Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams.
Sir: Your despatch of the 26th of February, No. 606, is before me. I learn from it that on the 25th of February you had a conversation with Earl Russell concerning the conflicts and collisions which, during the last few months, have arisen out of the abuses of neutrality by emissaries of the insurgents, and their abettors in British ports and provinces. It is an occasion of sincere regret that the conversation was necessarily a hurried one, and that it did not encourage us to expect a remedy for the evils which were discussed. This regret is increased by the announcement of two important events bearing upon the subject: First, that her Majesty’s government have reversed their decision in the case of the Tuscaloosa and ordered her to be set at liberty, after having previously determined that she should be detained and given up to her American owners; and, secondly, that the judicial authorities of New Brunswick have released the pirates of the Chesapeake, who were arrested at St. John’s, and have declined to give them up upon the requisition of this government under the treaty for extradition. The explanation which Lord Lyons has given us of the first decision is, that the law officers of the crown hold that although the Tuscaloosa might have been lawfully detained under orders which had recently been transmitted to the Cape, yet that, as she had once before those orders visited the Cape and had been permitted to depart, she might reasonably have supposed that she would be again received in the same way, and therefore that she ought not to have been seized and detained on this occasion, without previous notice of the new orders.
In regard to the other case, we learn that the decision which operates against us as a defeat of justice rests upon legal objections entertained by the court. Thus in these cases, as in those of the Alabama, the Alexandra, and the steam rams at Lairds’ ship yard, we meet disappointments at every stage and constantly increasing embarrassments, resulting from judicial or executive interpretation of municipal law or the law of nations, under which active and restless enemies, without a port or lawful ship, save to themselves privileges as a naval belligerent in the neutral ports of Great Britain.
The government of the United States cherish a profound respect for the government of Great Britain, and we entertain as much deference towards the judicial and legal authorities of that country as any aggrieved nation has ever conceded to the tribunals of the aggrieving party. But it can hardly be expected that such respect and confidence will be effective enough to induce a great commercial nation to acquiesce in and submit to a practical destruction of its navigation and to injurious and dangerous assaults upon its domestic peace, [Page 318] in violation of all previous principles of maritime law. For this reason the government of the United States has not at any time thought it proper or wise to follow the British courts and counsellors of the crown like a private litigant, and successively modify its appeals and remonstrances in conformity to successive orders, decrees and judgments of British tribunals, which, as we think, necessarily partake of the uncertainty and caprice incident everywhere to the civil administration of justice. On the contrary, the United States have constantly referred themselves to the wisdom and magnanimity of her Majesty’s executive government, who are exclusively charged by the British nation with the duty of regulating its intercourse and maintaining peace and harmony with foreign states.
It was seen, as we thought, early in the month of December last, that British ports at home and abroad, situate in a line that extends through a considerable portion of the earth, were becoming a base for operations hostile and dangerous to the United States. The constantly growing evidences of this painful condition of things have been presented by you to her Majesty’s government, with a fullness and directness that have perhaps tried the patience of Great Britain. There was a special class of evidence having the same practical tendency which fell within the direct observation of her Majesty’s government, namely, the multiplied complaints preferred to them by subjects of the Queen, of rigor and severity incurred by them at the hands of this government in maintaining the rights and interests of the United States. It has been respectfully submitted to her Majesty’s government that the condition of things thus disclosed, which our experience shows to be little less than actual war, but which prudent statesmen may nevertheless truly regard as a prelude to unmeditated war, has resulted from no proceeding of the government or people of the United States against Great Britain or her subjects, but has, on the contrary, resulted from the policy which Great Britain has adopted and the proceedings which her subjects have practiced in regard to the United States. We remonstrated against that policy at every stage of its development, and expressed our conviction that it would be followed only by complications such as are now deplored. At the same time we have abstained from demanding or suggesting to her Majesty’s government any particular form of remedy; and we rested satisfied with asking that government to do something which would relieve the painful situation into which the country had been brought. This course was adopted because it was thought to be one which was entirely consistent with the honor of the United States and with the respect which they owe to Great Britain. Earl Russell in his conversation with you, as we understand it, has given you no reason to hope that anything whatever will be done. The United States are not disposed to attribute this attitude to any sentiment of injustice or unfriendliness on the part of that government; they willingly assume that it results from the difficulty of fixing the national attention upon a new and annoying foreign question, and securing for it the serious consideration which is required. However this may be, it is necessary for us to accept the situation as it is, and to decide upon the further course of this government in regard to it. You are therefore informed that it will be agreeable to the President if her Majesty’s government, instead of dismissing our complaint, will continue to hold it under consideration with a desire to find some change of policy which shall tend to prevent the further commission of injuries against the United States by British subjects or American insurgents going from British ports or possessions.
The President, while maintaining the rights and authority of the United States, and guarding against the dangers of the situation, will nevertheless continue to consider with candor and to act with justice upon the increasing mass of complaints which her Majesty’s minister here is instructed to present for investigation and redress. The President will, moreover, exercise his influence to prevent the growth of injurious and retaliatory proceedings against Great [Page 319] Britain. But he thinks it proper to say that he believes that he possesses no influence adequate to induce satisfaction or contentment with the condition of affairs as it now exists.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
C. F. Adams, Esq., &c., &c., &c.