Lord Lyons to Mr.
Seward.
Washington,
March 7, 1863.
Sir: I have the honor to transmit to you an
extract from a letter addressed by Mr. Dillet, an attorney of Nassau, to
her Majesty’s secretary of state for the colonial department, which will
explain to you the circumstances under which the note which you did me
the honor to address to me on the 8th of May last, respecting the case
of the British schooner Telegraph, has remained so long without a
reply.
I am now instructed to represent to you that her Majesty’s government
have considered the further statement of facts contained in Mr. Dillet’s
letter, and that that statement appears to them to establish, beyond
contradiction, that the seizure and detention of the Telegraph were
unjust and vexatious acts.
The Telegraph was clearly a neutral ship; she had no contraband on board;
there was nothing on which to found a suspicion of an intention to run
the blockade; she had received, as is admitted, distinct permission from
the collector of customs at Key West to touch at Vaccus for wood, and
her clearance was, according to the same collector’s admission,
perfectly proper and regular.
The neutral ship ought not to suffer from any mistake of the belligerent
commander, and, moreover, it is clear that an order of the American
flag-officer, dated
[Page 520]
on the
19th of December, 1861, could not affect or justify the conduct of
Commander Sprott in the November preceding.
The seizure of the Telegraph was, in these circumstances, in itself an
act, of violence.
But it is further to be observed that the manner in which the belligerent
right of visit and search was exercised was, as regards both the ship
and the crew, unjustifiable. As to the ship, because Commander Sprott
ought to have carried into effect his right of search on board the
vessel itself, and had no right, except in a case of necessity, which
this was not, to order the papers to be brought on board his own ship.
And as to the crew, because the treatment of William Fisher was an
unjustifiable act of violence and cruelty.
The excuse offered by the United States commander for forcibly taking a
British sailor out of a British ship, and for putting him in irons for
three days and three nights on board of an American ship-of-war is, that
at one time the sailor, under the provocation of a seizure which always
was, and which is now, proved to have been unjust, swore loudly on board
his own ship.
But it cannot be seriously maintained that this was a valid excuse for
illegally taking a neutral subject out of a neutral ship, and for
treating him for a length of time like a felon, or that any neutral
state would accept such an excuse as satisfactory.
Her Majesty’s government have accordingly instructed me to make the
foregoing representation to you, and to claim reasonable compensation
from the United States government: first, for the illegal detention of
the ship, and secondly, for the gross ill treatment of the sailor
William Fisher.
I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most
obedient, humble servant,
Hon. Wm. H. Seward, &c., &c., &c.
Extract of a despatch from W. S. Dillet to the
Duke of Newcastle.
It was only yesterday that your grace’s despatch of the 12th of June
last (No. 260) was communicated to me, the inadvertence having been
caused by the indisposition of Governor Bayley. * * * * *
Taking the explanation of the United States authorities as it stands
upon paper, and as transmitted, your grace will not require any very
urgent reasoning to be satisfied that a very great injustice has
been done to the parties, and that great wrongs were done to Mr.
Fisher, who was put in irons.
Collector Howe states that the Telegraph cleared from Key West for
Abaco on the 28th November, with passengers, (who in the protest,
transmitted to Earl Russell, were alleged to be Abaconians returning
home,) and baggage and a barrel of rum; that he warned the master
from going anywhere near the mainland, and had acquiesced in his
wish to stop at one of the keys to procure firewood for his vessel,
in which he saw no impropriety.
In the protest referred to the appearers allege and say they stopped
at Vaccus, one of the Florida cays, to obtain a supply of wood and
water, as no wood could be bought at Key West, and water only at a
high price, the said master having obtained permission from Mr.
Howe, now or late collector of customs at Key West, to procure both
thereat, he being the owner of the cay.
Your grace will perceive that it is not even pretended that the
master of the Telegraph disregarded the warning of Collector Howe;
and while that officer admits he acquiesced in his procuring
firewood for his vessel’s use, he does not deny the allegation set
forth in the protest as to the permission granted, and his being the
owner of Vaccus cay, or land thereat. Thus far, then, there was no
wrong committed by Captain Fisher, who, being ignorant of
Flag-Officer Merwin’s
[Page 521]
letter of the 14th of June, 1861, had, nevertheless, according to
Mr. Howe’s statement, a proper and regular clearance.
The order of Flag-Officer McKean, of 19th December, 1861, addressed
to Lieutenant Sprotts, not to regard any verbal permission granted
at the custom house for vessels to touch at any of the keys, of
which he was to inform the collector, was, therefore, so far as the
Telegraph was concerned, an ex post facto
order, and could have no reference to that vessel.
Now, with respect to Lieutenant Sprott’s report of the 21st April,
1861, to the Hon. Gideon Welles, he says he told the master of the
Telegraph that his touching at Vaccus key, having cleared for Abaco,
was in direct violation of his orders. It does not appear from the
correspondence that there was any such order until that of the 19th
December, referred to above.
Lieutenant Sprotts says on his arrival at Key West he communicated
with Collector Howe, whose reply, marked C, and which I take to be
the letter of the 14th December, prompted him to release the
Telegraph. This statement seems to be wholly at variance with the
line of conduct pointed out by Mr. Howe; for, says he, “if he,”
meaning the master of the Telegraph, “acted otherwise than in good
faith, and violated any law of the revenue or navy, he has laid
himself liable to penalties;” and finally suggests “the propriety of
Lieutenant Sprotts turning the case over to the United States
district attorney for investigation.” I dare say it will appear to
your grace, as it does to me, very strange that such a letter as
this should have influenced Lieutenant Sprotts, or prompted him to
release the vessel. One would rather suppose it would have induced
him, if he supposed a wrong had been done, to follow the course
pointed out by the collector.
The complainants are residing at Abaco, and I shall not be able to
communicate with them for some time respecting the truth of the
allegations made by Lieutenant Sprotts, that William Jones Fisher
was drunk and used the language imputed to him.
But, even admitting that he was drunk and abused the officers of the
Wanderer, what maritime or other right had Lieutenant Sprotts to
order him from on board his own vessel to the Wanderer, and to place
him in irons or handcuffs for three days and three nights? What
right had he to order the master of the Telegraph to bring his
papers on board the Wanderer, instead of going himself, or sending
an officer, to exercise the belligerent right of search? Is it
because Lieutenant Sprotts considered it necessary to place a
British subject under such restraint that her Majesty’s government
will indorse his acts, and hold him and his government harmless?
The circumstances of this case, even as set out by Lieutenant
Sprotts, cannot, I feel satisfied, justify his conduct in the
premises, and as detailed in the protest, as at
the time he had no order to seize and carry the Telegraph
back to Key West because she touched at Vaccus key, either for
investigation or otherwise; but if he thought he had, it turned out
that he was wrong, because the collector himself had given the
master permission to do so, and saw no impropriety in it. And he
being a government official, an innocent party ought not to suffer
with impunity the wrongs to which the complainants have been
subjected.
I trust your grace will give the case your serious attention; and
that her Majesty’s government may view it as one entitling the
owner, master, officers and crew of the vessel to pecuniary
compensation for what appears to be a very unjust and unlawful
seizure of the vessel, and illegal imprisonment of J. W. Fisher.