Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams.
Sir: Your despatch of the 28th of June, No. 731, has been received. It relates to the proceedings which you have taken in regard to the interference of the royal yacht association steamer Deerhound in the battle between the Kearsarge and the pirate Alabama, and is accompanied by a copy of notes which passed between Earl Russell and yourself on that subject. These papers have been submitted to the President.
The representation which you have made to Earl Russell accords, so far as it goes, with the instructions conveyed in my No. 1025 of the 8th instant, and is approved.
I regret to find in Earl Russell’s answer what seems to me an apparent misapprehension of the case, which was very well presented by you on the part of this government. Your complaint was not, as he seems to suppose, that the Deerhound rescued the drowning pirates. Your complaint was, that the Deer-hound, being a British (therefore ostensibly a neutral) vessel, interfered with a view to aid in effecting the escape of a number of persons belonging to the Alabama, who had already surrendered themselves as prisoners of war; and that the pirates rescued by that intervention were brought into the kingdom of Great Britain, and that they now are within that kingdom, in readiness to enter the same unlawful and hostile service on the first opportunity.
[Page 219]In making that complaint, you distinctly informed Earl Russell that the Alabama had been surrendered, and was sinking, and that a portion of the crew was struggling in the waves; that Captain Win slow, who was then engaged in rescuing these drowning persons, saw the Deerhound approach, and solicited the commander of that vessel to. assist in that humane duty; that he, acceding to that request, did rescue from the sea more than forty of these enemies of the United States, and then he conveyed them beyond the reach of the Kearsarge, and placed them under the protection of the neutral British flag. In fact, the Deerhound intervened to perform an office of humanity, at the request of the Kearsarge. She abused the confidence reposed in her, and directly restored to the attitude of combatants the enemies of the United States whom she had rescued. Earl Russell intimates an opinion that it was only an act of humanity on the part of the Deerhound to lift up and take Semmes and his men from the waves. The earl argues, that if those persons had not been so taken from the sea, they would in all probability have been drowned, and thus would never have been in the situation of prisoners of war. Earl Russell further observes, in that connexion, that it does not appear to him to be any part of the duty of a neutral to assist in making prisoners of men for one of the belligerents.
I have to observe, upon these remarks of Earl Russell, that it was the right of the Kearsarge that the pirates should drown, unless saved by humane exertions of the officers and crew of that vessel, or by their own efforts, without the aid of the Deerhound. The men were either already actually prisoners, or they were desperately pursued by the Kearsarge. If they had perished, the Kearsarge would have had the advantage of a lawful destruction of so many enemies; if they had been recovered by the Kearsarge, with or without the aid of the Deerhound, then the voluntary surrender of those persons would have been perfected, and they would have been prisoners. In neither case would they have remained hostile confederates.
The Deerhound, by taking the men from the waves, and conveying them within a foreign jurisdiction, deprived the United States of the lawful benefits of a long and costly pursuit and successful battle.
I freely admit that it is no part of a neutral’s duty to assist in making captives for a belligerent; but I maintain it to be equally clear, that, so far from being neutrality, it is direct hostility for a stranger to intervene and rescue men who had been cast into the ocean in battle, and then convey them away from under the conqueror’s guns.
Earl Russell seems to have expressed the opinions which I have thus controverted without having previously investigated the case with his customary deliberation. He promises you that he will address the owner of the Deerhound on the subject. We may, therefore, yet expect, if not a more favorable, at least a more considerate answer than that which is now before me.
In the mean time, my previous instructions and the remarks which I have now made will apprise you of the views of the case which this government has adopted, so far as it has now been developed. I perceive, with regret, that Earl Russell takes no notice of the fact that the Alabama was not a vessel built, armed, manned, equipped, and fitted out by the insurgents in the waters of our own country; but that, on the contrary, she was built, manned, armed, and equipped by British subjects in a British port, and that her crew were enlisted and organized, and have until this time been constantly paid, within the jurisdiction of Great Britain. No matter how valid were the excuses of the British government for failing to prevent the original departure of the Alabama from her ports to wage war against the United States, it seems to me that now, when the commander and a portion of her crew have been rescued by the intervention of British subjects, in violation of the national neutrality, and conveyed within British jurisdiction, the retaining, harboring, and protecting them by the British government would be, not merely wrongful and injurious of itself, but an aggravation [Page 220] of the wrong against the United States which was perpetrated in the original construction and despatch of the hostile vessel.
I perceive that, in a letter which purports to have been written by the owner of the Deerhound, he denies that he held communication with the Alabama before the battle, and denies also that he accepted a deposit of valuables from Semmes, the commander of the pirates. I shall be happy if these denials shall be confirmed. The questions which have arisen out of the transaction are sufficiently embarrassing, even when that aggravation of the case is removed.
The President is not seeking for oifenees on the part of Great Britain; but he is charged with the duty of maintaining the belligerent rights of the United States on the high seas, as they are recognized by the law of nations, against all unlawful combinations and resistance.
I sincerely trust that her Majesty’s government will consider our representation in a just and candid spirit; for I feel well assured that we are asking from Great Britain, in this case, just what, if the situation of the parties were reversed, she would have promptly asked, and we should have freely conceded to herself.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
Charles F. Adams, Esq., &c., &c., &c.