the way of proof. If it admits of a satisfactory solution in the way of proof, and if these gentlemen appear in the box, and displace, not suspicions, but very clear and satisfactory proof, unanswered, then you will have before you materials for your conclusion which may lead to a very different result from that which I think must follow if you shall be left to found your verdict entirely on the evidence I shall lay before you. However, I will not further occupy your time; there is a considerable amount of evidence as you may suppose to be laid before you, and I shall have the opportunity at a future stage of this case, should it be necessary, to trouble you with such further observations as it may appear to me, in the discharge of my public duty, the state of the evidence may then justify and require.
EDWARD MORGAx, esq., sworn, examined by Mr. Solicitor General:
Did you, under orders from her Majesty's government, seize the ship Alexandra on the 5th of April last?- I did.
Before the date of that seizure had you had opportunities of observing the ship in the course of construction ?-Yes; I saw her from the earliest day almost that she was upon the stocks. Where was she when you saw her ?-She was in the yard of Messrs. Miller. Here they the builders ?- They were the builders.
Do you recollect when she was launched ?-She was launched in the early part of March.
Do you know the firm of Messrs. Miller & Sons, the builders ?-I know Mr. Miller and I know the sons; two of the sons.
Do you know Mr. Thomas Miller ? Is he one of the sons ?-He is one of the sons.
Do you know the name of the father? Is it Mr. William Cowley Miller ?- It is Mr. Williain Miller, and the other initial is C.
Was Mr. Thomas Miller, one of the sons, actively in the yard about the business of the firm :-He was.
When you seized the Alexandra, what was going on at the time on board the ship; was she complete ?-When I seized her, about the time of the seizure the workmen were variously engaged on board her.
Do you recollect whether they were preparing anything for the hammock nettings :-Yes; they were fitting the stanchions for the hammock nettings.
Were there iron stanchions on board the ship, in the hold ?—They were fitted in their places.
Do you recollect whether the masts were up ?-All three of them.
Were there any lightning conductors upon them ?-There were lightning conductors upon each mast. Did you make yourself acquainted with the tonnage of the ship ?-Yes.
Will you state what it is 1-Her gross tonnage is one hundred and fifty-three tons, and that is by the new mode of admeasurment.
What would the registered tonnage be ?–The registered tonnage would be eightythree tons.
Is she registered as a ship ?-No.
And according to what is called builder's measurement, what would her tonnage be?I think she is about two hundred and fifty tons.
Now about the seizure; the working continued a little time, did not it ?—The 5th was on Sunday; it continued to the Thursday, the 9th.
And then it was stopped !-Then it stopped.
LORD CHIEF Baron. You say then it stopped. Why was it stopped ?-I stopped the workmen on the 9th.
Cross-examined by Mr. Karslake:
My learned friend said that you received orders from her Majesty's government; who gave you the order to seize the ship !--I acted under the collector of customs at Liverpool.
Who was the collector of customs 1-Mr. Price Edwards.
Had you at that time been to the office of Messrs. Duncan, Squarey & Co. at all ?I never was in their office.
Not before or since !-No.
He is an extensive ship builder, I believe, is he not, in Liverpool ?—He carries on a considerable business.
Is the name up on the yard, W. C. Miller ?-I think that is it.
Mr. W. C. Miller is a man of considerable age is he not ?-He is between fifty and sixty.
And Mr. Thomas Miller, whom you mentioned, is a young man of between twentythree and twenty-four ?-About that.
Have you been in charge of the ship since ?—Yes.
Have you been there from time to time 1-Yes.
Since you have seized the vessel and been in possession of her, how many ditferent surveyors have surveyed her?-I do not know. Do you mean customs surveyors ?
We will have enstoms surveyors first ?-I suppose most of the surveyors lave visited ler; but it more immediately belongs to my department to pay attention to her.
Most of them have visited hier ?-I should suppose so; she has been an object of attraction.
Do you know, from seeing them there, that they have been there?—I do not. I never saw any other surveyor there but myself.
Excluding the customs surveyors, how many persons engaged in ship building have
How long after you had seized the vessel did you see him there ?-Perhaps three weeks.
Have you seen the same man here ?-No.
Mr. Hobbs, did you see him ?–Mr. Hobbs; no, I did not see him inspecting the vessel. I went down to the vessel with Mr. Hobbs.
Who is Mr. Hobbs 1-He is admiralty agent.
Re-examined by Mr. Solicitor General : Did you understand that Messrs. Miller carried on business under any firm ?--I think so; I have heard so.
By what firm were Messrs. Miller known at Liverpool ?
Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL. Do you kuow under what firm Messrs. Miller carried on business at Liverpool ?-It stands in the directory as Miller and Sons.
Mr. KARSLAKE. I must object to the question being put in that way.
Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, (to the witness.) Is that firm, to your knowledge, known at Liverpool as Messrs. Miller and Sons ?
LORD CHIEF Baron. Have you transacted business with them, or seen business transacted with them ?-I have not transacted any business with them.
Have you seen any business transactions with them ?-No; I have been told sinceMr. KARSLAKE. You must not continue your answer. JOSEPI ACTON Sworn, and examined by the Queen's Advocate. Where do you reside ?-At No. 4 court, Blair street. Blair street, Liverpool ?—Yes. Do you know the firm of Messrs. Miller and Sons I-I do. Were you ever employed by them #-I have been. How were you employed by them ?-As watchman, night and day. When was that? When did you begin to be employed as night and day watchman ?Fifteen months ago; rather better; somewhere about that.
When did you cease to be employed by them ?-About six or eight weeks ago.
When you were in Messrs. Miller's service, do you recollect the Alexandra being constructed 1-Yes.
Built in their yard ?—Yes.
Did you ever hear them, that is, either Mr. Miller or his sons, and people speak of the Alexandra by any name?-Yes.
Sir Hugh CAIRNS. Before my learned friend claims an answer to that question, I should ask your lordship to consider whether a statement made, supposing a statement were made, by one or other of the Messrs. Miller, in the present state of the cause, can be any evidence against those for whom I have the honor of appearing, namely, Messrs. Fawcett, Preston & Company.
LORD CHIEF Baron. The first question now put seems to me to be unobjectionable. The witness, I think, ought to be cautioned as to any answer he gives to any ulterior question. The statements of some of the firm who are building the ship may be very good evidence as to some matters connected with her, such as whether she was made of teak or of oak, whether certain parts of her were steel or cast iron, and so on; but the ulterior purpose of her being built, as disclosed by them, may affect them. A
qnestion will arise, I think, about it, and then I shall wish the question to be discussed. Fortunately, I shall have an opportunity of taking the opinion of my brother Martin, who is sitting in the adjoining court, and I shall have his assistance in coming to any conclusion.
The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE. The next question I am going to put is this. Do not answer this question until you hear my lord's opinion upon it, or rather until you are told. You say you heard the Alexandra spoken of by Messrs. Miller and Sons.
LORD CHIEF BARON. You had better put the question to me, and not to the witness, which you propose to put.
The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE. The question I am about to put is this : Did you ever hear the Alexandra described by Mr. Miller or by his sons, or called by any name or any description ?
LORD) CHIEF Barox. That is to show that the name by which she was called had some connection with her supposed ulterior purpose. The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE. Certainly, my lord.
Sir Hugh CAIRNS. Does my learned friend use the term "name" as we use the name of a ship?
The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE. No, by any name or description.
LORD CHIEF BARON. I may take it at once that it was a question the object of which was to show what was her ulterior purpose and destination.
Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL. I should submit rather to determine what her then character was, what kind of a ship she was; that would relate not to her destination, but to her then condition and class.
LORD CHIEF Baron. That could be proved by anybody else who saw her. You see, Jr. Attorney, one should be very cautions not unnecessarily to raise any difficulty on the question of evidence. If it be a question merely whether the ship was seventy feet long and twenty feet wide, whether she was broad in such a part of her and narrow in another, then that may be proved without taking the expression of one of the Millers about it; but if it is meant by what he said of her to give a character to her of a different kind, then I think it is as well at once to raise the question.
Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL. We certainly want to obtain, as we suppose, what was alleged as descriptive of the kind of ship at that time.
LORD CHIEF BARON. That is the use that was to be made of her.
Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL. No doubt the use would turn upon it, at the same time it is descriptive of her present state.
LORD CHIEF BARON. A description of the vessel may be obtained from anybody who has seen her.
Sir Hugh CAIRNS. Now, my lord, we see that there are two objects.
SIR HUGH CAIRNS. I object to that question, and I am very glad we understand exactly the objects of the question, because we shall not be arguing at cross-purposes with regard to it. I understand 'my learned friends to desire an answer to that question in order to elicit, as they suppose, a statement made either by Mr. Miller or one of his sons, which would show the destination and the object intended to be effected by the vessel in question. Now, my lord, I object to that upon two grounds; first, upon the very tenable ground which I may as well mention in order that your lordship may have the whole question before you. This is a question put with regard to statements said to have been made by Mr. Miller or his sons.
Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL. We will take the senior Mr. Miller for the present.
Sir Hugh CAIRNS. Your lordship will be good enough, then, to consider the question as not being asked in this form : "Did you hear anything from Mr. Miller or his sons ?” but, “ from Mr. Miller, senior ?" My learned friends limit it to that, and that narrows the point which we have to discuss.
Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL. The first question, that is.
SIR HUGH CAIRNS. The question is this: Did you ever hear the Alexandra described by any name or description or character by Mr. W. C. Miller ? And I submit that in this present stage of the cause no answer to that question could be evidence. If the object is to show that, as a matter of fact, the vessel was of a particular build or mold or description or character, that can be proved like any matter of fact by a witness who will come forward and tell us anything he wishes to tell us about the vessel. If the object is not to ascertain what the vessel was, or what peculiarity there was about her, but what certain persons said about that vessel and her intention, then we must consider who is the person said to have made these statements. Now, I want to know by what possibility, at this stage of the cause, can a statement made by Mr. Miller as to the object or destination of the vessel bo evidence in the cause. I agree that if Mr. Miller, while performing a certain work upon the vessel, makes a statement about the work he is performing, it may be part of the evidence about the work