Papers Relating to Foreign Affairs, Accompanying the Annual Message of the President to the Second Session Thirty-eighth Congress, Part II

Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward.

No. 748.]

Legation of the United States, London, July 15, 1864.

Sir: John Seymour, the London shipping agent, referred to in my No. 737 of the 7th instant as having been indicted for a violation of the foreign enlistment act in engaging men to serve on board armed vessels belonging to the insurgents in the United States, plead guilty yesterday to the charge. I herewith forward a copy of the Times containing a report of the proceedings in the case.

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS.

Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.

[From the London Times of July 15, 1864.]

Central Criminal Court, July 14.—Old Court.

(Before Lord Chief Justice Earle.)

John Seymour, a shipping agent living in Wellclose square, pleaded “ guilty” to an indictment charging him with a misdemeanor under the foreign enlistment act.

The solicitor general and Mr. Giffard, instructed by the solicitor to the treasury, were counsel for the crown; and Mr. Metcalfe, with whom was Mr. F. H. Lewis, had been retained for the prisoner.

Mr. Metcalfe, with the view to a mitigation of punishment, stated that up to the present time the prisoner had borne a good character, and had lived in one place for many years, carrying on the business of a shipping agent. It might be that he had acted illegally, but he was not aware that he was doing wrong, and the men he hired were simply hired as firemen, and not for any naval or military service.

The solicitor general said the object of this prosecution, on the part of the crown, was rather prevention than punishment. It was deemed absolutely necessary to prevent a system which had been carried on for some time of enlisting persons in the service of foreign states. He was willing to believe that the prisoner had hitherto borne a respectable character, and he was bound to say he had been rather a subordinate agent in the transaction than a principal. Under those circumstances, as far as the crown was concerned, he should be satisfied if the prisoner were discharged on his own recognizances to appear and receive judgment if called upon; but it must be on the distinct understanding that in the event of the slightest repetition of the offence he would be called upon to surrender himself and receive sentence.

Chief Justice Erle said he was disposed to accede to the suggestion. It could hardly be too well known in these times that the law prohibited the enlistment of persons for any military or naval purpose, and also the procuring, or endeavoring to procure, persons so to enlist in the service of a foreign belligerent state at peace with us. The law was, therefore, violated in this case by sending out firemen to serve on board a vessel-of-war of a foreign state. The prisoner had pleaded “guilty,” but as the counsel for the crown would be satisfied if he were discharged on his own recognizances to appear and receive judgment if called upon, he was discharged accordingly. If the offence was repeated the judgment would be a severe one, but if the prisoner abstained from the repetition of it he would hear no more of the matter.