Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch of November 15, No. 1091.It is accompanied by several interesting papers:
First. A copy of a note which Lord Clarendon addressed to you on the 11th instant, in execution of his promise to communicate more fully concerning the surrender of the Shenandoah and the disposition of the pirates to be made by her Majesty’s government.
Secondly. A copy of a note which appears to have been addressed to Earl Russell on the 6th November instant, by one James J. Waddell, who describes himself as being the commander of what he calls the confederate ship Shenandoah, but which we certainly know to be the British registered ship Sea King. Waddell, in his communication, reports that the brig has now returned to the port of Liverpool, and there placed herself and crew under the protection of her Majesty’s government, having at length desisted from a destructive career which she pursued indefatigably for a period of about ten months, during which, as we well know, he derived all his men and material of war, supplies and provisions from home and colonial ports within the British empire, in opposition to the earnest and continuous protest of the agents of the United States.
Thirdly. Your reply acknowledging the receipt of the note of Lord Clarendon. I lose no time in giving you the views of the President concerning the [Page 669] papers which have thus been brought to his consideration, and the subjects to which they relate.
First. Among those subjects is the delivery of the Shenandoah, by direction of her Majesty’s government, to the agents of the United States. We accept the vessel, but I regret to say that the acceptance is not attended with any sense of satisfaction on the part of this government. It would have gratified the President if her Majesty’s government had caused proceedings to be instituted for the condemnation of the Shenandoah. The course, however, which the British government has heretofore pursued in regard to our applications for justice was such as to discourage, on our part, an expectation of such a disposition of the vessel. We accept her now, simply and exclusively, upon the prudential consideration that, being reduced into our possession, she will not again depart from the British waters in a hostile character.
Secondly. The United States cannot but ask the serious attention of her Majesty’s government to the facts of the case as they bear upon the discharge of the offender Waddell and his accomplices. After having exposed himself and them to prosecution for piracy in the ports of every civilized nation, he impertinently and indecently, as it would seem to us, placed himself and his associates under the protection of her Majesty’s government, under circumstances which, as they are viewed by this government, are calculated to render a judicial investigation necessary for the safety and welfare of an injured and friendly nation. The United States think that they might well have promptly called upon her Majesty’s government to surrender the offenders as fugitives from justice, to be brought within the jurisdiction of the United States and punished here for their flagrant crimes. The United States, however, were not at liberty, consistently with their self-respect, to pursue that course. They could not but recall the fact that in recent cases of the Chesapeake, and J. L. Gerety, or Eureka, applications of that character made by the United States were denied by the judicial authority of Great Britain, approved by the executive government, on the ground that the offence of piracy on the high seas was properly cognizable in her Majesty’s courts of the realm, and therefore that the offenders were not lawful subjects of extradition to a foreign government. It therefore only remained to the United States to ask her Majesty’s government themselves to take the measures which seemed to be required for the discharge of obligations to the United States and the vindication of public justice. This suggestion was made by you to Lord Clarendon in what seems to us to have been a very respectful and becoming manner. The result which followed was the discharge and un. conditional enlargement of the offenders from custody, upon two grounds, first, that her Majesty’s government have in their possession no evidence to impeach a prevaricating plea of the commander. This position was assumed when every part of the unlawful transaction complained of had occurred either in British ports or on the decks of the Shenandoah, herself a British vessel, and when all those transactions had been fully made known to her Majesty’s government, and when any parties who could give the necessary testimony for the conviction of the pirates were not only within British jurisdiction, but actually within custody of agents of her Majesty’s government. The other ground which is assigned for the enlargement of the offenders is, that none of them were subjects of Great Britain. Whereas, upon evidence which seems to this government entirely conclusive, all the offenders were either native subjects of the Queen, or had become, by some sufficient form of refuge or domiciliation, amenable, equally with native subjects, to the penal laws of the realm.
The United States regret that they are unable to draw from these proceedings any other inference than the painful one that her Majesty’s government have assumed to hold guiltless of all crime subjects of her Majesty who have, in a time of profound peace, waged naval war upon the high seas against unarmed citizens of the United States engaged in lawful commerce and navigation.
[Page 670]As a protest against these proceedings, you will read this despatch to Lord Clarendon, and leave with him a copy, if desired.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &c.,&c.,&c.,