One of these is in reply to a letter of mine of the 28th of December,
based upon an affidavit of Frederick Williams, sent to me by Mr. Morse.
The
[Page 57]
substance of it had been
anticipated by the publication in the parliamentary papers of the
account given by the governor of Bermuda to the secretary of state for
the colonies of his reception of the Nashville. As it was there affirmed
that this steamer had not been supplied from the government stores, I
presume that Williams had been mistaken. The second is in answer to my
note of the 24th of February, respecting the treatment of the Flambeau
at Nassau. The report is quite in keeping with all that we hear is done
in that nest of illicit trade with the rebels. I have not deemed it
advisable to pursue the subject.
Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.
Earl Russell to Mr.
Adams,.
Foreign Office,
March 24, 1862.
Sir: In my note of the 1st of January, in
which I acknowledged the receipt of your note of the 28th of
December, enclosing the deposition of Frederick Williams, one of the
crew of the Nashville, I had the honor to inform you that I should
communicate with the secretary of state for the colonies with the
view of obtaining from the governor of Bermuda a correct account of
the representations as to the character of that vessel made to him
by her commander.
The statement of Frederick Williams, it should be remembered, was,
that on the arrival of the Nashville at Bermuda the governor had
gone on board, and that Captain Peagram had then informed him that
the Nashville was not a navy vessel, but was strictly a merchant
vessel. I have now the honor to inform you that the governor of
Bermuda has assured her Majesty’s government that that statement is
in every respect untrue; that he never was on board the Nashville,
and that the only persons belonging to that vessel with whom he had
any communication were Captain Peagram and Colonel Peyton, who
called upon him at the government house; that on the occasion of
that interview no other person was present, and that no such remark
was made to him by either of those gentlemen, nor indeed by any
other person at any other time whatever.
The governor has further stated that, being aware that Captain
Hutton, royal navy, the superintendent of the dock yard, had been on
board the Nashville, and thinking it possible that Frederick
Williams might have mistaken that officer for the governor, and that
some conversation which had passed between Captain Hutton and the
officers of the Nashville had given rise to the statement Williams
had made, the governor had referred to Captain Hutton, and had
ascertained from him that he had been on board the Nashville in
order to return Captain Peagram’s visit, but that Captain Hutton had
disclaimed any conversation such as that related by Williams, and
had added that he was particularly cautious that nothing but
commonplace civilities should pass between himself and the commander
of the Nashville.
I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your
obedient, humble servant,
Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &c., &c., &c.
Earl Russell to Mr. Adams.
Foreign Office,
March 25, 1862.
Sir: I had the honor, on the 1st instant,
to state to you that I had applied to the proper department of her
Majesty’s government for information as to the circumstances under
which the authorities at Nassau had interdicted to the United States
steamer Flambeau the use of a deposit of coal, the property of the
United States government, existing at that place.
In now communicating to you the result of the inquiries which have
been instituted, I assume that the case which you had in view, when
you formed your representation, was that of some coal which arrived
at Nassau in December last in the United States schooners Caleb
Stetson and W. S. Perry.
It might perhaps be questioned whether the coal on board those
vessels could in strictness be described as a deposit of coal
existing at Nassau, but there seems no reason to doubt that it is to
that coal that your letter refers. The facts in relation thereto are
as follows:
In the early part of December the Caleb Stetson arrived at Nassau
with a cargo of three hundred tons of coal consigned to the United
States consul at that port, and by the report and manifest,
delivered at the revenue department, and signed officially by the
United States consul as consignee, it appeared that such cargo had
been shipped at Philadelphia for that port by “order of the United
States Navy Department.” The receiver general, having doubts as to
the propriety of admitting this coal to entry, applied to the
governor for instructions, and the governor, acting under legal
advice, gave directions that the coal should be admitted to an entry
and landing, but that the United States consul should be informed
that it could not be permitted to be used in any manner which might
involve a breach of the Queen’s proclamation of the 13th of May
last, and particularly that the coaling at Nassau of vessels of war
of either of the belligerent powers could not be allowed without the
express sanction of her Majesty’s government having been first
obtained. A letter to that effect was addressed by the colonial
secretary to the United States consul.
While this question was pending, another vessel, the W. S. Perry,
laden with coal similarly consigned, had arrived at Nassau, and the
United States consul, on receiving the above intimation, declined to
have the coal landed, and expressed his determination to keep the
same on board of the respective vessels in which it had been
imported, until he should receive advices from his government in
relation thereto.
On the 11th of December the United States vessel Flambeau arrived at
Nassau, and on the following day the United States consul addressed
to the governor a letter, in which he stated that the Caleb Stetson
was leaking badly, and requested permission to land the coal then on board of her, or to discharge a part
of it on board of the Flambeau; in answer to which he was informed
that, under the decision already arrived at, the coal could not be
allowed to be transhipped to the Flambeau, but that there was no
objection to its being landed. This privilege, although expressly
asked for by the United States consul in his letter, he did not
avail himself of.
On the 13th of December the United States consul addressed to the
acting colonial secretary a letter complaining of coal having been
supplied by a merchant to the secessionist vessel Theodora, and
asking whether such an act did not constitute a breach of the
neutrality adduced in the case of the Flambeau, which vessel, he
adds, “I begged permission to furnish with coal yesterday.”
[Page 59]
To this letter the governor caused an answer to be sent, in which the
distinction between the two cases was pointed out, and the decision
not to supply coal to an armed vessel was adhered to. It was
observed that the Theodora was a merchant vessel trading to the port
of Nassau, and that being propelled by steam it was necessary, to
enable her to pursue her occupation as a trader, that she should be
supplied with coal. The furnishing this necessary article,
therefore, for her use by a merchant in the way of trade was
perfectly lawful, and could not be construed into a breach of
neutrality.
On the other hand, the Flambeau was avowedly an armed vessel in the
service of the federal government. She had entered the port of
Nassau and had remained there for some days without any apparent
necessity for her doing so, and the authorities had not been
informed of the object of her visit. To supply her with coal might,
therefore, be to facilitate her belligerent operations, and this
would constitute an infraction of the neutrality prescribed by the
Queen’s proclamation of the 13th of May last.
It was also pointed out that the cases of the James Adger and the
Nashville, at Southampton, were not parallel cases. Those vessels
were some thousands of miles distant from their respective homes,
and to them consequently coal was an article of real necessity;
whereas the Flambeau was within a very short distance of the ports
of her own nation—Key West, for instance, where her necessities
could readily be supplied.
Moreover, it was incorrect to say that the application of the United
States consul had been founded on the necessities of the Flambeau;
his application was founded on the alleged necessities of the Caleb
Stetson.
I trust it will be apparent to you, from the foregoing statement,
that the only object which the authorities at Nassau had in view was
to preserve a strict neutrality. The obligation to do so was imposed
by the Queen’s proclamation above referred to, and the contiguity of
the port of Nassau to the American coast was an additional reason
for adhering, strictly to its provisions.
In these circumstances her Majesty’s government could not withhold
from the governor the approval to which he was entitled for the
course which he had pursued. The ultimate decision of her Majesty’s
government on this question is contained in the rules and
regulations laid down in my letter to the lord commissioners of the
admiralty of the 21st of January last. I take it for granted that
that letter has already been brought to your notice, but you will
find it at the end of the printed papers lately laid before
Parliament, and in the London Gazette of the 31st of January
last.
I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your
most obedient, humble servant,
Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &c., &c., &c.
