Papers Relating to Foreign Affairs, Accompanying the Annual Message of the President to the First Session Thirty-ninth Congress
Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward
Sir: Lord Russell has sent me still another note in regard to the Deerhound. I forward copies of his note and of my answer.
I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,
Hon. William H. Seward Secretary of Slate, Washington, D. C.
[Enclosures.]
1. Lord Russell to Mr. Adams, November 29, 1864.
2. Mr. Adams to Lord Russell, December 1, 1864.
Lord Russell to Mr. Adams
Sir: In acknowledging your letter of the 10th instant, I have no wish to prolong the controversy between us on the topic of the Deerhound and the rescue of Captain Semmes and other persons from drowning. On the general subject I refer you to the despatch which I have addressed to Lord Lyons, and of which I have had the honor to send you a copy in my note of this day.
There are, however, two points to which I wish to call your attention.
The first is, that you have omitted to notice the gist of my answer to vour complaint.
The question is not so much whether the act of the commander of the Deerhound, in interposing to save from drowning Captain Semmes and other officers and men of the Alabama, was “a praiseworthy act of humanity,” and whether any proposal to restore them to the hands of the victors in the struggle after they had reached the limits of this kingdom could be viewed only “as a violation of the duties of hospitality.” These considerations, I say, are not so much at issue as the question, What is the legal obligation, with regard to these matters, of her Majesty’s government towards the United States ? On this question I affirmed—
1. That the municipal law of this kingdom gave the government no power or authority to deliver up to the United States Captain Semmes, his officers, and men.
2. That the law of nations does not impose upon the government of the United Kingdom the duty of delivering up to the United States persons in the condition of Captain Semmes and such of his officers and men as had taken refuge in this kingdom.
The next point regards the differences between the United States and Spain, to which I referred. I do not wish to go fully into it now, although I may hereafter do so in correspondence with the government of the United States. I will only point out at present the [Page 12] nature of the complaint made by the Spanish minister in 1818, and the tenor of the principal article of treaty by which the differences between Spain and the United States were adjusted.
Señor de Onis, the Spanish minister at Washington, wrote, on the 16th of November, 1818, to the United States minister to the following effect: “Whatever may be the forecast, wisdom, and justice conspicuous in the laws of the United States, it is universally notorious that a system of pillage and aggression has been organized in several parts of the Union against the vessels and property of the Spanish nation,” &c.
After a long negotiation the complaints of Spain were satisfied by a treaty signed on the 22d of February, 1819. Article IX of that treaty states that “the high contracting parties, animated with the most earnest desire of conciliation, and with the object of putting an end to all the differences which have existed between them, and of confirming the good understanding which they wish to be forever maintained between them, reciprocally renounce all claim for damages or injuries which they themselves, as well as their respective citizens and subjects, may have suffered until the time of signing this treaty.”
Whether such a treaty would furnish any elements for negotiation between our two governments I am not prepared, to affirm. But it can scarcely be said that this treaty arrangement for the mutual abandonment of claims constituted a specific grant of compensation to Spain by the United States for injuries complained of by Spain.
I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obedient, humble servant,
Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &c., &c., &c.
Mr. Adams to Earl Russell
My Lord: I have had the honor to receive your note of the 29th of November, in reply to mine of the 10th of that month, on the subject of the Deerhound.
The reason why I omitted to enter into the discussion of the main points of your lordship’s note of the 26th of September was, that I had been directed by my government to present the conclusion to which it had come from a full examination of them, which appeared to render further argument on my part superfluous. Otherwise, it would have given me great pleasure to have examined the questions, 1st, How far the absence of statute law, depending on volition, can be urged in extenuation of the omission to fulfil the acknowledged obligations of international law; and 2d, How far the acknowledgment of the right of asylum by a neutral power is admitted by international law to tolerate the harboring of enemies, abusing that right, for the purpose of more effectually injuring the people of a friendly nation. But I forbear, because I have no authority to prolong the controversey, and I join with your lordship in adding that I have no such desire.
With regard to your lordship’s notice of my reference to the treaty of the United States with Spain, as not sustaining the allegation contained in my note which foreclosed all possibility of drawing the parallel between the action of the two nations which was attempted in your note of the 26th of September, I may only be permitted to repeat my surprise that the passage referred to should even yet have so completely escaped your lordship’s attention. Had you passed from the 9th article, which you quote, to the 10th, which recapitulates the claims released and surrendered on each side, you would have found on the part of Spain an express renunciation of four classes of claims, the two last of which are in the following words :
“3. To all injuries caused by the expedition of Miranda, that was fitted out and equipped at New York :
“4. To all claims of Spanish subjects upon the government of the United States arising from unlawful seizures at sea or within the ports and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”
I pray your lordship to accept the assurance of the highest consideration with which I have the honor to be, my lord, your lordship’s most obedient servant,
The Right Hon. Earl Russell, &c., &c., &c.