Mr. Bigelow to Mr. Seward
Sir: This being the day set apart by the minister of foreign affairs for the reception of the diplomatic corps on business, I profited by the opportunity to speak of the Stonewall case to him; with what results I will proceed to relate.
I commenced by asking if anything had been done or projected by the minister of justice, to whom his excellency was good enough to inform me that the Stonewall case had been transferred, for the punishment of the persons engaged in equipping her within the waters of France. His excellency replied that as yet the minister of justice had made no report to him upon the subject; that the case was under investigation, and the moment any result was reached, that I should be apprised of it. I asked if there was no summary process in France, as there is in England and America, for arresting persons on “probable cause,”to await the result of an investigation, assuming that if there was, there could be no difficulty in showing “probable cause” against some of the parties, especially J. Riviere, who was now in Paris, and those who took out the coal. His excellency, without replying very directly to this inquiry, said that the laws of France in commercial matters were generally pretty severe; that the subject had been committed to the minister of justice with a full statement of the information elicited by the investigation of the minister of marine, as well as that communicated by me; that judicial proceedings did not usually move with such rapidity as to yield any result in so short a time; and finally, that he would see or write to Mr. Barache again upon the subject. I urged him to do so with as little delay as possible. I said that the crime committed was of a character which all our people would comprehend, and the best evidence to their intelligence that [Page 229] the imperial government resented the outrage was the arrest and punishment of some at least of the offenders. I then expressed my regret that his excellency had not seen fit to entertain favorably my application on Sunday week for the benefit of his influence with Spain, and also that I had not been able to appreciate the force of his objections to such a step. His excellency replied that, with every disposition to oblige me, he did not see how he could untertake to police the waters of Spain; that he could understand perfectly how Spain could detain the Stonewall, for she was in Spanish waters, and how Denmark might intercede with Spain for her detention, for she exchanged a Danish for a confederate flag; but France stood in no such relation to the ship or to any of the parties as would justify her interference with the Stonewall in a Spanish port, nor could she without directly admitting, what he most explicitly denied, that she was a French vessel. He then recapitulated the history of the process by which he became satisfied that the ship had been sold to Denmark before he authorized her departure from Bordeaux. This I will not repeat, as he added nothing to what I have already communicated to you, except that the correspondence between him and the Danish government was conducted by telegraph. I then said that my request did not involve any decision on his part of the nationality of the Stonewall; that I was not yet prepared to discuss that question, and I hoped with his assistance it would never be necessary for us to discuss it. I simply assumed, what was now a fact of common notoriety, that a crime had been committed within the waters of France by the proprietors of the Stonewall against the laws of France; the perpetrators of that crime, or some of them, were easily identified; the Stonewall was the corps de delit. I only asked of the French government not to demand as a right, but simply to intimate a wish to the Spanish government, that the Stonewall should be detained to await the result of this investigation. I said I had reason to believe the Spanish government would be happy to have such a pretext for adhering to a line of policy to which it has already partially committed itself. I here at his request recapitulated briefly what the Spanish government had done, not doubting all the while that his excellency knew a great deal more about it than I did myself.
I then went on to point out the analogy, which in my communication of the 5th instant I had not been fortunate enough to make apparent to his excellency, between the cases of the Rappahannock and the Stonewall. The former vessel entered a French port and wished to complete her equipment that she might go out and prey upon the commerce of a friend of France; his excellency tied her up in Calais and there she lies to this day. The Stonewall came into French waters to do the same thing, to complete her equipment, that she might also prey upon the commerce of the United States. No matter what flag she bore when she entered the port, what she proposed to do, what she actually did, was a crime against the laws of France. The Stonewall is now repeating the offence in the waters of Spain. France, in vindication of her outraged laws, can with perfect propriety request Spain to do what she has herself already done under similar circumstances, more especially as Spain, I was convinced, would welcome the co-operation of France in support of such a policy.
His excellency listened to what I said with profound attention, and did not contest any of my positions, not even the analogy of the Rappahannock case, which he had questioned in his despatch of the 7th. He avowed the most earnest desire to co-operate with me in any practicable effort to arrest the career of this vessel, but he said he had no authority to assume any one guilty of a crime, when a colleague in the government was specially charged to investigate the question. If he were to instruct Mr. Mercier upon the assumption that a crime had been committed, he might be obliged to-morrow to countermand his instructions. He did not wish to move in the matter without something to shelter him from responsibility to his colleagues. If Mr. Barache would simply say to him that a crime had been committed, of which the Stonewall was the corps de [Page 230] délit, he then would be able to act. He said he would take occasion to see Mr. Barache at once and ascertain the position of the case, and allowed me to infer that he would do all he could in the premises without compromising his own government. I repeated to him that it had been and was no part of my purpose at this interview to discuss the nationality of the Olinde, now called the Stonewall, but simply to invoke his friendly co-operation with us in persuading Spain to detain the vessel if only for a few weeks, during which time events were likely to occur that would relieve us of any further trouble on her account-Here his excellency, while expressing entire willingness to do his best for us as soon as he could receive suitable assurances from the minister of justice, remarked that he had gathered from Mr. Mercier’s communications that that gentleman had already allowed the Spanish government to see that the detention of the Stonewall would not be ungrateful to him. * * * * *
I have here given, I believe, the spirit of a long conversation, with the tone of which, on the part of Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys, I felt perfectly satisfied. I think the subject is one in dealing with which he is obliged by the political exigencies of his position to act with great circumspection; but so far as I could gather from his language, tone, and manner, he was fully impressed with the justice of what I asked, and I shall be surprised if he does not promptly manifest through suitable channels a new interest in preventing the escape of the Stonewall. I only hope his efforts may not be made too late.
I am, sir, with great respect, your obedient servant,
Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State, &c., &c., &c.