No. 659. been carried on in the ordinary mode of bargain and sale, without regard to 30. Dec. 1862. extent of the agency of the United States on this side of the Atlantic during the present war, and no more, it appears clear from the positions assumed by your Lordship, in the very note to which I have the honour to reply, that thus far they have given no reasonable ground for complaint at all. The citations to which your Lordship has done me the favour to call my attention, as drawn from American authors of admitted eminence, all contribute to establish the fact that the mere purchase, or export by a belligerent from a neutral, of arms and munitions of war does not involve any censure on either party. I do not at the present moment entertain a design to question the correctness of that doctrine. As a necessary consequence, I can scarcely perceive the fitness of associating such actions as I have shown that of the United States to be, in the same category with that of which the Government of the United States has heretofore instructed me to complain. ¶ And here, I beg to call your Lordship's attention to the fact that it is not the mere purchase or exportation of arms and warlike stores by the agents of the insurgents in America of which I have ever complained. There is another, and a very important element in the case, to which your Lordship does not appear to have given the consideration which, so far as one may be permitted to judge from the concurring testimony of all writers on international law, it certainly deserves. The United States have made an actual blockade of all the ports occupied by the insurgents a blockade the validity of which Great Britain does not dispute. They are, therefore, entitled to consider every neutral who shall attempt to enter one of them, or carry anything in the besieged, as violating his neutrality and converting himself into an enemy. Hence, it happens that every British subject engaged in the work of aiding the insurgents, by introducing contraband of war into blockaded ports, not only violates his duty to his Sovereign, but commits an exceedingly aggravated and injurious offence to the Government of the United States. To associate such proceedings with the mere purchase and export of arms on behalf of the United States, as of equal significance, would seem to be most inequitable. It is a fact, that few persons in England will now be bold enough to deny, first, that vessels have been built in British ports, as well as manned by Her Majesty's subjects, with the design and intent to carry on war against the United States; secondly, that other vessels owned by British subjects have been and are yet in the constant practice of departing from British ports, laden with contraband of war, and many other commodities, with the intent to break the blockade and to procrastinate the war; thirdly, that such vessels have been and are insured by British merchants in the commercial towns of this kingdom with the understanding that they are despatched for that illegal purpose. It is believed to be beyond denial that British subjects have been and continue to be enlisted in this kingdom in the service of the insurgents with the intent to make war on the United States, or to break the blockade legitimately established, and to a proportionate extent to annul its purpose. It is believed that persons high in social position and in fortune contribute their aid directly and indirectly in 30. Dec. 1862. building and equipping ships of war, as well as other vessels, and furnishing No. 659. Vereinigte money, as well as goods, with the hope of sustaining the insurgents in their Staaten, resistance to the Government. To that end the port of Nassau, a colonial dependency of Great Britain, has been made and still continues to be the great entrepôt for the storing of supplies, which are conveyed from thence with the greater facility in evading the blockade. In short, so far as the acts of these numerous and influential parties can involve them, the British people may be considered as actually carrying on war against the United States. Already, British property valued at 8,000,000 l. sterling is reported to have been captured by the vessels of the United States for attempts to violate the blockade, and property of far greater value has either been successfully introduced, or is now stored at Nassau awaiting favourable opportunities. If it be necessary to furnish to your Lordship a clearer idea of the nature and extent of this warfare, it may perhaps be obtained by reference to the two papers which I have the honour to append to the present note. The one contains a list of screw-steamers and sailing-vessels which have been, or still are, engaged in this illegal commerce, furnished to me from observation by the Consul of the United States at Liverpool. The other is a copy of a letter from the Consul in London, giving a further list of vessels, together with some particulars as to the mode by which and the persons by whom, this hostile system is carried on. Neither of these lists can be regarded as complete, but the two are sufficiently for the present purpose, which is to place beyond contradiction the fact of the extensive and systematic prosecution by British subjects of a policy towards the United States which is uniformly characterized by writers on international law as that of an enemy. I am not unaware of the regret expressed in your Lordship's note at the existence of this state of things, as well as of the readiness with which you have acquiesced in the possible application by the forces of the United States of the penalty held over the heads of the offenders in Her Majesty's Proclamation. But my present object in referring so much at large to these offences is to show the great injustice of your Lordship in proceeding to comment upon the action of the respective belligerents as if there was a semblance of similarity between them. So far as the United States are shown to be involved in censure, it is simply by the purchase and export of arms and munitions of war from a neutral; an act which your Lordship expressly points out eminent authority to my attention to prove implies no censurable act on either party. Whilst, on the other hand, it is American insurgents who find British allies to build in this kingdom, and to equip and send forth war-ships to depredate on the commerce of a friendly nation, and it is British subjects who load multitudes of British vessels with contraband of war as well as all other supplies, with the intent and aim to render null and void, so far as they can, a blockade legitimately made by a friendly nation, as well as to procrastinate and make successful a resistance in a war in which that nation is actually engaged. Surely this is a difference not unworthy of your Lordship's deliberate observation. But your Lordship, in accounting for the admitted failure to enforce the enlistment law in Great Britain, has done me the honour to remind me that no long since Her Majesty's Government was Staatsarchiv IV. 1863. 21 .30. Dec. 1862. 66 No. 659. itself so far made sensible of injuries of the same kind with those of which I now Vereinigte Staaten, complain, either inflicted or threatened against Great Britain in the ports of the United States, as to have made them the subject of remonstrance through Her Majesty's Representative at Washington. With so fresh a sense of these evils before your Lordship, there will be no further cause of surprise at the earnestness with which I have followed the precedent then set. You do me the honour to recall the fact that the Enlistment Law of the United States, which preceded in its date of enactment that of Great Britain, is almost identical with it. And you further state that ,,the notorious evasion of its provisions during the late war waged by Great Britain and her allies against Russia," was the cause of the remonstrances to which I have already alluded. Your Lordship further remarks that, Great Britain was then, as on other occasions, assured that every effort which the law would permit had been made to prevent such practices; that the United States' Government could only proceed upon legal evidence, the law as to which is almost, if not entirely the same as in this country, and that without such evidence no conviction could be procured." In an earlier portion of your Lordship's note you did me the favour to cite, as good authority, to me an extract of the Message of the President of the United States of the 31st December, 1855, which went to show the extent to which assistance not only had been, but might be, rendered without censure by neutrals to belligerents. Perhaps your Lordship will not deny equal weight to the very next passage in that Message, even though it should somewhat conflict with your own allegation: Whatever concern may have been felt by either of the belligerent Powers lest private armed cruizers or other vessels in the service of one might be fitted out in the ports of this country to depredate on the property of the other, all such fears have proved to be utterly groundless. Our citizens have been withheld from any such act or purpose by good faith and by respect for the law." I forbear from quoting the text any further, because it may revive unpleasant recollections in your Lordship's as it does in my mind. I will content myself solely with the remark that the very last thing which your Lordship would be likely to object to in the facts there stated would be the want of ability of the Government of the United States to proceed with energy and effect in the repression of acts in violation of their Enlistment Act. But if evidence of another kind as to its energy under that law be needed, I have only to remind your Lordship once more of the fact that on the 11th of October, 1855, Her Majesty's Representative at Washington, Mr. Crampton, addressed to the Government of the United States a note with the evidence to show that a vessel called the,,Maury" was then fitting out at the port of New York armed to depredate on British vessels. On the 12th the Attorney-General sent by telegraph to the proper officer at New York to consult with the British Consul, and to prosecute if cause appear. On the 13th the Collector stopped the vessel then about to sail. On the 16th the District Attorney had prepared and filed a libel of the vessel, and in the meantime ordered a thorough examination of her cargo. On the 19th the Marshal had made a full report of his examination. On the same day the complainant on whose evidence the Minister and Consul had acted, con 99 Vereinigte 30. Dec. 1862. fessed himself satisfied, and requested the libel to be lifted. On the 23rd Mr. No. 659. Barclay, Her Majesty's Consul at New York, published a note withdrawing Staaten, every imputation made against the vessel. Thus it appears that in the brief space of four days the Government action under the Enlistment Law had been sufficiently energetic completely to satisfy the requisition of Her Majesty's Representative. If any similar action have been had since the first day that I had the honour to call your Lordship's attention to outfits of the same nature made in Great Britain, I can only say that I have not enjoyed a corresponding opportunity to express my satisfaction with the result. The owners of the Maury" were never compensated for the trouble and expense to which they were put by this process. But the Chamber of Commerce of New York adopted a series of Resolutions, two of which may serve as a sufficient comment on the remark which your Lordship has been pleased to et fall to uching the notorious evasion" of the Enlistment Law in America at the time alluded to: Resolved, that no proper amends or apology have been made to A. A. Low and Brothers for the charge brought against them, which, if true, would have rendered them infamous; nor to the merchants of this city and country, so falsely and injuriously assailed. Resolved, that the merchants of New York, as part of the body of merchants of the United States, will uphold the Government in the full maintenance of the Neutrality Laws of the country; and we acknowledge and adopt, and always have regarded the acts of the United States for preserving its neutrality, as binding in honour and conscience, as well as in law; and that we denounce those who violate them as disturbers of the peace of the world, to be held in universal abhorrence.“ I pray your Lordship to give one moment's attention to the manner in which the conduct imputed to Messrs. Low is stigmatised. I am sorry to confess that I have not seen the like indignation shown in this kingdom against similar charges made against distinguished parties in Liverpool, nor yet can I perceive it so forcibly expressed as I had hoped even in the tone of your Lordship's note. I beg to assure your Lordship that it gives me no pleasure to revive the recollections of the events of that period. But inasmuch as they have been voluntarily introduced in the note which I had the honour to receive, and they seemed to me necessarily to imply an unmerited charge against the policy of the United States, I felt myself imperatively called upon to show that at least in one instance in which Her Majesty's Government made a complaint there was no failure either in the manner of construing the powers vested in the Government of the United States, or in their promptness of action under the Enlistment Law. I pray, &c. To Earl Russell. Charles Francis Adams. No. 660. Gross 24. Januar GROSSBRITANNIEN. London. - No. 660. - Min. d. Ausw. a. d. Gesandt. der Verein. Staaten in Erwiderung auf dessen vorstehende Note vom 30. Dec. 1862. Sir, Foreign Office, January 24, 1863. It is impossible for me to leave without notice some of the britannien, statements contained in your letter of the 30th ultimo. ¶ These statements contain 1863. or imply a grave charge against Her Majesty's Government. You speak of the ,,admitted fact of a violation of a statute of this kingdom intended to prevent ill-disposed persons from involving it in difficulty, by committing wanton and injurious assaults upon foreign nations with which it is at peace, of which Her Majesty's Ministers are invited to take cognizance; of which they do take cognizance so far as to prepare measures of prevention; but which, by reason of circumstances, wholly within their own control, they do not prevent in season to save the justly complaining party from serious injury. On the substantial points of the case, little room seems left open for discussion."On the substantial points of the case, as stated by you, there is, on the contrary, great room left open for discussion. I must ask first, what are the circumstances within the control of the Government to which you allude? Do you mean that Her Majesty's Government in construing a penal statute, or in carrying into effect the provisions of a penal statute, were to hurry at once to a decision, and to seize a ship building and fitting out at Liverpool without being satisfied by evidence that the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act had been violated in the case of such vessel? Do you mean that Her Majesty's Government were to dispense with proof, and to inflict injury upon the Queen's subjects by seizing a ship upon your mere assertion that the owners of that ship were violating the law? If such is your meaning, I must reply that the Government of this country respect the law. They do not seize upon property to the loss and damage of its owners without proof that they are legally entitled to do so. Perhaps your meaning is that Her Majesty's Government should have proceeded on the opinion of Mr. Collier without waiting for other authority. But, here again, I must reply that the usage of this country requires that the Government should consult their own legal advisers, and obtain the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown before they proceed to enforce a penal statute. ¶If you mean to contend, therefore, that a nation in a state of profound peace should set aside the formalities of law, and act at once upon presumptions and surmises, I entirely differ from you. I may remind you that evidence sufficient to satisfy a Court of Law as to the ,,equipment" or ,,fitting out" of a vessel for warlike purposes, and of its actual destination, is not obtainable without difficulty. If you mean that Her Majesty's Government wilfully delayed or neglected the measures by which the character of the ,,Alabama" could have been legally ascertained, I must give a positive and complete denial of the truth of any such assertion. The opinion of the Law Officers, until the receipt of which Her Majesty's Government could not act, was delivered at the Foreign Office on the 29th of July, but in the morning of that day the,,Alabama," |