Mr. Dayton to Mr.
Seward
No. 420.]
Paris,
February 11, 1864.
Sir: My despatch to Mr. Drouyn de l’Huys, of
February 2, notifying him that, should the Rappahannock be permitted,
under the circumstances, to go to sea, the French government would be
considered justly responsible for all damages to our commerce, has had
immediate attention.
Herewith I enclose to you a translation of Mr. Drouyn de l’Huys’s reply,
and the report of the minister of marine. They claim exemption from
responsibility, as it seems, upon the ground heretofore stated, that
nothing will be
[Page 36]
supplied to this
vessel except what is necessary to her “navigability,” and that it is
the British government, as the minister of marine thinks, (from whose
waters, it is said, the armament is to come,) that should be held
answerable for damages. They promise, however, to investigate further as
to the condition in which this vessel left the English ports and entered
Calais. It is but just to Mr. Drouyn de l’Huys to say that when he
assented to the general view that I had expressed that this vessel was
not entitled to claim the aid and reparations which are extended of
right to national vessels driven into port by stress of weather, his
opinions and views were based on the facts as he and I then understood
them. Those facts, I have no doubt, were then understood by us
correctly; but some question would seem to be made on this subject by
the minister of marine. I do not think the government can at all justify
its action in equipping this vessel on the facts as they actually exist.
It is not only a violation of the principles of international law, but a
direct violation of the Emperor’s proclamation of neutrality made in
1861.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
Hon. William H. Seward
Secretary of State, &c., &c.,
&c.
[Translation.]
M. Drouyn de l’Huys to M. Ministre of Marine
Sir: I have received the letter which you
did me the honor to write to me on the subject of the injuries which
the vessel Rappahannock might cause to the federal commerce upon its
departure from Calais. I have made it my duty, in consequence, to
again call the attention of M. the minister of marine to the
preparations of the confederate vessel, and I hasten to send you
herewith a copy of his answer. It results from it, as you will be
able to convince yourself, that the Rappahannock has not ceased to
be the object of the most active surveillance, and the numerous
visits made on board by M. the commissary of the maritime
inscription of Calais have enabled him to state that this vessel has
been able solely to procure itself what was wanting in respect to
its seaworthiness, but that it has received no object with a view to
an armament of war. The government of the Emperor could not then be
rendered responsible for the acts of aggression to which the
Rappahannock might afterwards devote itself against the federal
vessels, but which it would be powerless in its actual state to
commit against them on quitting our waters. If any doubts still
remain as to the conditions upon which this vessel left the shores
of England and took refuge at Calais, an inquiry which is now being
prosecuted by the direction of M. the minister of the marine will
furnish in this respect the desirable explanations. I will have the
honor to inform you of the result as soon as it shall be known to
me.
Accept the assurance of the high consideration with which I have the
honor to be, sir, your very humble and very obedient servant,
[Translation.]
The Minister of Marine to the Minister of
Foreign Affairs.
Monsieur le Ministre and dear Colleague: I
have just received the letter which you did me the honor to write me
the 4th of this month to
[Page 37]
transmit to me the copy of a further communication which has been
addressed to you by M. the minister of the United States at Paris,
in reference to the early departure from the port of Calais of the
confederate vessel the Rappahannock, and by which he makes known his
intention to attribute to us from the present movement
responsibility for the injuries this vessel might inflict upon the
federal commerce. Your excellency knows that the Rappahannock
entered into the port of Calais in a veritable state of
unseaworthiness, that we have not accorded to it any other
authorization than that of putting itself in condition to go to sea,
and that no other thing has been furnished to it, and always as a
commercial transaction (par le commerce)
except what was absolutely indispensable to it in order that it
might navigate. I will add, in fine, that this vessel has been on
the part of the authorities of Calais the object of the most active
surveillance.
It appears, indeed, by a letter from M. the commissary of maritime
inscription, received this morning even, that a fourth visit has
yesterday been made on board, and according to the formal
declaration of M. the inspector of the customs, there has not been
in any shape an embarkment of objects with a view to an armament of
war.
I could not then, for my part, admit the pretension of Mr. Dayton of
wishing to impute to us the injury which the Rappahannock might
cause to the federal commerce after its departure from our waters.
This pretension is so much the more unsustainable, as this vessel
could not be available as a cruiser except in so far as it should be
furnished with arms, which it would not be able to procure for
itself upon our territory. So M. the minister of the United States,
who understands this very well, pretends that these are to be
delivered to it in the open sea by an English
vessel—an act for which our responsibility cannot be engaged. It
would then be much rather to the government of her Britannic Majesty
that Mr. Dayton ought to address himself, since this delivery of
arms would constitute an act contrary to neutrality.
So in regard to what has passed in our waters, you will recognize,
Monsieur le Ministre and dear colleague, that our conduct has
continued in every respect, as well in regard to the Rappahannock as
the other confederate vessels, the Georgia and the Florida, and the
federal vessel Kearsarge, in the line of the strictest neutrality
traced out by the declaration of the 10th June, 1861, and that the
government of the Emperor could not in any form assume the
responsibility which the minister of the United States would wish to
put upon it.
