Mr. Judd to Mr. Seward.
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of despatches Nos. 18 and 19, dated, respectively, 4th and 25th of November, 1861.
The principal topic of discussion at this time among the diplomats and others is the pending difficulty between the United States and Great Britain, growing out of the seizure of Mason and Slidell, and what will be its result. I have had conversation upon that subject with a majority of the representatives of other governments residing at this capital, and have found no one who does not appreciate the serious consequences to the commerce and business of the world that would occur in case of a war between the United States and England, and who does not deprecate such a result; some of them on account of the present condition of the United States, and others from a selfish motive connected with the mercantile and commercial interests of their respective countries. The newspapers are filled with rumors and speculations as to the action of England, among them one as follows: that England had made two propositions to the parties to the Paris conference about American matters; 1st, that the blockade should be declared ineffectual, [Page 545] and therefore raised; and, 2d, that those powers should acknowledge the independence of the Confederate States; and it was further asserted that all the powers had assented to the first proposition, Russia with a declaration that it was not to be construed into a disposition to war with the United States. I had an interview, by appointment, yesterday, with Count Bernstorff, minister of foreign affairs, to get some action in relation to the matter of Adolph Katz, whose case I have heretofore reported to you, and to prevent Hudson and Pope, the two individuals of whom I had occasion to speak in my despatch No. 11, from again obtaining permission to enter the royal military academy, and to participate in the cavalry exercises of the troops stationed here, having been advised that they had made another application for that purpose to the minister of war. I ascertained that Count Bernstorff had that very morning advised the minister of war not to grant the permission desired by these men. During this interview I also called the Count’s attention to the rumored proposition of England to the powers parties to the Paris conference, and he replied by stating that no proposition of any kind had been made by the British government to the Prussian government upon that subject. He expressed regret at the threatened difficulties with England, and hoped war might be avoided. I then said to him, “Why don’t your government keep the peace?” To which he replied by asking if the government of the United States would not object to their interference? I told him that the friendly relations that had always existed between the governments of the United States and Prussia would authorize any friendly act of that kind; that I had no advice or instruction from my government upon the subject, and that I was only expressing my own feelings. I stated, further, that unless England had some ulterior object for war, and only made the Trent affair a pretext, there was no necessity for the hasty action that was threatened; that the honor of England was safe while she was listening to the voices of the powers that were represented at the treaty of Paris. He said that he did not think there was any ulterior motive; and when I expressed to him my views of the legality of the act, when considered in the light of the British construction of international law, he replied that there was sufficient ground for argument upon either side to cause the parties to hesitate before becoming involved in a war for that cause.
My conversation with him was very satisfactory, and there is no doubt of the friendly feelings of the Prussian government towards the government of the United States, and its desire that the rebellion should be subdued.
* * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * *
I have the honor to be your obedient servant,
Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.