Page images

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,

RUSSELL. CHARLES FRANCIS Adams, Esq., 8c., fc., c.

Mr. Adams to Earl Russell.


London, June 13, 1862. 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,


Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward.

No. 175.]


[Extracts. ]

London, June 18, 1862. Err: 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 to 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.

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,


Secretary of State, IVashington, D. C.

Mr. Adams to Earl Russell.


London, June 11, 1862. 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, aud 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 liighest consideration, I have the honor to be, my lord, your most obedient servant,


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,


Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. No. 176.]


London, June 20, 1862. Sır: 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 officers here not to have been exaggerated. To that end I had caused a copy to be made which I would leave with him.

On the main object for which I had sought an interview, the reading to him your despatch No. 260, I found, upon an examination of the various papers I had brought with me, that I had left it at home after all. But I gave the substance of it, and as his lordship intimated that he would like a copy of it, and I saw no objection to it, I agreed to send him one instead of putting him to the trouble of another correspondence.

We then had some desultory conversation on the case of the Emily St. Pierre, and on the progress of the war, which last his lordship seemed to admit to have the appearance of drawing to a close. We also talked over the action of General Butler. On the whole, I have never known an occasion in which his lordship manifested more good humor and a more kindly spirit. The latest manifestation of it may be perceived in the remarks made by him a short time afterwards in the House of Lords.

This day the motion of Mr. Lindsay, affirming the desirableness of the recognition of the insurgents, is to be brought forward in the House of Coinmons. His lordship casually alluded to it in the course of our conversation as a matter of little importance. In point of fact, the character of our latest news would seem to render the agitation of the question almost ridiculous. A newspaper report of the result will deubtless go out in the steamer that carries this despatch. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,


Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.

Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams.

No. 275.]


Washington, June 23, 1862. Sir: I send you a copy of a report made by Lieutenant Charles McDougal, of the United States navy, dated April 13, 1862, showing that, in pursuance of orders from the British admiralty, he had been required to remove the United States ship-of-war Saginaw from the colony of Hong Kong, in China, and its dependeucies. The interests of American commerce in the east require the presence of American vessels there, and with it the enjoyment of all the rights of maritime powers. No British interest can be injuriously affected by the presence of such vessels. But, on the other hand, their presence is beneficial to the interests of all the western powers. You will please make the fact communicated by Lieutenant McDougal known to Earl Russell, as a pregnant illustration of the unnecessary and injurious operations of the attitude held by the British government in regard to the insurrection existing in the United States. We shall no further urge a change of that attitude, having exhausted the argument. But it will occur to every one that the American people are not likely to be always satisfied with performing treaty stipulations without reciprocity. I am, sir, your obedient servant,


Lieutenant McDougal to Mr. Welles.


Macao, April 13, 1862. Sir: I have the honor to report the following:

The anticipated troubles with England having subsided, on the 19th ultimo I removed this vessel from this place to Hong Kong, deeming Hong Kong to be the better place for carrying out any instructions I might receive from the department concerning ber.

On the 5th instant I received a call from the harbor-master, who informed me that he had been instructed to notify me to remove the United States steamer Saginaw from Hong Kong, at the same time handing me a letter containing the notification and enclosing a proclamation just issued by the governor, all of which I enclose.

There being no other course for me to pursue than that of complying with the requirements made, on the 10th instant I got under way and steamed over to this place, where I shall await instructions from the department. Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

CHARLES J. McDOUGAL, Lieut. U. S. navy, in charge of U. S. steamer Saginaw. Hon. GIDEON WELLES,

Secretary of the Navy, Washington, D. C.

The Harbor-Master at Hong Kong to Lieutenant McDougal.

No. 3.]


Hong Kong, April 4, 1862. Sir: I have the honor to enclose a proclamation issued by his excellency the governor, having reference to the hostilities which are now carried on between the States of North America which have seceded from the Union and those which adhere to it, and, in compliance with its provisions, beg to request you will be good enough to remove the United States sloop-of-war Saginaw, under your command, from the colony of Hong Kong and its de pendencies. I have the honor to be, sir, your most obedient servant,


United States sloop-of-war Saginaw.

Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams.

[Extracts.] No. 277.]


Washington, June 24, 1862. Sir: Your despatch of June 6 (No. 171) has been received.

The account of public opinion and public feeling in England concerning our affairs which it contains harmonizes in all respects with Mr. Dayton's



« PreviousContinue »