tion to reflect that notice of her intentions has preceded her, and that the note of preparation has been sounded. It is possible she may have to go to Lisbon to complete her equipment, as was stated by one of the sailors to be the commodore's intention. În that case, our minister at Portugal may be more successful in detaining her than Mr. Perry has been. I am, sir, with great respect, your very obedient servant, SIR: I transmit a copy of a despatch, and of its accompaniments, of the 22d of November last, addressed to this department by F. B. Elmer, esq., United 'States consul at La Paz, in Mexico, relative to the removal of powder from the United States schooner William L. Richardson, while on a voyage from San Francisco to the mouth of the Colorado river, by the commander of the French war steamer Diamant. The powder referred to is shown by the papers to have been consigned to Paul Heller, at Tucson, in Arizona Territory, and is alleged to have been intended for mining purposes in that Territory. The belligerent right of the French to prevent contraband of war from reaching Mexican territory during the existence of hostilities in that country may be conceded. That right, however, cannot be allowed to interfere with perfect free trade in all commodities between ports of the United States. You will consequently present this case to Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys, and in your note upon the subject you will say that, if the facts should, upon investigation, turn out to be as set forth in the papers, the value of the powder, and such other reparation as the case may call for, will be expected by this government. I am, sir, your obedient servant, SIR: I have the honor herewith to transmit the affidavit of George Goodrum, master of the schooner William L. Richardson, of San Francisco, concerning what I beg leave to express the hope that the government will decide to have been a violation of the rights of neutrals, and a case where ample reparation must be demanded. I have satisfied myself, after a careful inquiry, that the powder was not to be landed upon the Mexican coast, and was shipped in good faith for a person living at Tucson, Arizona Territory. Should any other testimony than that contained in the accompanying affidavit be required, I shall be able to forward it, as I have corroborating evidence on file, to be forwarded if called for. 15 D C * I have retained a copy of the bill of lading, from which I extract the following as pertinent: "Shipped in good order and condition, by J. Underhill & Company, on board the schooner called the William L. Richardson, whereof George Goodrum is master, now lying in the port of San Francisco, and bound for the anchorage at the mouth of the Colorado river, to say, one hundred kegs powder, marked and numbered as in the margin, to wit: M. A. D., care J. Capron, Tucson, A. T.' Freight on same fifty dollars.' I also examined the manifest, and found the entry as stated in Mr. Goodrum's affidavit. The powder was entered as such and consigned in the manner stated. I also transmit an exact copy of the certificate given by the Frenchman in his own language; also a translated copy. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State, Washington City. F. B. ELMER, Consul. [Enclosure No. 1.] Deposition of George Goodrum. CONSULATE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, On this second day of November, A. D. 1864, before me, the undersigned, consul of the United States of America for La Paz and the dependencies thereof, there personally appeared George Goodrum, master of the American schooner William L. Richardson, and made oath in due form of law that the following is a true and faithful transcript of the entries in the logbook of said vessel for the period embraced therein; that they were written by his first officer, at his dictation and under his observation, and that the same is a true and faithful record of the proceedings occurring as therein detailed. The following is the transcript: "October 30, at 1.30 p. m., on entering the bay of La Paz we were fired upon by the French war-steamer Diamant. We hove our vessel to and set our colors, when an officer from the steamer came on board and demanded our papers, which were shown to him by Captain Goodrum. The officer looked at them for a short time, and then said he would take them on board his own vessel. Captain Goodrum told him he could not let his papers go, and protested against his taking them. The officer said it was all right, and retained them. He then ordered us to take in sail, and said he would take us in tow. The officer then went on board his own vessel and steered for Pichilque island, about eight miles from La Paz and within the bay, where he came to anchor and ordered us to do the same, which order we were compelled to comply with. "The officer then returned on board our vessel with the papers and demanded the one hundred kegs of blasting powder that were down on the coasting manifest and cleared from San Francisco for the Colorado river. The officer immediately sent his men into the hold and took out the powder, against which Captaim Goodrum protested. The officer then took the powder from our vessel to his own, and sent word that we might go on to La Paz "Before leaving, the officer gave the captain two certificates-one in French and the other English, the latter reading as follows: "BAY OF LA PAZ, October 30, 1864. "This is to certify that the one hundred kegs of powder shipped in San Francisco, on the Schooner Wm. L. Richardson, to be delivered to Paul Heller, at Fort Yuma, Colorado river, is on this day taken from the vessel by the officer in command of the French warsteamer Diamant, and confiscated as contraband of war, and against the protest of the captain, George Goodrum. "A. DE LA COUVE, And further says that the Wm. L. Richardson was detained by the French steamer some twenty-two hours, besides being delayed two days more in consequence thereof; that the Diamant remained off the harbor of La Paz till the morning of the first of November, and then left. And further makes oath and says that said powder was placed on board his vessel, as he believes, in good faith, and that it was his intention, in accordance with his instructions and bill of lading, to deliver the same on board the steamboat Esmeralda, in the Colorado river, some miles above its mouth, to be conveyed thence to the consignee thereof, Paul Heller, at Tucson, within the Territory of Arizona; that the Wm. L. Richardson is one of a line of vessels contracted for by Messrs. Wadsworth & Son of Alta California, to run between the ports of San Francisco, La Paz, Baja, California, and the station within the Rio Colorado, near its mouth, whence passengers and freight for the Territories of Arizona and New Mexico are conveyed as aforesaid, by the steamboat Esmeralda, to Fort Yuma, and to points beyond; that at the time the gun was fired on board the French man-of-war, he was entering the port of La Paz to discharge some ninety tons of freight before proceeding to the mouth of the Colorado to discharge the remainder of his cargo, and was wholly innocent of any design to infringe, or to permit any other, through his agency, to infringe any belligerent regulations, and that no blockade of the harbor of La Paz existed within his knowledge, nor had any notice ever been given that such a thing was contemplated. He further says that the said powder was entered as such in the usual and proper manner upon the Colorado river manifest. Subscribed and sworn to before me the date above written. GEORGE GOODRUM. F. B. ELMER, U. S. Consul. UNITED STATES CONSULATE, La Paz, November 20, 1864. I, the undersigned, consul of the United States of America for La Paz, &c., do hereby certify that the foregoing declaration and affidavit are true and faithful copies of the original on file in this consulate, the same having been carefully examined by me, and compared with said original, and found to agree therewith, word for word, and figure for figure. Given under my hand and seal of the consulate at La Paz, the day and year above written. [SEAL.] F. B. ELMER, U. S. Consul. [Enclosure No. 3.-Translation of No. 2.] PORT OF LA PAZ, MEXICO, October 30, 1864. I declare having seized on board the schooner W. Richardson, Captain George Goodrum, one hundred barrels of powder, against protest of the said captain. A. DE LA COUVE, UNITED STATES CONSULATE, I, the undersigned, consul of the United States of America for La Paz, &c., do hereby cer tify that the above declaration is a true and faithful copy of the original filed in this office, the same having been compared by me and found to agree therewith, word for word and figure for figure. [SEAL.] F. B. ELMER, U. S. Consul. No. 31.] Mr. Bigelow to Mr. Seward. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: In the Gironde of Bordeaux, bearing date the 13th instant, and just come to hand, I find a note from the Danish consul at that port, of which the following is a translation: "MR. EDITOR: Your sheet of the 10th instant contains a note apropos of the Olinde affair, in which it is stated that this vessel had been sold by Mr. Arman, the builder, to Denmark, that she had paid for it, and that Arman only learned through the journals of the change of destination of the vessel, with which he had no concern. "Permit me to address to you the following rectification, which I beg you will have the goodness to insert in your next issue. "The iron-clad ram built last year by Mr. Arman, and which left Bordeaux bearing the name of the Stoerkodder, has never been definitely sold to Denmark; the Danish government having, on the contrary, refused to accept a delivery of her. There has never been any question of paying her price, and she has been returned to her constructor, who has never ceased to have entire control of her. "Accept, sir, &c., "E. KIRSTEIN, The Gironde accompanied this letter with the following remark: "In respect to the announcements made in this letter we have only to state that they are in absolute conflict with the information furnished to us, and which we are bound to esteem correct." Mr. Adams telegraphed from London last evening that the Baltic was frozen over and no mail, which I suppose was intended to explain why I did not receive something more authoritative upon this subject through Mr. Wood from the Danish government in time for this mail. I am, sir, with great respect, your very obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State, &c., &c., &c. JOHN BIGELOW. No. 34.] Mr. Bigelow to Mr. Seward. [Extracts.] LEGATION OF the United STATES, SIR: This being the day set apart by the minister of foreign affairs for the reception of the diplomatic corps on business, I profited by the opportunity to speak of the Stonewall case to him; with what results I will proceed to relate. I commenced by asking if anything had been done or projected by the minister of justice, to whom his excellency was good enough to inform me that the Stonewall case had been transferred, for the punishment of the persons engaged in equipping her within the waters of France. His excellency replied that as yet the minister of justice had made no report to him upon the subject; that the case was under investigation, and the moment any result was reached, that I should be apprised of it. I asked if there was no summary process in France, as there is in England and America, for arresting persons on "probable cause,' to await the result of an investigation, assuming that if there was, there could be no difficulty in showing "probable cause" against some of the parties, especially J. Riviere, who was now in Paris, and those who took out the coal. His excellency, without replying very directly to this inquiry, said that the laws of France in commercial matters were generally pretty severe; that the subject had been committed to the minister of justice with a full statement of the information elicited by the investigation of the minister of marine, as well as that communicated by me; that judicial proceedings did not usually move with such rapidity as to yield any result in so short a time; and finally, that he would see or write to Mr. Barache again upon the subject. I urged him to do so with as little delay as possible. I said that the crime committed was of a character which all our people would comprehend, and the best evidence to their intelligence that the imperial government resented the outrage was the arrest and punishment of some at least of the offenders. I then expressed my regret that his excellency had not seen fit to entertain favorably my application on Sunday week for the benefit of his influence with Spain, and also that I had not been able to appreciate the force of his objections to such a step. His excellency replied that, with every disposition to oblige me, he did not see how he could untertake to police the waters of Spain; that he could understand perfectly how Spain could detain the Stonewall, for she was in Spanish waters, and how Denmark might intercede with Spain for her detention, for she exchanged a Danish for a confederate flag; but France stood in no such relation to the ship or to any of the parties as would justify her interference with the Stonewall in a Spanish port, nor could she without directly admitting, what he most explicitly denied, that she was a French vessel. He then recapitulated the history of the process by which he became satisfied that the ship had been sold to Denmark before he authorized her departure from Bordeaux. This I will not repeat, as he added nothing to what I have already communicated to you, except that the correspondence between him and the Danish government was conducted by telegraph. I then said that my request did not involve any decision on his part of the nationality of the Stonewall; that I was not yet prepared to discuss that question, and I hoped with his assistance it would never be necessary for us to discuss it. I simply assumed, what was now a fact of common notoriety, that a crime had been committed within the waters of France by the proprietors of the Stonewall against the laws of France; the perpetrators of that crime, or some of them, were easily identified; the Stonewall was the corps de delit. I only asked of the French government not to demand as a right, but simply to intimate a wish to the Spanish government, that the Stonewall should be detained to await the result of this investigation. I said I had reason to believe the Spanish government would be happy to have such a pretext for adhering to a line of policy to which it has already partially committed itself. I here at his request recapitulated briefly what the Spanish government had done, not doubting all the while that his excellency knew a great deal more about it than I did myself. I then went on to point out the analogy, which in my communication of the 5th instant I had not been fortunate enough to make apparent to his excellency, between the cases of the Rappahannock and the Stonewall. The former vessel entered a French port and wished to complete her equipment that she might go out and prey upon the commerce of a friend of France; his excellency tied her up in Calais and there she lies to this day. The Stonewall came into French waters to do the same thing, to complete her equipment, that she might also prey upon the commerce of the United States. No matter what flag she bore when she entered the port, what she proposed to do, what she actually did, was a crime against the laws of France. The Stonewall is now repeating the offence in the waters of Spain. France, in vindication of her outraged laws, can with perfect propriety request Spain to do what she has herself already done under similar circumstances, more especially as Spain, I was convinced, would welcome the co-operation of France in support of such a policy. His excellency listened to what I said with profound attention, and did not contest any of my positions, not even the analogy of the Rappahannock case, which he had questioned in his despatch of the 7th. He avowed the most earnest desire to co-operate with me in any practicable effort to arrest the career of this vessel, but he said he had no authority to assume any one guilty of a crime, when a colleague in the government was specially charged to investigate the question. If he were to instruct Mr. Mercier upon the assumption that a crime had been committed, he might be obliged to-morrow to countermand his instructions. He did not wish to move in the matter without something to shelter him from responsibility to his colleagues. If Mr. Barache would simply say to him that a crime had been committed, of which the Stonewall was the corps de |