Miss Murray asks my assistance in the recovery of her property, but
believing that any direct claim or remonstrance would have little or
any effect, I have thought it would be better to go through General
Ellett’s superior officers at Washington, and trouble your lordship
with the matter.
Lord Lyons, &c.,
&c., &c.
Miss Mary Murray to Mr. Coppell.
New
Orleans,
March
8,1864.
Sir: I enclose an affidavit, made by
me, respecting the seizure, by General Ellett, of the marine
brigade, United States army, of one hundred and seven bales of
cotton owned by me. Said cotton was acquired by me in a lot of
four hundred bales, by purchase from Mr. W. Dent, and at the
time of seizure by General Ellett it was on Mr. Dent’s
plantation, Holly Grove, Jefferson county, Mississippi.
Asking your interference in the recovery of my property, or its
value,
P. S.—I was registered at your consulate as a British
subject, on the 7th of August, 1863.
George Coppell, Esq., Her Britannic Majesty’s Acting Consul, New
Orleans.
[Untitled]
State of Louisiana, City of New Orleans:
Be it known that on this 8th day of March, A. D. 1864, before
me, Andrew Hero, a notary public, in and for the parish of
Orleans, State of Louisiana, duly commissioned and
qualified, personally appeared Miss Mary Murray, a British
subject, who being by me duly sworn, deposed that General
Ellett came to Mr. W. Dent’s house, near Rodney,
Mississippi, on the 12th of February, 1864. He, the said
General Ellett, introduced Mr. Clements to Mr. Dent, as a
person whose property was confiscated by the confederates,
and that he had permission from the United States government
to buy cotton.
Mr. Dent remarked that he had no cotton, and what cotton was
on his plantation belonged to me, and she could sell it if
she chose. I replied, I do not wish to sell. Mr. Clements
remarked, said cotton does not belong to you, and you have
no right to own property, not having taken the oath to the
United States. He then asked Mr. Dent to make this lady
withdraw her claim. Mr. Dent replied that he could not, and
I remarked that I would not relinquish my claim for him or
for Mr. Dent.
The said General Ellett did confiscate 107 bales of my
cotton, and which I do solemnly swear was my property; and
he further remarked, I confiscate said cotton as your property.
MISS MARY MURRAY.
[Stamp ]
Sworn and subscribed before me, the said notary, the day and
year above written.
[l. s.]
ANDREW HERO, Notary
Public.
Mr. Coppell to Lord Lyons.
British Consulate, New
Orleans,
March 10,
1864.
My Lord: It is not irrelevant to the
subject of the despatch which I had the honor to address to your
lordship on the 8th instant, to suggest a preventive to the
repetition of the wrong complained of by Miss Murray.
There is much cotton now on plantations on the Mississippi river
and in its vicinity, owned by British subjects, and registered
as British property at this consulate; in the present state of
the country, it is impossible to be moved private individuals to
shipping ports, but if the United States forces take possession
of and remove it, much trouble and loss will ensue, and rightful
owners will be deprived of their property, at best, for some
time.
The cotton thus registered is, when it is possible to place it,
accompanied with a consular certificate showing that, upon oath
of the owner, it is the property of a British subject. I have
the honor to transmit herewith a copy of the certificate I have
adopted for this purpose.
I have received some complaints from parties who state that their
cotton had been removed by the United States forces, yet they
have been unable to trace it or obtain any satisfactory proof of
the fact.
Might I be allowed to suggest for your lordship’s consideration
and approval, with a view to an arrangement with the United
States government, that when cotton has a consular certificate,
or other satisfactory proof of being owned by a British subject,
that it be allowed to remain in its present position until such
time as the owner can move it with safety to a shipping port?
Should there be doubt in the minds of the United States
authorities as to the actual ownership of the cotton, or of the
legality of purchase, it will be time enough to investigate that
point, it seems to me, when the property is brought to market,
instead of taking forcible possession when the owner is
helpless, as in Miss Murray’s case.
This course would undoubtedly save much trouble to the United
States authorities in the matter of claims, and, on the other
hand, prevent anxiety and loss to innocent owners.
The arrangement of such a matter as proposed would no doubt be
met by many difficulties, which could only be surmounted by
orders from the highest authorities.
I trust your lordship will pardon the suggestion I have made if
impracticable, in consideration of the very large amount of
British capital invested in cotton by parties in England and in
this country.
I have, &c.,
Lord Lyons, &c., &c., &c.
[Untitled]
Her Britannic Majesty’s
consulate for the State of Louisiana.
Know all persons to whom these presents shall come: That I,
William Mure, esq., her Britannic Majesty’s consul for the
city of New Orleans and State of Louisiana, do hereby
certify that on the day of the date hereof personally
appeared before ________, me, who, being duly sworn, says
that the ———, as described on the document hereunto
attached, is the property of and belongs to British
subjects, and is duly registered as such at this
consulate.
Given under my hand and seal of office, at the city of New
Orleans, in the State of Louisiana, ______ day of ____, one
thousand eight hundred and ———.
