Mr. Adams to Mr.
Seward.
No. 304.]
Legation of the United States,
London,
January 23, 1863.
Sir: In obedience to your directions contained
in your despatch No. 443, of the 5th instant, I have addressed a note to
Lord Russell, founded on Mr. Pike’s report of the case of the Dutch
vessel captured for violating the blockade in the Crimean war. A copy is
herewith transmitted. It seems to me to be a little wanting in the
precision which should accompany similar statements, when brought
forward in international discussions, but, in my situation here, without
opportunity of access to many books, and without time to use them if I
had, I content myself with presenting the matter just as it comes to my
hand.
I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,
Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.
[Page 101]
[Untitled]
Legation of the United
States,
London,
January 20, 1863.
My Lord: As it seems to be desirable to my
government to arrive at some general principle to regulate questions
of rescue, like that which took place in the case of the ship Emily
St. Pierre, I have been directed to call your lordship’s attention
to another instance of claim for the restitution of a vessel, which
seems to have been heretofore made by her Majesty’s government under
very similar circumstances. Of the name of this vessel, or the
precise time when the rescue took place, I am not informed. But the
general facts of the case are presented from authority so
indubitable that I do not hesitate to lay them before your lordship
in an imperfect manner, not doubting that they can be verified, or,
if not accurately stated, corrected with but little further trouble
of investigation.
It appears that a Dutch vessel had been captured by a British cruiser
for attempting to run the blockade established by Great Britain
during the late war with Russia. A prize-master was placed on board,
and she was put in tow of her captor to bring her into port. As they
were passing along the coast of Holland, near the Texel, the Dutch
captain suddenly cut the tow-line, recovered possession of the
vessel, hoisted sail, and made his way successfully to the nearest
Dutch port. Here he discharged and secreted the cargo and abandoned
the ship, leaving the prize-master still on board. Private creditors
then stepped in, brought the vessel into the courts, and placed a
keeper in charge. It was at this moment that her Majesty’s
government is stated to have made a demand for restitution. The
Dutch authorities replied that the ship was under adjudication on
civil process in the courts. Means were, however, found to discharge
the creditors and their keeper, when the ship fell back into the
hands of the prize-master, who weighed anchor and sailed to Europe.
The case was immediately brought into the admiralty courts, which
finally decreed a restoration to the Dutch owners, though on what
ground does not appear.
The justice of a claim of restitution under the law of nations in
similar cases seems so obvious that it is much to be regretted any
difficulty should exist in the power to make it. On this subject I
have nothing new to add to the positions heretofore presented by me
to your lordship in the case of the Emily St. Pierre. Trusting that
discussion may ultimately lead to a general recognition of the
principle, as well as the adoption of the means to carry it into
full effect, I pray your lordship to accept the assurances of the
highest consideration with which I have the honor to be, my lord,
your most obedient servant,
Right Honorable Earl Russell, &c., &c., &c.
