No. 392.] Mr. Seward to Mr. Dayton. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, September 7, 1863. SIR: Your despatch of August 21 (No. 336) has been received. The explanation of Mr. Drouyn de l'Huys, in regard to the views of the Emperor's government concerning the Central American states, are unexceptionable; and I shall take pleasure in making them known to the parties in whose names the inquiry was instituted. I have read with much interest the statement you have given me of the remarks which Mr. Drouyn de l'Huys made informally to you concerning the position of the imperial government in Mexico. If we were now authorized to regard them as guaranteed by the Emperor, it will go far to relieve a solicitude, not only here, but in Europe, which I cannot but believe is becoming as inconvenient to France as it is to the United States. Before this despatch will be received you will, probably, have ascertained, in compliance with a previous instruction of mine, whether we are authorized to understand Mr. Drouyn de l'Huys as speaking by authority in the explanations he has thus made. SIR: Your despatch of the 20th of August (No. 334) has been submitted to the President, and I have the pleasure of stating that the explanation made by Mr. Drouyn de l'Huys, concerning the Moniteur article, is entirely satisfactory. I am, sir, your obedient servaut. SIR: Your despatch of August 27 (No. 339) has been received. We await with much concern the action of the imperial government upon your note protesting against the bailing of the Florida at Brest. I am, sir, your obedient servant, SIR: Your despatch of the 27tb of August (No. 338) has been received. You will inform Mr. Drouyn de l'Huys that his prompt, efficient, and friendly proceedings in regard to the ram which is being built at Liverpool are appreciated by the President. I regret to say that reports of our consul at Liverpool leave little room to doubt that Mr. Bravay's pretences to interfere in regard to these vessels, as an agent from the Pacha of Egypt, are false and fraudulent. The consul writes that he had telegraphed to the consul general at Alexandria, and so it is probable that the truth will be ascertained. Should Mr. Bravay be proved to have been engaged in an attempt to deceive the French government, you will doubtless make a proper representation of the case. The Florida, you have doubtless seen, has been seized by private French claimants who have demands for damages against her. The claims in France are, I am told, more than equal to the value of the vessel. After consulting with our vice-consul at Brest, it was thought best for the government of the United States not to interfere or mix itself up in the question. The vessel has gone into dock, and will be there probably for a considerable time. They have landed some seventy-five of their crew and shipped them around to the English coast. They (the crew) were not, it is said, communicative, but those who did speak of their destination all agreed that they were bound for Liverpool to take charge of two confederate steamers awaiting them there. These are doubtless the iron-clads from Laird's yard which have been stopped by order of the government, as I am this morning informed by our consul at Liverpool. I should add that Captain Maffitt has been required by the consignee of the Florida to make a deposit for the expenses to be incurred in repairs, and has deposited 40,000 francs; some evidence of the extent of repairs contemplated. I am, sir. your obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, WILLIAM L. DAYTON. No. 345.] Mr. Dayton to Mr. Seward. PARIS, September 14, 1863. SIR: On Friday evening and the morning of Saturday last the report that the Emperor had acknowledged the south was general. The bourse became very much excited, and a fall in the public funds occurred, greater than has been known is so brief a space of time for some years. It was said that Mr. Slidell had made a cession to the Emperor, of Texas and part of Louisiana as a consideration for the acknowledgment. I immediately went to the foreign office. Mr. Drouyn de l'Huys at once said that the report was wholly groundless; that nothing new had occurred since our last conference. He further added that within the last twenty-four hours a series of false reports had been put in circulation upon this and upon other subjects. He could not understand for what object, but they were certainly intended for no friendly purpose towards us. He said he had given orders to Comte Treilhard, director of the press in the ministry of the interior, to contradict such reports, and, if possible, trace out and punish the authors of them; that there had been a conspiracy to spread false Later in the afternoon of Saturday a public notice, signed by the prefect of police and the minister of finance, was put up at the bourse, denying the truth of the several reports in circulation. This it would seem quieted the excitement. This agitation at the bourse has had at least one good effect; it has brought home to the knowledge of the government the serious view taken by capitalists and others of the probable consequences of a recognition of the south. Mr. Drouyn de l'Huys has promised me a note in writing on this subject, a copy of which, or its translation, I will send herewith if received in time. In the course of conversation reference was made to the almost universal report that our government only awaits the termination of our domestic troubles to drive the French out of Mexico. This idea is carefully nursed and circulated by the friends of secession here, and is doing us injury with the government. The French naturally conclude that if they are to have trouble with us, it would be safest to choose their own time. M. Drouyn de l'Huys referred to these matters, and said the Emperor had recently asked him if it were true, as the public journals alleged, that the United States had made a formal protest against the action of France in Mexico, and he had told him that no such protest had been made. I told him that, so far as I was concerned, I had received no orders to make such formal protest. That relying on the constant assurances of France as to its purposes in Mexico, and its determination to leave the people free as to their form of government, and not to hold or colonize any portion of their territories, my government had indicated to me no purpose to interfere in the quarrel; at the same time we had not at all concealed, as he well knew, our earnest solicitude for the well being of that country, and an especial sensitiveness as to any forcible interference in the form of its government. He said that these were the same general views held by you to M. Mercier, and reported by him to this government. I told him that France must well understand that we did not want war with her; to which he answered that she did not certainly wish war with us. When I referred to the rumored cession of Texas and part of Louisiana to the Emperor, he, in denying the fact, said these rumors were diabolical. He added that France wanted no territory there. I enclose you a slip cut from Galignani, containing the substance of what is, I presume, a semi-official exposition of the government as to its action in respect to the rebel ship Florida at Brest. I am, sir, your obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWALD, Secretary of State. WILLIAM L. DAYTON. From Galignani's liessenger. PARIS, September 14, 1863. The Constitutionnel, in a long and elaborate article, of which we subjoin the salient points, vindicates the conduct of the French government, which has been charged with showing undue favor to the confederate cruiser Florida, and argues that the reception that vessel has met with at Brest is in strict conformity with the duties of France as a neutral power. The fact is unquestionable that the French government, in allowing the Florida to refit at Brest, without permitting her, as the Moniteur declares, to re-enforce her armament, is acting in a manner perfectly consistent with the principles of the strictest neutrality. Again: is this course of action contrary to the special prescriptions of the declaration of neutrality made by France at the outset of the war? By no means; and on this point again demonstration is easy. What does the declaration in question declare? It com pletely assimilates men-of-war and privateers of the two contending parties on precisely the same footing, so that, in order to solve the question, the proposition might be reversed and the question asked, what would have been done if, instead of a confederate vessel, one from the north had presented itself at Brest? Assuredly the partisans of the federals would have indulged in the loudest complaints if an attempt had been made to apply to the United States vessel the treatment which they now demand for the Florida, and if the liberty of refitting, to enable it to put to sea again, had been denied. Let us continue; the declaration next states that neither of the belligerents, according to the French law, shall be received into our ports with prizes. Now, as we have already said, and it is well known, the Florida had no prizes with her. The seamen, prisoners of war, whom she had on board, could not be considered as a prize according to the meaning of the declaration, nor could their being landed on French soil be made the subject of a complaint against her. In this situation, we repeat, all that could be done was to carry into effect the assimilation between the two belligerents specified by our declaration of neutrality, and to treat the Florida exactly on the same footing as we would have treated a federal vessel of-war in the same situation. As to the assimilation in itself, as far as the south and the north are concerned, there is no need, in order to justify or to explain it, to resort to the supposition of the recognition of the south as an independent state. It is sufficient that the south should be a belligerent, and should be recognized as such, to be considered entitled to the advantages sanctioned by the laws of war. This leads us to examine a point which the adversaries of the south have largely commented on-the fact of the privateers' burning and sinking their prizes. Without seeking to excuse a measure which, in truth, must be considered as the very rigorous exercise of the rights of war carried to their extreme limits, we cannot refrain from remarking that as a matter of fact precedents might be found, and as a matter of law our own legislation tolerates the practice in more or less urgent cases Thus Valin, in Lis Commentaire de l'Ordonnance de la Marine," says that it is only forbidden to burn or sink captured vessels in the event of the captor wishing to dispose of his prize; and MM. Duverdy and Pistoye, the author of the "Nouveau Traité des Prises-Maritim s,' in alluding to this passage of Valin, make the following observation : "What Valin declared, under the régime of the naval ordinance, we must repeat under the authority of the decree of Prairial, which has preserved the same expressions." Our declaration of neutrality forbidding privateers to enter our harbors with prizes, the captors may thus consider it as a necessity, or an urgent need for them to burn their prizes, especially when they have themselves sustained damages which embarrass or retard them On that point some questions of interest to neutrals, the proprietors of the cargoes, may be raised; but the decision of those questions belongs to another order of ideas. Whatever may be the case, the fact of the belligerent burning his prize, constituting one of the rigorous consequences of the rights of war, it cannot in itself have any influence upon the neutrality of a foreign government, or modify in any way its duties or its rights." No. 346. Mr. Dayton to Mr. Seward. PARIS, September 17, 1863. SIR: Herewith I send you the translation of a letter from Mr. Kenos, our consular representative at Brest. From this and from other information which I have received, it would seem that the Florida will not be detained in port as long as we have heretofore had reason to suppose; that she may leave in the course of two or three weeks. I am, sir, your obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State, &c. WILLIAM L. DAYTON. [Translation.-Enclosure.] CONSULAR AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES, MONSIEUR LE MINISTRE: The reparations of the Florida go on with great speed, and this steamer will not be long before again going to sea. It is pretended that the seizures, operated on account of the misdoings of the Florida, are not all regular, and will not stop her. On the other hand, the commander, Maffitt. as well as his officers, declare that they fear no cruiser-that they will be able to avoid it It is presumable that the Florida will hereafter be detained bat a short time in port I am, with respect, your excellency's very obedient servant, His Excellency WILLIAM L. DAYTON, Plenipotentiary of the United States, Paris. KENOS. No. 347.] Mr. Dayton to Mr. Seward. PARIS, September 16, 1863. SIR: I did not receive the communication for Mr. Mercier which Mr. Drouyn de l'Huys promised me until last night. It came then in an open envelope, with a note requesting me, after reading it, to seal it and send it by my next courier, (meaning thereby the next despatch bag.) Having sealed it according to request, I herewith send it in an envelope to you, begging that you will have it promptly delivered to Mr. Mercier. The despatch commences with a remark complimentary to myself, and then goes on to state that I had inquired of him as to the truth of certain rumors afloat, to wit, that the Emperor had decided to recognize the south, and had even already signed a treaty by which the south agreed to cede to France, for herself or to be reconveyed to Mexico, Texas and part of Louisiana, and that Mr. Drouyn de l'Huys, at the same time, asked me if I had not heard other rumors calculated to disturb the good relations existing between our two countries-as that the United States had made its protest against the action of the French government in Mexico; had sent its fleet to Vera Cruz; and made a treaty offensive and defensive with Russia. He goes on to say that these suggestions were made less with a view to inquiring as to their truth than for the purpose of fortifying me against a belief in the rumors I had first referred to, the truth of which rumors he expressly denied. He then tells Mr. Mercier that I said I had no knowledge of and did not believe in the report that our navy was before Vera Cruz, or that we had made a treaty offensive and defensive with Russia, and that if you had instructed me to make a formal protest against their proceedings in Mexico I should have done so, which I had not; although, under the influence of your general correspondence on this subject, I had made him aware of the painful impression caused in my country by European intervention in Mexico, and our anxious solicitude as to any interference with the form of government there. He then tells Mr. Mercier that he had attached little importance to the rumors he had referred to, which probably originated in the same source as those to which I had referred. He then says to Mr. Mercier, "I repeated to him (Mr. Dayton) that which I had already often said to him, that we were not seeking, either for ourselves or others, any acquisition in America. I added (says he) that I hoped the good sense of the people of the United States would do justice to the exaggerations and false suppositions by the aid of which it was sought to mislead and embitter opinion, and that I counted upon his concurrence to try and make prevail a more just appreciation of our intentions and of the necessities which our policy obeyed." He then directs Mr. Mercier to communicate this conversation to you, and to use the text thereof to correct false judgments and unjustifiable imputations about him. I should add that as this despatch is, in part, in reference to the intentions of France in Mexico, in which you and the country are just now so much interested, I have thought it best to avoid mistakes by sending you the above, |