the subject of its sovereignty and true independence, in such a crisis as this, are wisely disregarded. I am, sir, your obedient servant, SIR: Your despatch of the 16th of May, No. 160, has been received. The arguments for the restitution of the Emily St. Pierre are so conclusive that I am happy in being authorized to assume them on behalf of this government without making any addition to them. Of course we cannot send our naval police into British waters to recapture the Emily St. Pierre and bring her before our courts of admiralty. You have been instructed to take counsel upon the question whether our captors can maintain proceedings against the rescuers and the vessel in the British admiralty. When you shall have given us the result of these inquiries I shall again submit the whole subject to the President for his further directions. I am, sir, your obedient servant, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, Esq., &c., &c., &c. WILLIAM H. SEWARD. No. 174.] Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: I have the honor to transmit a copy of Lord Russell's note to me, just received, in reply to mine of the 28th of May, on the subject of the ship Emily St. Pierre. At the same time I transmit a copy of my reply. It seems to me that after this no resource is left in cases of seizure for violating the blockade but to put the officers in irons. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. Earl Russell to Mr. Adams. FOREIGN OFFICE, June 12, 1862. SIR: I have had the honor to receive your further letter of the 28th of May respecting the case of the Emily St. Pierre. In that letter you profess to review and re-examine all the circumstances of the case; but I do not observe that you cite any new authorities in support of your claim for the surrender of the vessel to the captors from whom she was rescued, or that you refer to any precedent tending to show that a demand, similar to that which you now make, has been ever made by any belligerent upon a neutral government, or acceded to by a neutral govern ment. Passing, however, to the observations in your letter now before me, her Majesty's goverment cannot acquiesce in your assumption that the governments of nations incur any responsibility for wrongful and fraudulent acts committed by their subjects against friendly nations by not taking positive measures of their own, manifesting either the determination to repress such acts on the part of their subjects, or the desire to repair them after they have been committed. It is a general principle that each nation deals only with offences committed against its own laws, and is not called upon to carry into effect, or to aid in carrying into effect, the laws of foreign nations against persons who may have violated them, and who may be found within its territory. England, France, and the United States have constantly, either by diplomatic acts, or by decisions of their tribunals, expressed their opinion that, upon principles of international law, irrespective of treaty, the surrender of a foreign criminal who has taken refuge within their territory cannot be demanded. Such a criminal has not offended against the law of the country in which he is found, and that country is not bound to take notice of his having violated the law of a foreign State; and therefore, by parity of reason, neutral nations are not bound to punish their subjects for offences committed only against the laws of war as enforced by belligerents, nor to restore property rescued by their subjects from foreign captors. It is notorious that a nation takes no notice of offences either begun or committed, or carried out and concluded, within its territory against the fiscal laws of another nation; it lends such nations no aid in enforcing those laws, or in apprehending or punishing those who break them; it does not restore property brought into its territory out of a foreign state by smuggling; it does not interfere with property in its territory or on board its vessels "in transitu" to be smuggled into a foreign state; it incurs no international responsibility by tolerating the acts of persons engaged in such transactions; it does not attempt by any positive measures of its own to manifest either the will to repress the commission of the act or the desire to repair it after it is done. The principle on which the foreign enlistment act is founded is broadly distinguishable from, and is a plain exception to, what I have now stated. Attempts on the part of the subjects of a neutral government to take part in a war, or to make use of the neutral territory as an arsenal or barrack for the preparation and inception of direct and immediate hostilities against a State with which their government is at peace, as by enlisting soldiers or fitting out ships-of-war, and so converting, as it were, neutral territory into a hostile depot or post in order to carry on hostilities therefrom, have an obvious tendency to involve in the war the neutral government which tolerates such proceedings. Such attempts, if unchecked, might imply, at least, an indirect participation in hostile acts, and they are, therefore, consistently treated by the government of the neutral state as offences against its public policy and safety, which may thereby be implicated. But these acts are widely different from such offences against the laws of war exclusively as attempts by merchant ships to break blockade or the rescue of an individual ship from her prize crew. Not only in the case of neutrals in war, but in all cases falling within the same general principle, the nation to whom the parties complained of belong leaves to other nations who may suffer by the acts of such parties the infliction of the penalty. It may happen that the nation receiving the injury may have an opportunity of resenting it should. it, perchance, catch the offenders within its jurisdiction. Had the Emily St. Pierre fallen a second time into the hands of a United States cruiser, a prize court of the United States would, in all probability, have condemned the ship and cargo. Nor would her Majesty's government have complained of a condemnation judicially pronounced in accordance with the law of nations. Her Majesty's government, in adhering to this line of conduct, are, therefore, acting in accordance with reason, policy, and the common and universal usage of nations in like cases. You speak of the rescue of the Emily St. Pierre as being a fraud by the law of nations. But whether the act of rescue be viewed as one of fraud or of force, or as partaking of both characters, the act was done only against the rights accruing to a belligerent under the law of nations relating to war, and in violation of the law of war; which, whilst it permits the belligerent to exercise and enforce such rights against neutrals by the peculiar and exceptional right of capture, at the same time leaves to the belligerent alone the duty and confers upon him the power of vindicating such rights and of enforcing such law. The same law not only does not require, but does not even permit, neutral nations to carry out belligerent rights. You allude to the conduct of the United States government in the case of the Trent; but the flagrant wrong done in that case was done by a naval officer in the service of the United States; the prisoners whose release was demanded were in the direct custody and keeping of the executive government, and the government of the United States had actually the power to deliver them up, and did deliver them up, to the British government. But the Emily St. Pierre is not in the power of the executive government of this country; and the law of England, as well as the law of nations, forbids the executive government from taking away that ship from its legal owners. I do not think it necessary to dwell, or even to remark, on the observations which you repeat in your present letter as to the terms of her Majesty's proclamation, and as to the course which you suggest her Majesty's government should adopt for giving effect to them. I can only again assure you that her Majesty's government have been most careful in observing strictly that impartial course which neutrality enjoins. I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obedient, humble servant, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, Esq., &c., &c., &c. RUSSELL. Mr. Adams to Earl Russell. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, MY LORD: I have the honor to acknowledge the reception of your lordship's note of the 12th instant, in reply to mine of the 28th of May last, on the case of the ship Emily St. Pierre. As I do not perceive that its contents materially change the nature of the issue that had been already made. up, I shall content myself with the transmission of a copy, to complete the correspondence on the subject, to the government of the United States. I pray your lordship to accept the assurances of the highest consideration with which I have the honor to be, my lord, your most obedient servant, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. Right Hon. EARL RUSSELL, &c., &c., &c. Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. [Extracts.] No. 175.] LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: I have to acknowledge the reception of despatches from the department numbered from 259 to 267, both inclusive. * * * * The general tenor of these papers is more cheering than that of any received within a corresponding space of time since the day I first arrived at this post. I am in hopes that the effect of the intelligence may be useful here, where the genuine sentiment of the governing classes becomes more and more visible every hour. The only consolation now left for the disappointed spirits who have so confidently counted upon a division of the Union into two nations is the belief that at any rate there can be no lasting harmony whilst we remain one. The eagerness with which they hunt up the petty details to confirm this notion, and keep out of sight whatever goes shake it, is deserving of notice only as it betrays the temper in which the struggle has been viewed in this kingdom from the outset. to Since the despatch of your No. 261 you will have received my letter of the 30th of May, No. 168, covering a copy of my note to Lord Russell and his reply, which close the correspondence respecting the case of the Emily St. Pierre. I am not sure whether, as the matter has been left, the government would consider it advisable that I should act on the suggestion in your letter. All the consultations with lawyers and efforts to invoke the aid of courts made thus far have terminated only in the payment of large fees to the one and the abnegation of rights of jurisdiction by the other. Should it be the wish of the President, however, after an examination of the whole correspondence, to take that course, I shall very cheerfully adopt it. It is not a little strange that this very question appears to have occupied the attention of the two governments so far back as in the year 1800. My attention has been called to this fact by my under secretary, Mr. Moran, who happened to find the correspondence on the subject in the third volume of the collection of American State Papers relating to foreign affairs. It was the British government which then made the claim on almost the identical grounds taken by me, and the American declined acceding to it, substantially for the same reasons given by Lord Russell. The case is the more remarkable that it is shown to have been decided not without difficulty in the cabinet of President Adams. The opinion of Mr. McHenry, as given in that work, is not less remarkable for its soundness than for its singular sagacity in predicting the ill consequence of the course then taken. At that date the law of rescue had not been laid down with the distinctness which it had assumed under the dicta of Lord Stowell. In the course that I felt it my duty to take I have acted on my own responsibility, it is true, but as yet I see nothing to take back. I have the honor to transmit copies of the correspondence relating to the claim of the ship Daring, of Boston, which has passed in consequence of the directions contained in your despatch No. 257. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. Mr. Adams to Earl Russell. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, MY LORD: I am instructed to submit to the consideration of her Majesty's government copies of papers relating to the ship Daring, of Boston, in the United States, and to the damage and loss experienced by the owners, growing out of the detention of a shipment of a quantity of saltpetre at Calcutta, in the month of December last, made prior to the reception of her Majesty's proclamation prohibiting the export thereof. As I cannot entertain a doubt of the disposition of her Majesty's government to administer relief in cases of hardship to citizens of a friendly nation engaged in legitimate trade, occasioned by the retroactive operation of a public act of which they could have had no knowledge, provided that the facts be clearly established, I simply content myself with expressing the hope that the papers will receive from your lordship such attention as they shall appear on examination to deserve. Renewing the assurances of my highest consideration, I have the honor to be, my lord, your most obedient servant, Right Hon. EARL RUSSELL, &C., &c., &c. CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. Earl Russell to Mr. Adams. FOREIGN OFFICE, June 16, 1862. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 11th instant, enclosing papers relative to the claim of the owners of the United States vessel Daring, to be compensated by her Majesty's government on account of the detention of some saltpetre shipped on board that vessel at Calcutta, and I have to inform you that I have lost no time in forwarding these papers for the consideration of the proper department of her Majesty's government. I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obedient, humble servant, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, Esq., &c., &c., &c. RUSSELL. Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. No. 176.] LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: I had a conference with Lord Russell yesterday at four o'clock. I began it by asking for copies of the papers relating to the case of Mr. Fauchet, mentioned in the memorandum attached to your No. 265. His lordship took a note and promised to furnish them. I then mentioned to him the receipt of a copy of the intercepted letter of Mr. Huse, which accompanied your No. 266. I observed that it went to show the representations heretofore made by me of the action of rebel |