Mr. Dayton to Mr. Seward
Sir: I yesterday communicated to Mr. Drouyn de l’Huys the contents of your despatch No. 468, and I did this the more readily as, in its main features, it was a reiteration from you of views that I had individually already expressed to him. I read to him that part of your despatch in which you state that the decision of the French government in respect to the Rappahannock, co-operating with other causes, will be a trial to the friendship of our country towards France, for which, after the protests we have made, not our government, but “the Emperor, will be responsible.” He said, in reply, that we must deal with things as they were. That France having acknowledged the south as belligerents, he could do nothing less than treat them as such. That, keeping that position in view, the Florida and Georgia had been received in their ports. That the Florida had been repaired, though little had been done to the Georgia, and nothing had been done to either of these vessels except what was essential to their “navigability.” That their fighting powers had not been improved, nor had a French seaman been permitted to embark on either of them. That in respect to these vessels, therefore, he thought they had kept within the limits of clear rules of international law. That in respect to the Rappahannock, she had not yet been permitted to leave port, nor would she be permitted to leave until his government, by a most rigorous and careful examination, had satisfied itself that no rule of law had been violated. She had been permitted to repair as a vessel of commerce only, and if we anticipated that she was to be converted into a ship-of-war by guns from England, it was against England, and not France, we should complain; but if the fact turned out, as I insisted, that she was no vessel of commerce, but a ship-of-war, then he admitted that if she came into a French port, not by stress of weather, but voluntarily to finish her equipment, and she were permitted to leave, it would be a breach of the proclamation of neutrality published by the Emperor; but the question of fact, he said, was yet in the course of investigation. I repeated to him the evidence on this question, (a summary of which will be found, by the way, in the first despatch I sent to him on this subject, dated December 4th last.) He seemed to consider, however, that I presented the question in some new lights, and said he would again refer the matter to the minister of marine. The line of distinction between what they might properly do and what they might not was, he said, in his mind quite clear. If a war vessel came into their ports from stress of weather, they were bound to let her repair damages, adding nothing except such repairs to her fighting qualities; but if such a vessel came into port in an unfinished condition, they could not rightfully permit her to finish her equipment, for that would be to shape a harmless log or mass of timber into a fighting ship. I told him that he and I did not then differ, in this case, so much about the law as about the fact, and I yet hoped that on the further investigation, which he promised, this vessel might be stopped. I told him, further, that it was reported to me that she had not been able to procure a crew; that the men, as long as the vessel lay so convenient to the British ports, deserted and returned to England, whence they came; that, as a consequence, Captain Campbell had become discouraged, and had made up his mind to go around to Cherbourg or Brest to complete his crew. That two or three days ago two vessels laden with coal had come to Calais from England, and they were now engaged in transshipping it preparatory to the Rappahannock’s leaving port. He made a memorandum of the fact, and said the French government had adopted the English rules on these subjects. I told him those rules would prevent this vessel’s going into another French port for three months, but I did not remember to have yet seen those rules published in the Moniteur. He said they had [Page 42] without doubt been sent to the authorities at the several ports, and he, Mr. Drouyn de l’Huys, had supposed they had been published. At all events, he and the minister of marine had agreed that such rules should be enforced, except, I think, as to the article of coal. These rules, fairly applied, will diminish to some considerable extent the use of French ports by these rebel ships.
I have this morning received a telegram from Captain Winslow, stating that the Kearsarge is again at or off the port of Brest. M. Drouyn de l’Huys says that he believes those iron-clads at Bordeaux are sold to a neutral, but I receive information from Mr. Wood, our minister at Copenhagen, that the minister of foreign affairs of Denmark says he does not know, nor has he ever heard, of any negotiation for the purchase or building for that country of any ships in France. M. Drouyn de l’Huys tells me, and I do not doubt but that he has given notice to Mr. Arman (the builder of the iron-clads, and the contractor for the four other ships building for the confederates) that France must be relieved from all trouble in reference to any of them, and Arman has promised him that France shall be. He says that the four other vessels are building for commerce, and that he can and will sell them to neutral parties. In the mean time I can and will keep a sharp eye to the entire proceeding.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
Hon. William H. Seward Secretary of State, &c., &c., &c.