Mr. Seward to Lord Lyons.
My Lord: I have received from the Secretary of the Navy some reports which were made to him by Acting Rear-Admiral Wilkes, concerning his proceedings on the visit made by him at Bermuda in the months of September and October last. Although these papers were written before your complaints against that officer were submitted, and, of course, without any knowledge on his part of such complaints, yet the reports are sufficient to enable me to make what I trust will be a satisfactory answer to portions of your communication of the 24th of last November.
One of the representations which you have made is that Acting Rear-Admiral [Page 470] Wilkes, on the occasion referred to, ordered the vessels under his command to anchor in such a position as to control the movements of ships desiring to enter or to depart from the port of Bermuda, and maintained a system of cruising in the neutral waters of Bermuda in excess of his rights as a belligerent.
A second complaint is, that he officiously and unlawfully placed sentinels on British territory.
The reports before me are silent on the subjects thus presented, and indicate no apprehension on the part of Acting Rear-Admiral Wilkes of any such complaints. It has, therefore, been necessary to communicate them to him, and demand his explanations. A consideration of these two complaints is consequently reserved until such explanations shall have been received.
A third complaint is, that Acting Rear-Admiral Wilkes contemptuously evaded the orders of her Majesty in regard to the supplies of coal which vessels of belligerent parties might obtain in a British port; and also that in a letter to the governor of Bermuda, referring to the governor’s expression, “I have to instruct you that the vessel [the Tioga] cannot be permitted to return within these waters,” Acting Rear-Admiral Wilkes replied in these terms: “This I cannot permit. My government has alone the power of instructing me.” Your lordship says this appears like a defiance of the proper authority of the governor, who is bound to carry out the rule by which vessels, having coaled, cannot return again to the same port for three months. You add, that the government of the United States cannot have intended that the governor was to be obstructed in the performance of his duties, but the words of Acting Rear-Admiral Wilkes seem to imply that he meant to attempt it.
You have understood the views of this government correctly. It holds that no foreign government or its agents can exercise or assume any independent or sovereign authority, whatever, in another country with which it is at peace. Nor can it lawfully or properly resist or evade any laws, orders, or rules, which the government of the country, whose protection or hospitality is temporarily enjoyed, has established there. Nor can the visitor lawfully or properly treat with contempt, or even disrespect or discourtesy, the authorities of the government by whom such laws, orders, or rules are enforced. If Acting Rear-Admiral Wilkes had done either of these things, or manifested or indicated a disposition to do so, his proceedings would have been promptly denounced, and he would have been visited with punishment according to the aggravation of the case.
But the correspondence which took place between the governor and Acting Rear-Admiral Wilkes has been examined into so far as we are informed of the case.
The Acting Rear-Admiral acted frankly and directly, and in exact conformity to the orders to which you have referred. Some misunderstanding does indeed seem to have arisen between himself and the governor about his proceedings in this respect. But the misunderstanding seems to have an accidental result of honest differences of apprehension or remembrance of statements made by the one party to the other. This government does not think it necessary to question, and does not question, the correctness or accuracy of the statements made by the governor, and, on the other hand, finds in the papers before it satisfactory evidence that. while Acting Rear-Admiral Wilkes acted and spoke, throughout the transaction, in perfect good faith towards the governor and the British authorities, his understanding of the facts is not perceived to have been erroneous.
On the first of October, the governor addressed to Acting Rear-Admiral Wilkes a letter which contained the following passage: “The gunboat Tioga having completed her necessary supplies of coal, and gone outside to cruise, it is my duty to enforce in her case the provisions of the rules laid down by her Britannic Majesty, an extract from which I had the honor to enclose in my communication of the 27th of September, and I have to instruct you that this vessel cannot be permitted to return within these waters.”
[Page 471]In the letter of Acting Rear-Admiral Wilkes, written in reply to the governor’s communication, he says, with regard to the topic in question, “In carefully perusing your despatch of to-day, I cannot avoid being struck with some of its peculiar expressions: one of them—‘I have to instruct you that this vessel (the Tioga) cannot be permitted to return within these waters.’ This I cannot permit. My government has alone the power of instructing me. The Tioga left this morning to cruise, and she has not yet infringed upon any of her Majesty’s rules. It would therefore appear that the remarks in your despatch relative to her are entirely uncalled for.”
It was the right, and it may even be admitted that it was the duty, of the governor to acquaint Acting Rear-Admiral Wilkes with the rule to which you have referred, and of the purpose of the governor to maintain it in administration. But this duty was to be performed in a manner respectful to the United States and courteous towards the acting rear-admiral. It may be doubted whether it would be proper in such a case to imply a distrust without grounds of the good disposition of the officer, or to apply an assumption of superiority over that officer.
I think it is clearly to be inferred from the reply of Acting Rear-Admiral Wilkes that he excepted not to the information which was given to him by the governor, but to the words in which it was expressed; and that not only did he not purpose to disregard the orders in question, but he manifested his purpose to comply with them in all respects. He is an officer amenable to the United States, obliged to receive and obey in every case commands which are known in naval service by the word “instructions.” Wherever he goes this obligation rests upon him, in foreign countries as well as at home. Instruction is given by a master, and no man can serve two authorities of that character. He obeys the laws. of Great Britain when in the British empire, because he is instructed to do so by his own government. The word “instruct” has this literal meaning in every department of government. I receive instructions from the President, you receive instructions from her Majesty; just as Acting Rear-Admiral Wilkes receives instructions from the President, and his excellency the governor of Bermuda receives instructions from the Queen. Consequently, we mutually and always avoid the use of the word “instruct” on every occasion when we desire to inform each other of laws, rules, decisions, or opinions of our respective governments. I think that you have never instructed me in regard to the purposes of her Majesty’s government, and I am sure that I have never instructed you concerning the decisions of my own government. While I do not for a moment suppose that the governor of Bermuda used the word “instruct” with a disrespectful meaning, I must be allowed to think that it was so interpreted by Acting Rear-Admiral Wilkes, more especially when it was taken in connexion with the two facts, that notice of the rules involved had been previously given to the acting rear-admiral by the governor, and that the Tioga had already departed from the port. As I do not suppose that her Majesty’s government would tolerate the governor in using an expression that would be designedly disrespectful to the government of the United States, I trust that this explanation of the sense in which Acting Rear-Admiral Wilkes’s expressions are understood by this government will be satisfactory.
Your lordship further informs me that it appears clear to your government, from statements which they have received, that not only is there much ill feeling towards British authorities on the part of Acting Rear-Admiral Wilkes, but that he is resolved to try the patience of those authorities to the utmost, while keeping, as he conceives, within the limits to which he calculates their forbearance will extend.
You have not given me the statements upon which those opinions of her Majesty’s government are founded, and I cannot, therefore, undertake to say that those statements, uncontradicted or unexplained, do not warrant the conclusions [Page 472] thus presented to me. Nevertheless, I am able to say, in reply, that however consistently the conclusions may have been drawn from the statements presented by the British government, they are believed to be entirely erroneous. This government finds in the reports made by the acting rear-admiral to the Secretary of the Navy abundant evidence that the feelings of the acting rear-admiral are altogether just and liberal towards the British authorities, and respectful and cordial towards the British government, and that he is resolved to perform his duty not only in strict conformity to the laws of nations, but with the highest comity and courtesy towards the British government, its authorities, and subjects.
He as well as all the naval officers have received from the Navy Department the most ample and the most precise instructions to conform his proceedings to those principles; and if there shall appear in the further examinations of the complaints, or on any other occasion, any evidence of his departure from these principles, the government will at once apply the proper remedy.
I have the honor to be, with high consideration, your lordship’s obedient
Right Hon. Lord Lyons, &c., &c., &c.