Mr. Burnley to Mr. Seward
Sir: Her Majesty’s government have had under their consideration the note which I did myself the honor of addressing to you on the 23d ultimo, relative to the cotton owned by British subjects at Savannah, and it seems proper at the present juncture that the views of her Majesty’s government should be made perfectly clear to the United States government on this important question; a question which may engage the attention of her Majesty’s representative here as southern towns successively fall into the hands of the Union forces.
Her Majesty’s government observe in the outset that it is an uncontroverted proposition of international law that if a neutral subject has a just title to property found by a belligerent in a town which he has obtained by conquest from the enemy, such property is not liable to confiscation, and that this principle is simple and intelligible. War gives the belligerent a perfect right to capture the goods of his enemy, but none to capture the goods of his friend. That the principle does not depend upon the element on which the goods of the neutral happen to be in company with the goods of the enemy.
That the obligation to restore to the neutral owner his goods is equally binding upon the belligerent, whether he captures them in the ship or in the town of his enemy. Such are the general principles of law applicable to the case.
It is for the claimants to give clear proof that the goods in question are bona fide the property of the neutral, and that the neutral has not so conducted himself daring the war as to have impressed upon himself the character of an enemy. In cases of real doubt and uncertainty, the belligerent would be justified in submitting the question of property to the investigation of the proper authority at home; but it would be, in the opinion of her Majesty’s government, a great hardship imposed on the neutral owner to send the cotton from Savannah to New York for this purpose, and the act would be an unfriendly one on the part of the United States Executive, unless there were a real and well-founded apprehension that the cotton might be subject to recapture by the enemy at Savannah while the question as to its ownership was pending and undecided; but if, on the other hand, there be really no doubt that these bales of cotton do belong to a neutral owner, and that they can be distinguishable on the spot by ordinary measures, the arbitrary transfer of the cotton to New York would be a subject of legitimate complaint on the part of the government of the neutral owner.
In the note which I had the honor to address to you on the 7th instant, I then took occasion to remark that the action of the military authorities at Savannah was prejudicial to the rights of the owners, and that I did not clearly see how such owners were to make out their case, even before a proper court, if hindrances were placed in their way towards registering those claims.
I must, therefore, pending further instructions from her Majesty’s government, and information as to the actual transfer of cotton to New York, protest as directed against any compulsory sale of that which is claimed by British owners.
I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obedient, humble servant,
Hon. William H. Seward, &c., &c., &c.