Papers Relating to Foreign Affairs, Accompanying the Annual Message of the President to the First Session Thirty-eighth Congress, Part I
Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward.
Sir: I have the honor to transmit a copy of my note to Earl Russell of the 30th ultimo, which, in my despatch (No. 281) of the 25th of December, I mentioned [Page 44] that I was preparing in answer to a portion of his note of the 19th of that month, which I sent forward last week.
I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,
Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.
Mr. Adams to Earl Russell.
My Lord: I have the honor to acknowledge the reception of your lordship’s note of the 19th instant, in reply to the representation I had been instructed to submit to your consideration touching the ravages committed on the commerce of the United States by a vessel-of-war built and fitted out in a port of this kingdom, and, for the most part, manned by her Majesty’s subjects. So far as that note responds to the two great objects of inquiry which I had been directed to propose, my duty has been performed by the transmission, without loss of time, of a copy of it for the consideration of my government. But your lordship has done me the honor to touch upon several lateral topics incidentally connected with the reasoning contained in my note in a manner which seems to require from me a somewhat extended explanation.
The first of these to which my attention has been particularly directed relates to the fact which your lordship appears readily to admit, that her Majesty’s proclamation of the 13th of May, 1861, enjoining neutrality in the unfortunate civil contest in North America, has been practically set at naught in this kingdom. Much as it may impair the confidence heretofore so generally and justly entertained in the ability of her Majesty’s government to enforce her authority within her own dominions, I am not aware that in the representation I had the honor to make upon this particular occasion, any reasoning of mine was made to rest upon it. The question, as connected with the case of the 290, was presented by the eminent counsel on whose opinion I relied, mainly on the ground that the building and equipment of that vessel was a gross violation of a municipal law of this kingdom. It was expressly stated by Mr. Collier that “it appeared difficult to make out a stronger case of infringement of the foreign enlistment act, which, if not enforced on this occasion, is little better than a dead letter.” That this position was a correct one is fully confirmed by the report subsequently made by her Majesty’s law officer, and by the later efforts of her Majesty’s government to act under the law. It is not, then, the nullity of her Majesty’s proclamation that is now in question: it is rather 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 by a party injured 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. The omission to act in season is not denied. The injury committed on an innocent party is beyond dispute. If, in these particulars, I shall be found to be correct, then I respectfully submit it to your lordship whether it do not legitimately follow that such a party has a right to complain and to ask redress. And, in this sense, it matters little how that omission may have occurred, whether by intentional [Page 45] neglect or accidental delays, having no reference to the merits of the question; the injury done to the innocent party giving a timely notice remains the same and those who permitted it remain equally responsible.
It is in this view that the precedent which I had the honor to cite from the earlier history of the United States appeared to me to have much more pertinence than your lordship is inclined to attach to it. I still think that it has not attracted so much of your attention as it deserves. Your lordship will pardon me for suggesting that it was not because “the revolutionary government of France openly avowed its determination to disregard all the principles of international law which had been acknowledged by civilized states,” or because of a “supposed temporary superiority of her naval force,” it “did actually equip privateers in the neutral ports of the United States, and send them forth to prey upon British commerce,” &c., that the government of the United States were induced to listen to the demands of the British government for redress. The claim that was actually made by France rested upon its interpretation of two articles of a solemn treaty, offensive and defensive, between France and the United States, which, not without show of reason, claimed for the former the right to fit out cruisers against its enemies in the ports of the United States. Although very properly denying this to be the correct version, the government of the United States felt unwilling to act on a policy of repression until due notice given of its determination to abide by an opposite construction. In the interval certain captures of British vessels took place which the government, because of its failure, for the reasons assigned, to prevent them, considered itself bound to make good. Here are the very words of Mr. Jefferson, in his letter to Mr. Hammond:
“Having, for particular reasons, forborne to use all the means in our power for the restitution of the three vessels mentioned in my letter of August 7, the President thought it incumbent on the United States to make compensation for them; and though nothing was said in that letter of other vessels taken under like circumstances and brought in after the 5th of June, and before the date of that letter, yet, where the same forbearance had taken place, it was and is his opinion that compensation would be equally due.” From these words the deduction appears to be inevitable that the principle of compensation in the case derived its only force from the omission by the United States to prevent a wrong done to the commerce of a nation with which they were at peace. So, likewise, may it be reasonably urged in the present case, that the omission of her Majesty’s government, upon full and reasonable notice, to carry into effect the provisions of its own law designed to prevent its subjects from inflicting injuries upon the commerce of nations with which it is at peace, renders it justly liable to make compensation to them for the damage that may ensue.
That the British government of that day did consider itself equitably entitled to full indemnity, not simply for the hostile acts of Frenchmen in American ports, but for the loss and damage suffered on the high seas by reason of assistance rendered to them by citizens of the United States, will clearly appear by reference to the fourth article of the project of a treaty proposed by Lord Grenville to Mr. Jay, on the 30th of August, 1794. The words are these:
“And it is further agreed, that if it shall appear that, in the course of the war, loss and damage has been sustained by his Majesty’s subjects, by reason of the capture of their vessels and merchandise, such capture having been made either within the limits of the jurisdiction of the said States, or by vessels armed in the ports of the said States, or by vessels commanded or owned by the citizens of the said States, the United States will make full sactisfaction for such loss or damage, the same being to be ascertained by commissioners in the manner already mentioned in this article.”
If, by the preceding representation, I have succeeded in making myself clearly understood by your lordship, then will it, I flatter myself, be made to appear [Page 46] that in both these cases, that in 1794 as well as that in 1862, the claim made rests on one and the same basis, to wit, the reparation by a neutral nation of a wrong done to another nation with which it is at peace, by reason of a neglect to prevent the cause of it originating among its own citizens in its own ports.
The high character of Lord Grenville is a sufficient guarantee to all posterity that he never could have presented a proposition like that already quoted, except under a full conviction that it was founded on the best recognized principles of international law. Indeed, it is most apparent, in the face of the preamble, that even the statute law of both nations on this subject is but an attempt to give extraordinary efficacy to the performance of mutual obligations between states which rest on a higher and more durable basis of justice and of right. It was on this ground, and on this alone, that Lord Grenville obtained the concessions then made of compensation for damage done to her commerce on the high seas by belligerent cruisers fitted out in the ports of the United States. I shall never permit myself to believe that her Majesty’s government will be the more disposed to question the validity of the principle thus formally laid down, merely from the fact that in some cases it may happen to operate against itself.
This consideration naturally brings me back to the examination of that portion of your lordship’s note which relates to the alleged violations in Great Britain of her majesty’s proclamation by the respective parties engaged in this war. Although this subject be not absolutely connected with that on which I made my representation, I cheerfully seize the opportunity thus furnished me to attempt, in some degree, to rectify your lordship’s impressions of the action of the government of the United. States even on that question. Your lordship does me the honor to observe that I cannot be ignorant of the fact, which it is impossible to deny, “that, in defiance of the Queen’s proclamation, many subjects of her Majesty owing allegiance to her crown have enlisted in the armies of the United States.” “Her Majesty’s government, therefore, have just ground for complaint against both the belligerent parties, but most especially against the government of the United States, for having, systematically and in disregard of that comity of nations which it was their duty to observe, induced subjects of her Majesty to violate those orders which, in conformity with her neutral position, she has enjoined all her subjects to obey.”
As these words, taken in their connexion, might seem to imply a serious charge against myself as well as the government of the United States, I must pray your lordship’s pardon if I desire to know whether there be any particulars in my own conduct in which your lordship has found the evidence for such a statement. So far as I have been made acquainted with the course of my own government, or I remember my own, I must most respectfully take issue with your lordship upon it, and challenge you to the proof. That very many of the subjects of Great Britain voluntarily applied to me for engagements in the service of the United States is most true. That I ever induced one of them to violate her Majesty’s orders, either directly or indirectly, is not true. That numbers of her Majesty’s subjects have voluntarily crossed the ocean and taken service under the flag of the United States I have reason to believe. That the government of the United States systematically and in disregard of the comity of nations induced them to come over to enlist I have not yet seen a particle of evidence to show, and I must add, praying your lordship’s pardon, I am authorized explicitly to deny. In response to a remonstrance, made to me by your lordship, it is but a few days since I took occasion, so far as my action was concerned or the action of any of the officers of the United States in this kingdom, to place the country right before you on that score. After the very explicit retraction made in your lordship’s reply to me, dated on the 16th instant, it is not without great surprise that I now perceive what I cannot but regard as a renewal of the imputation.
Your lordship is pleased carefully to join the two parties to this war as if, in [Page 47] your estimation, equally implicated in the irregular proceedings conducted within this kingdom, and equally implicating the subjects of Great Britain in the violation of her Majesty’s proclamation. Hence it is argued that the omission to hold any one to his responsibility affords no more just ground of complaint, to one party than to the other. I cannot but think that your lordship has overlooked a just distinction to be observed in these cases; and in order to show it the more clearly I shall be compelled to ask your lordship to follow me in a brief investigation of the facts.
The only allegation which I find in your lordship’s note in connexion with the United States is this, that “vast supplies of arms and warlike stores have been purchased in this country, and have been shipped from British ports to New York for the use of the United States government.”
Admitting this statement to be true to its full extent; conceding even the propriety of the application of the term “vast” to any purchases that may have been made for the United States, the whole of it amounts to this, and no more, that arms and warlike stores have been purchased of British subjects by the agents of the government of the United States. It nowhere appears that the action of the British went further than simply to sell their goods for cash. There has been no attempt whatever to embark in a single undertaking for the assistance of the United States in the war they are carrying on; no ships of any kind have been constructed or equipped by her Majesty’s subjects for the purpose of sustaining their cause, either by lawful or unlawful means, nor a shilling of money, so far as I know, expended with the intept to turn the scale in their favor. Whatever transactions may have taken place have been carried on in the ordinary mode of bargain and sale without regard to any other consideration than the mere profits of trade.
If such be then the 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 honor 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 favor 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 action 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 of 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 to 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, [Page 48] 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 building and equipping ships-of-war, as well as other vessels, and furnishing money, as well as goods, with the hope of sustaining the insurgents in their 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 eight millions of pounds 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 favorable 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, marked A and B, which I have the honor to append to the present note. The one contains a list of all 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 so 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 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.
[Page 49]But your lordship, in accounting for the admitted failure to enforce the enlistment law in Great Britain, has done me the honor to remind me that not long since her Majesty’s government was itself so far made sensible of injuries of the same kind with those of which I now 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 honor 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 remonstrance 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 favor 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 cruisers 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 which follows, 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, 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 evidences 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 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 mean time 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 the consul had acted, confessed himself satisfied, and requested the libel to be lifted. On the 23d Mr. Barclay, her Majesty’s consul at New York, published a note withdrawing every imputation made against the vessel. Thus, it appears that in the brief space of four days the government’s action under the enlistment law had been sufficiently energetic completely to satisfy the requisition of her Majesty’s representative.
If any similar action has been had since the first day that I had the honor [Page 50] 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 let fall touching 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 & 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 asserted.
“Resolved, That the merchants of New York, as part of the body of merchants of the United States, will uphold the government in the fall 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 honor 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 stigmatized. 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 review the recollections of the events of that period. But inasmuch as they had been voluntarily introduced in the note which I had the honor 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 their enlistment law.
I pray your lordship to accept the assurances of the distinguished consideration with which I have the honor to be, my lord, your most obedient servant.
Right Honorable Earl Russell, &c., &c., &c.
List of vessels, from the United States consul at Liverpool, which have either sailed from Great Britain and Ireland since the 1st August last, or are now in course of preparation to sail, with contraband of war, for the purpose of breaking the blockade of the rebel ports.
Steamers.—Bahama, from Liverpool on the 13th August, with men and cannon; Bonita, (late the Economist,) Iona, Pearl, Kelpie, Giraffe, Antona, Calypso, Havelock, Nicolai I, Julie Usher, (late Annie Childs,) Stanley, Albion, Denbigh, Pet, Neptune, Sheldrake, Gypsey Queen, Cornubia, Eagle, Ruby, Florida, Juno, Thistle, Northumbia, Douglas, Britannia, Royal Bride, Douro, Beacon, Georgiana, Prince Albert, Leipsig.
Sailing vessels.—Ellen, Agrippina, (sailed from Cardiff, October 10, with shot, shell and coal. This is the vessel that carried arms and coal from London to the No. 290 at Terceira. See depositions of Redden and King.) Severn, Queen of the Usk, Digby, Clarence, Mary Frances, Chatham, Peep o’Day, Speculation, Monmouth, Intrinsic.
B.
Mr. Morse to Mr. Adams.
Sir: In compliance with your request, I herewith forward a list comprising most of such steamers and sailing vessels as are known to me to have left the port of London laden with supplies for the insurgents now in rebellion against the United States.
I do not pretend that all the vessels which have left this port in the confederate service are known to me, but believe the following list of vessels can be relied on as being a part of those which have left with supplies, principally contraband of war, with the intention of either running the blockade directly, or of going to a neighboring Atlantic or Gulf port, and there discharging their cargoes into another class of vessels, the more easily to get such cargoes to their places of destination.
Vessels known to have left London.
| Name. | Tonnage. | Time of departure. | Loaded by— | ||
| S. S. Gladiator | 481 | ——, | 1861 | ||
| S. S. Economist | 338 | Jan. | 9, | 1862 | |
| S. S. Southwick | 467 | Jan. | 24, | 1862 | |
| S. S. Minna | 615 | Feb. | 28, | 1862 | |
| S. S. Phebe | 416 | April | 23, | 1862 | |
| S. S. Lloyds | 743 | April | 11, | 1862 | W. S. Lindsay & Co |
| Side-wheel Merrimack | 537 | April | 12, | 1862 | |
| Side-wheel Pacific | 932 | Feb. | 22, | 1862 | |
| Side-wheel Melita | 853 | April | 29, | 1862 | |
| Side-wheel Ann | 200 | do | |||
| S. S. Harriet | 571 | July | 29, | 1862 | |
| S. S. Justitia | 616 | Oct. | 20, | 1862 | |
| S. S. Rechiel | Dec. | 1861 | W. S. Lindsay & Co | ||
| Sailing S. Aries | 217 | ||||
| S. S. Flora | Dec. | 1861 | W. S. Lindsay & Co , | ||
| S. S. Princess Royal | do | do | |||
| S. S. Memphis | |||||
| S. S. Minho | |||||
| S. S. Waive Queen | |||||
| S.S. Peterhoff | Now loading for Matamoras. | ||||
| S. S. Melita | 853 | Now loading for Havana. | |||
| Sailing S. Springbock | |||||
The tonnage given is the net tonnage, or the carrying space of the vessel, the space taken up by machinery, &c., being deducted.
The screw steamer Fingal left Greenock in the summer of 1S61. Her cargo was sent there to her by the steamer Colletis from London.
Vessels which have left ports on the east coast of England, and which may not have been reported by any other consul:
Circassian, Modern Greece, Stettin, Bahama, and Bermuda, from Hartlepool; Hero, Pataras, Labnan, Sidney Hall, and Tubal Cain, all screw steamers; and brig Stephen Hart.
During the last six or eight weeks there have been great exertions made in this country to procure good, fast steamers, and to forward them, laden with supplies for the insurgents, to the ports of the rebel States, or to ports adjacent to the coast of those States. Many of the boats in this service have been [Page 52] purchased on the river Clyde. Three new ones, destined for the same service, have recently been launched there, and have not yet gone to sea. They have been named Emma, Gertrude, and Louisiana; and several more are building there.
The ownership of these steamers, the cargoes they carry out, and the manner of conducting the trade, is a question of much interest to Americans. During the early stages of the war the trade was carried on principally by agents sent over from the Confederate States, aided by a few mercantile houses and active sympathizers in this country. These agents, with their friends here, purchased the supplies, and procured steamers, mostly by charter, and forwarded the goods.
But by far the largest portion of the trade, with perhaps the exception of that in small arms, is now, and for a long time has been, under the management and control of British merchants. It is carried on principally by British capital, in British ships, and crosses the Atlantic under the protection of the British flag.
Parties come from Richmond with contracts made with the rebel government by which they are to receive a very large percentage above the cost in confederate ports of the articles specified. British merchants become interested in these contracts, and participate in their profits or loss. I have seen the particulars of one such contract drawn out in detail, and have heard of others.
There are good reasons for believing that a large portion of the supplies more recently sent to the aid of the insurgents has been sent by merchants on their own account. Several will join together to charter a steamer and make up a cargo independent of all contractors, each investing as much in the interprise as he may deem expedient, according to his zeal in the rebel cause, or his hope of realizing profits from the speculation.
Again: some one will put up a steamer to carry cargo to a rebel port at an enormous rate of freight, or to ports on the Atlantic or Gulf coast, such as Bermuda, Nassau, Havana, Matamoras, &c., at a less freight, to be from there reshipped to such southern ports as appears to afford the best opportunities for gaining an entrance. Ships bound on these voyages are, of course, not advertised, or their destination made known to the public. Their cargoes are made up of individual shipments, on account and risk of the shippers, or go into a joint stock concern, on account and risk of the company, each member thereof realizing profit or suffering loss in proportion to the amount he invested in the adventure. Both steamers and cargoes are often, if not generally, insured in England “to go to America with liberty to run the blockade.”
Some individuals and mercantile firms appear to have entered into the business of supplying the rebels with the means of carrying on and prolonging the war with great zeal and energy on their own account. Mr. Z. C. Pearsons, of Hull, has been largely interested in this contraband trade, but appears not to have been very fortunate in its pursuit, for he has had several valuable steamers taken by our blockading squadrons, and, in addition to this bad luck, appears to have received in payment for the goods he did get in a kind of paper or payment that could not be made available here.
Of the firms which are the most largely engaged in this mode of rendering aid to and sustaining the rebellion, Frazier, Trenholm & Co., of Liverpool, and the firm of W. S. Lindsay & Co., of London, are among the more prominent.
The foregoing list of vessels, steam and sailing, was taken from memorandums. Had my other duties allowed me time to examine my despatches for the last year and a half, I could no doubt add others to the list, and give you some interesting particulars concerning many of them. But for want of that time I am obliged to submit it, imperfect as I fear it is.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
Hon. C. F. Adams, United States Minister at London.