Lord Lyons to Mr. Seward.
Sir: Her Majesty’s government have considered the note which you did me the honor to address to me on the 29th of January last, respecting the case of [Page 636] the Blanche. Her Majesty’s government cannot, however, find any reason to alter or modify the view which they have hitherto taken of this case, and they regret to see that the government of the United States still hesitates to grant the redress which is due to the governments of Great Britain and Spain for the improper acts of the commander of the United States ship Montgomery.
The answer made in your note to the demand of her Majesty’s government appears to rest mainly on the allegation that the Blanche, at the time she was destroyed, was American, and not British owned. She was, however, then sailing with British papers and under the British flag in neutral waters, where that flag was not liable, by the law of nations, to aggression, search, or visit. Her registered owner was Mr. George Wigg, a natural-born British subject, residing at Liverpool. His title was shown by a regular bill of sale, dated the 31st of July, 1862, and executed at Havana by the duly constituted attorney of W. L. Smith, who appeared upon the permanent register of the port of Galveston as sole owner, on the 29th of May preceding. The transfer was expressed to be made for a valuable consideration in money, and no evidence whatever tending to impeach the bona fides of the purchase by Mr. Wigg has ever been brought to the knowledge of her Majesty’s government. The ship, therefore, being regularly documented as a British ship, and sailing as such, under the British flag, within neutral protection, has been, and is now, recognized in that character both by the British and the Spanish governments.
What evidence, then, is produced or offered by the United States government to show that the Blanche was an American vessel, fraudulently transferred and navigated under false colors for the purpose of concealing her real ownership ?
If, indeed, such a fact were established, her Majesty’s government could claim no redress, because no injury would have been done to any British subject. But the burden of displacing the prima facie title shown by the flag and papers, and by the recognition of both the neutral governments (which, until displaced by contrary evidence, would be sufficient for every legal purpose, in every court of justice throughout the world) lies upon the United States government; and it appears to her Majesty’s government that the government of the United States has, as yet, neither produced nor offered to produce any evidence whatever having the slightest real tendency to displace it.
The only new evidence put forward by your note consists in a copy of the registry of the General Rusk (afterwards called the Blanche) on the permanent register of New Orleans, dated the 8th of April, 1857, by which it appears that she was then registered as belonging to the Southern Steamship Company of New Orleans. Her Majesty’s government are at a loss to perceive how the fact that five years before the same ship was registered at New Orleans as the property of a different owner can prove that a British title derived from W. L. Smith, who, on the 29th of May, 1862, was the registered owner of the same ship on the permanent register of Galveston, is fraudulent and void. Upon the history of the vessel, between April, 1857, and May, 1862, no light is thrown. The untenable position as to the necessary invalidity of all captures from the United States in the existing war, and of all sentences of condemnation by the enemy’s prize courts, does not appear to be assumed in your present note; nor indeed does your note enable her Majesty’s government so much as to conjecture what are the alleged wrongful proceedings, on account of which the apparent title of the owner in 1862, from whom the ship was purchased by Mr. Wigg, is considered by the United States government to be liable to impeachment. The difficulty which her Majesty’s government find in following your argument on this point is not diminished by the fact that, for a considerable period after the secession from the United States of the so-called Confederate States, New Orleans, where this vessel appears to have been registered in April, 1857, was itself a principal city of these latter States. Still less can her [Page 637] Majesty’s government perceive that your note shows that the purchase by Mr. Wigg was in any sense colorable or fraudulent.
Her Majesty’s government have accordingly commanded me to inform you that I am instructed to maintain firmly the position hitherto assumed by them in this case, at all events until some more satisfactory disproof of the title of the British owner to this vessel shall be given on the part of the government of the United States.
I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obedient, humble servant,
Hon. William H. Seward, &c., &c., &c.