Papers Relating to Foreign Affairs, Accompanying the Annual Message of the President to the First Session Thirty-ninth Congress

Mr. Perry to Mr. Seward

No. 164.]

Legation of the United States, Madrid, February 8, 1865.

Sir: On the 7th instant I wrote you that the first resolution of this government in the question of the repairs solicited by the iron-clad ram Stonewall, now lying at Ferrol, had been to treat her as the Sumter was treated at Cadiz in 1862; that I had remonstrated in such terms that I procured a counter order, and that all work had been suspended on that ship. I now beg to report in detail the steps taken by me and the general history of that affair.

On the 4th instant, after my despatch No. 162 of that date with its enclosures had been written, I received the telegrams Nos 1, 2, and 3, which informed me that the Stonewall had crossed the bay from Corunna to Ferrol, where there is an extensive naval arsenal and marine engine factory belonging to the government; that the consular agent at Corunna had protested against the repairs according to my instruction by telegram (already forwarded in No. 162,) and that the screw sloop-of-war Sacramento had immediately sailed from Cadiz on receipt of my telegram of the same morning.

I replied at once to the consular agent at Ferrol in telegram No. 10, ordering him to protest against every kind of repairs and succor for the corsair as contrary to the royal decree of June 17, 1861, and offensive to the government of the United States, with which Spain is at peace. Before daylight on the 5th instant I had the honor to send you, through the consul at Queenstown, the telegram No, 11, and to Mr. Adams at London, and Mr. Bigelow at Paris, Nos. 12 and 13, giving a description of the ram as furnished me by the consular agent at Ferrol.

At about 11 o’clock I went to see Mr. Benavides, her Catholic Majesty’s minister of state, and informed him that I had been misinformed the day before; that the rebel ship was not the Shenandoah, as at first supposed, but a new ironclad ram, whose description I gave him. This varied the grounds of my reclamation. Mr. Benavides informed me that he had seen his colleagues, that they had a precedent already in the case of the Sumter, and that it had been decided to treat this ship in the same way the Sumter was treated, which had proved satisfactory to my government.

I immediately answered that I had had the honor to treat the case of the Sumter myself with Mr. Calderon Collantes, and that I had acquiesced in what had been done in that instance, stating clearly that it should not be used as a precedent for future cases, whilst my government had approved that course, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, coupling its approval with a protest against the provisions of the royal decree of June 17th, 1861, according to which it had been decided.

I then showed Mr. Benavides the distinctions between the case of an ironclad ram and a wooden ship as 1 understood them, and as they had been established by an English tribunal called to pass upon a case in which this new class of vessels was concerned.

I mentioned to him also the case of the Rappahannock detained by the French government at Calais under circumstances precisely similar to those of the Stonewall at Ferrol, except that the latter was an iron-clad, which made the case still stronger against her being repaired.

Mr. Benavides requested me to let him have all that in writing, and he would see what could be done.

I returned home and immediately wrote the note of which a translation is enclosed, and it was handed to Mr. Benavides the same afternoon. It was written in Spanish, and the first draught sent to the minister without preserving other copy than that taken by press from the original, and which I now enclose herewith. It seemed to me preferable to thus get the arguments of that paper before the Spanish government immediately, saving a day or two’s delay in the preparation of a translation by the Spanish state department before it could have its effect upon the ministers while the Stonewall would be reparing at Ferrol.

I am now preparing English copies both of this and of the note of the 4th instant, to be kept by Mr. Benavides as originals, the Spanish copies to be treated as translations.

After that note was sent, I received at about 8 o’clock the same evening, February 5, the two telegrams Nos. 4 and 5 from our consular agent at Ferrol, and from Mr. Bigelow at Paris, which informed me that the Stonewall was in a bad state, unable to keep the seas, and that the works had been suspended under the consular protest, and instructions asked from Madrid.

Mr. Bigelow informed me that the vessel was built at Bordeaux, sold to Denmark, equipped for the confederates at a place illegible, and advised me to seek Monsieur Mercier and detain her.

Thus it was certain the orders to treat this ship as the Sumter had been treated had not yet reached Ferrol; she was detained, and nothing had been done upon her up to that time.

I learned also that the least time she would need in order to stop the leaks about her helm-ports enough to enable her to go to sea would be three days, according to the report of the government officers who surveyed her at Ferrol.

On the 6th instant I called on Mr. Mercier, the French ambassador, and showed him Mr. Bigelow’s telegram of the 5th. But he replied to my verbal request for his co-operation that he had no other antecedents than what I brought him, and that without instructions from Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys he did not feel at liberty to take any step in the matter.

I also saw Mr. Banuelos, sub-secretary of state, who met me with my note of the 5th instant in his hands and complained that the terms of that note had appeared to them hard; that he himself, whose personal sympathies were entirely on the side of the north, did not like it. I found, however, on inquiry, that he had not read it, but his attention had been called to some phrases by the clerk to whose bureau it belonged.

I told Mr. Banuelos that I intended it to be only just hard enough to stop the repairs on the Stonewall; that I did not stand upon the words or phrases, and that if we could come to an understanding as to things, I would throw the paper into the chimney and replace it with one as soft as he could desire. I begged him, however, to consider the points made in the note, which I then repeated and urged verbally, the result of this interview being that an official letter was sent from the state department to that of marine, requesting the minister of marine to suspend the work on the Stonewall until further advice; it being understood that I would prepare the draught of another note to be handed to Mr. Banuelos, and if the definitive resolution of this question which Mr. Banuelos hoped to obtain from the cabinet should be in accordance with my wishes, as he expected, then the note of 5th February to be withdrawn and replaced by the second one.

Having effected this arrangement, and seen the order for suspension of the repairs issued, I returned home and found the telegram No. 6 from the consular agent at Ferrol, which advised me that the work had just been begun on the ship that afternoon, under the orders I had just succeeded in having suspended.

On the 7th instant, my despatch No. 163 was written and forwarded to you by the morning train. Telegram No. 14 was sent to consular agent at Ferrol, who replied at two o’clock, (telegram No. 7,) that the order of suspension had been obeyed, and that it was impossible for the Stonewall to go to sea in the state she then was.

I prepared the draught of a new note as arranged, and then sought an interview with Mr. Benavides, to whom I urged the arguments for detaining the iron-clad ram, completely, as set forth in the draught of a note a copy of which goes enclosed.

Mr. Benavides showed me that these repairs had been provisionally suspended; thought that they could not alter the law of the decree of June 17, 1861, which he said had been, published by the party of O’Donnell, now in opposition, and which he perhaps would never have published and would be glad to have out of the way. If any indication should come from the French government, it would help the case very much; meantime the repairs would not go on.

I left this interview under the impression that Mr. Benavides would himself be glad to take a view of this question very much like the one I urged upon him, but that he was by no means sure what would be the decision of the cabinet in apprehension of the attacks which might be expected from the opposition in the chambers, if they were to vary from the precedent of the Sumter case at Cadiz.

Immediately afterwards I had an interview with Mr. Banuelos, to whom I handed the draught of a new note; spoke of the incidents of the Sumter negotiation; showed your despatches to me, (No. 6 of February 4th, 1862, and No. 13 of February 24, 1862,) leaving No. 6 confidentially in his hands to be used as he might see fit.

Mr. Banuelos thought I should get all I asked except the detention by the Spanish authorities of the Stonewall in the port, because, he said, the batteries there were old and armed with old-fashioned artillery, and what could the authorities do? If the iron-clad chose to leave, they had not the material power sufficient to stop her. I said that their responsibility would be covered if they made the attempt, and I should be satisfied with the order for detention if it were executed in good faith, whatever might be the result. I had no idea the ram would attempt to force her way out against the authority of a royal order for her detention.

Returning from this interview, I sent to Mr. Bigelow the telegram No. 15, in which I informed him that the Stonewall was detained provisionally; that Mr. Mercier had no instructions, and begged him to see Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys, and I would detain the ram till instructions could arrive.

T beg leave thus to submit the history of this case up to the night of the 7th instant, and have the honor to remain, with the highest respect, sir, your obedient servant,

HORATIO J. PERRY.

Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State, Washington.

[Telegrams with despatch 164.—Translation.]

No. 1.

Corunna, February 4, 1865.

To the Charge d’ Affaires of the United States:

Having energetically protested to the authorities of Corunna and Ferrol, the Stonewall went off to-day to Ferrol. Count on my faithfulness. I am an American citizen.

FUENTES, Consular Agent.

No. 2.

FERROL, February 4, 1865.

To the United States Ambassador:

At this moment the armor-clad confederate brig Stonewall, of 300 horse-power, 3 guns, Commander V. G. Page, crew 79, from Copenhagen and Corunna, bound for America, has arrived, I ask prompt instructions.

FERNANDEZ.

No. 3.

Cadiz, February 7, 1865.

American Minister:

The two despatches received and delivered. The captain has gone to Vigo.

EGGLESTON.

No. 4.

Ferrol, February 5, 1865.

Chargé d’Affaires of the United States at Madrid:

Stonewall in bad condition; cannot proceed. Work suspended until decision of government. A vessel of H. C. M. in guard. I have protested as you instructed me.

CONSUL.

No. 5.

Paris, February 5, 1865.

United States Legation at Madrid:

Stonewall built at Bordeaux, refused by Denmark, equipped for confederates and driven from Quiberon. France pursues her. Seek Mercier and detain the steamer. Letter by mail.

BIGELOW.

No. 6.

FERROL, February 6, 1865.

Charge d’Affaires of the United States at Madrid:

Stonewall repairing damages at the arsenal.

FERNANDEZ, Consul.

No. 7.

FERROL, February 7, 1865.

The royal order is complied with. Not possible for Stonewall to go to sea in the condition in which she is, according to advices.

CONSUL FERNANDEZ.

No. 8.

[Telegram.—Lisbon, February 8, 1865.]

Horatio Perry, American Legation, Madrid:

Have you precise information as to rebel cruiser reported at Ferrol and Vigo? Are you sure as to Shenandoah?

The Sacramento entered here partially disabled, en route to Vigo.

HARVEY.

No. 9.

[Telegram.—Lisbon, February 9, 1865.]

Horatio Perry, American Legation, Madrid:

Please keep me fully informed about movements of corsair at Ferrol.

JAMES E. HARVEY.

No. 10.

[Telegram.—February 4, 1865—5 p. m.]

[Official.—Translation.]

To the Consular Agent of the United States at Ferrol:

Protest with energy and persistence before the local authorities against every kind of repairs and succor for the corsair, as contrary to the royal decree of June 17, 1861, and offensive to the government of the United States, with which Spain is at peace.

PERRY, Chargé d’Affaires.

No. 11.

[Telegram.—February 5, 1865—5 a. m.]

To the Consul of the United States, Queenstown, Cork:

The iron-clad confederate steamer Stonewall, Commander V. G. Page, 3 guns, 300 horse* power, crew 79 men, from Copenhagen for America, is stopped at Ferrol to repair damages

HORATIO I. PERRY.

The Secretary of State at Washington.

No. 12.

[Telegram.—February 5, 1865—5 a. m.]

To his Excellency the Minister of the United States at London:

The iron-clad confederate steamer Stonewall, Commander V. G. Page, 3 guns, 300 horsepower, crew 79 men, from Copenhagen for America, is stopped at Ferrol to repair damages.

HORATIO J. PERRY.

No. 13.

[Telegram.—February 5, 1865—5 a. m.]

Chargé d’Affaires of the United States, Paris:

It is the iron-clad steamer Stonewall, Captain V. G. Page, 3 guns, 300 horse power, 79 men, from Copenhagen for America, at the Ferrol arsenal asking for repairs.

HORATIO J. PERRY.

No. 14.

[Telegram.—February 7, 1865—8 o’clock a. m.]

United States Consular Agent at Ferrol:

Today countermand last evening’s order issued to suspend wholly works on the Stonewall. Make this known to the authorities, renewing your protest.

HORATIO J. PERRY,Chargé d Affaires.

No. 15.

[Telegram.–February 7, 1865—5 p. m.]

United States Chargé d’Affaires, Paris:

Stonewall provisionally under detention. Mercier is without instructions. Seek Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys. I can detain the corsair until instructions arrive. Your despatch and letter received. Thanks.

PERRY, Chargé d’Affaires.

No. 16.

[Telegram,— February 8, 1865—9 a.m.]

To United Stales Chargé d’Affaires, Paris:

The Stonewall is the same as what was called the Stoerkodder at Bordeaux, and Olinde at Quiberon. Her crew is the old crew of the corsair Florida,

PERRY, Chargé d’Affaires.

B.

[Note to Spanish government.—Translation to be considered as original.]

Legation of the United States at Madrid, Madrid, February 5, 1865.

Sir: I make known to your excellency that I was misinformed yesterday, and that, according to my later information, the Tessei which was at Corunna is not the same which was equipped in the waters of the Canary islands.

This one is an iron-clad steamer of three guns and three hundred horse-power,-with a crew of seventy-nine men. She comes from Copenhagen, bound for America, and was moved yesterday from Corunna to Ferrol in search of repairs which she needs.

That portion of my note of yesterday is, therefore, without effect, which supposed that this vessel had already violated a municipal law of Spain, which was cited; although the text of that law, and its meaning, if it were to be executed in any case, are not in accordance with International law, which is that to which the government of the United States attends in its relatione with the government of her Majesty.

We must, therefore, in considering the question presented by the presence of this war vessel in the port of Ferrol, limit ourselves to its international aspect, and to what is exacted by the relations of peace and friendship existing between the government of the United States and that of her Majesty.

And your excellency will allow me to recall your attention to the contents of my note of the 18th January, 1862, in which I had the honor to express to Mr. Calderon Collantes the expediency that what had been done in the case of the corsair Sumter at Cadiz should not serve as a precedent for her Majesty’s government in subsequent cases; and also to my note, of the 22d March, 1862, in which I made known to that minister the approval of the President of the United States of all that I had before said, with the further instruction, as regards the royal decree of June 17, 1861, that, although the United States had continually protested and did not now acquiesce in the resolution of the Spanish government to treat the insurgents as belligerents, nevertheless, for the many reasons set forth in those two notes, they had not determined for this cause to break off their ancient relations of friendship with Spain.

Thus the government of the United States submitted to the isolated fact of what was done for the first time in the case of the Sumter, protesting against its repetition and against the law set forth in the royal decree of the 17th of June, according to which that case was decided.

I do not suppose that I venture anything in foreseeing that, in the case before us, another resolution like that of the Sumter would not be acquiesced in by my government.

It is true that at first various nations declared the insurgents of my country belligerents, but those who began in that mistaken way have already modified their practice so as to put it more in harmony with the rules of good international law which the government of the United States has never ceased to invoke.

The action of Spain is independent, and will be guided by whatsoever recommends itself most to the sentiment of justice in her government.

But as I am confident your excellency is not less disposed to recognize the principles of right, which favor the United States according to the law of nations, than the ministers of other maritime powers, it will not be out of place to cite some recent cases which have happened in England and France.

The government of England has arrested in her ports, at the instance of the minister of the United States, two iron-clad steamers belonging to the insurgents of my country, and, not finding in the English legislation any better means of complying with its obligations towards my government on the one hand and towards the rights of property in private persons on the other, paid from its treasury the just price of the vessels to their owners, and incorporated them into its navy.

The government of France also detained the vessels which belonged to these insurgents in the ports of France.

But the case most similar to that of the vessel now in the port of Ferrol is that of the Rappahannock, formerly the Victor, of the royal navy of England. This ship-of-war was sold by the English admiralty for some defects, and purchased ostensibly by private persons to go, as they said, to China. Afterwards it was known that the true purchasers were the American insurgents, and the English government gave orders to detain the vessel; but she effected her escape from the Thames, and, once on the open sea, hoisted the insurgent flag, changed her name, her officers put on uniform, her crew were put under military discipline, and, after crossing the sea, she entered the port of Calais as a vessel-of-war of the so-called Confederate States of America, her officers bearing the commissions and instructions of that supposed government, and she began to make such repairs as she needed in her machinery. But the government of France, at the instance of the representative of the United States, not feeling disposed that a warlike expedition against the United States should start from its ports, arrested this vessel by the simple plan of anchoring a French vessel-of-war across her bows, with orders not to allow her to move; and there the Rappahannock remains to this day.

Your excellency will not fail to perceive that, according to the well-established law of nations, unless the government of Spain is resolved to recognize the insurgents of the United States as a sovereign and independent government, it cannot permit any expedition hostile to the government of the United States to leave the Spanish ports, after advice of its existence and intention, without becoming a party to the intestine struggle there carried on. It is not right to declare them belligerents, and concede to them the rights of sovereignty under another name, taking ground as a neutral between two sovereign powers at war, whose vessels would thus have an equal right to consideration and hospitality in Spanish ports. At the beginning, the great extent of this rebellion, its military power, which to the nations of Europe appeared sufficient to assure success, the quasi frontier which it momentarily proclaimed and defended against the power of the government, and the seaports it also possessed and defended, may have been motives for an error of appreciation which the government of the United States treated as an error and combated with diplomatic protests, trusting in the march of events to dispel the illusions of other governments.

But to-day the facts are different. Now there is not a State of the so-called Cofederate States where the flag of the government is not displayed and sustained by superior forces; there is no frontier; more than half the territory of the so-called confederacy is definitively pacificated and obedient to the government at Washington. With the capture of the port of Wilmington, the insurrection has lost its only remaining seaport. Of all the imposing hosts it has put under arms, one sole army still holds firm and defends in its trenches the city of Richmond.

If, under these circumstances, the government of her Majesty shall concede practically, and under whatsoever name, the rights of sovereignty to the revolutionary junta now passing its last winter at Richmond, your excellency will recognize, at least, that the motive which existed at first in the false appearance of the facts, and which induced my government to treat with a certain forbearance the error into which European governments fell mistakenly, cannot now be alleged; and your excellency will understand my just apprehension that the government of the United States may not consent, on their side, to look at things as they did at first. But if that conflict is reduced already, beyond a doubt, to the rank of an insurrection against the government, which the government overpowers; if there is no motive, either real or apparent, to concede to that junta the rights and considerations of sovereignty in the anticipation that they would establish it; if they have no longer any port in which a vessel may take refuge, and no hope of recovering any, then the recognized principles teach us that her Majesty’s government cannot allow any armed expedition, hostile to the govern ment of the United States, to leave her own ports without becoming a party in the intestine struggle which still continues in that nation. And it is no matter how the warlike expedition came to find itself within the Spanish jurisdiction, it shall be because it could not keep the seas; the right of asylum and refuge is not denied to the Spanish government, but the expedition cannot again leave this jurisdiction, preserving its character of an organized force seeking occasion to commit hostilities against the government of the United States, without involving the responsibility of the government of Spain. It is the same case as if an armed band in insurrection against the government of France should take refuge across the Spanish frontier. Spain may exact that it shall not be pursued within her jurisdiction, but she will have also the corresponding obligation to not allow it to leave her jurisdiction again as an armed force to continue its hostilities against a government with which Spain is at peace. And it is not true that in so doing the government of Spain would be performing the duty of the French police; it is only that Spain would thus avoid giving just motive to the government of France to penetrate within the Spanish jurisdiction to perform the proper duty of the police of Spain.

And here I may be allowed to call the attention of your excellency to the decision of the English tribunal to which the Queen’s government had submitted a new point in the law of nations. This tribunal has decided that although it might be sufficient to disarm an ordinary vessel, take away her guns and warlike stores, in order to take away her distinctive character, it is not. so in the case of iron-clad ships; here the hull of the vessel itself is a machine of war, it has no other possible object in application, it does not serve for peace in any way, and it is, therefore, in the same case as the cannon themselves. Thus it must be abandoned by the band of insurgents who have it in hand with hostile intent against a friendly government in the same way and wherever a cannon would be.

Your excellency will consider what, in the opinion of the government of her Majesty, is most in accordance with justice, and with that correspondence, which I flatter myself I shall find in your excellency, to the sentiments of sincere, loyal, and complete friendship, and I will even say decided kindly sympathies, which animate the government and people of the United States towards that of her Catholic Majesty and the noble Spanish nation.

It is solely for the purpose of contributing on my part what I can and ought, so that the resolution of the disagreeable question presented by the visit of the Stonewall in this jurisdiction may be the proper one that I claim now in the name of my government, provisionally and until I can receive its special instructions referring to this case, that this vessel shall not receive within the Spanish jurisdiction any repairs whatsoever, whether it be in the hull of the vessel or in her machinery, or in her armament and warlike equipments, and, in general, that her means for doing injury on the seas to the government of the United States and to those who may be under its flag shall not be augmented or bettered in the slightest degree; that she shall not be permitted to increase her stores of coal or of provisions, receiving of these only enough to maintain her crew from day to day while she may remain in port, but in no manner so as to be enabled to continue with the supplies she may receive in Spain her hostile enterprises against my government; and, finally, that this vessel be detained by the government in whose jurisdiction she is until she shall be deprived, both vessel and crew, of their character of an armed and organized expedition, ready to leave the territory of Spain to make war, under an unrecognized flag, against the government I represent.

I avail myself of this occasion to renew to your excellency the assurance of my most distinguished consideration.

HORATIO J. PERRY.

His Excellency the Minister of State Of her Catholic Majesty.

C.

[Untitled]

Copy of a draught of a note to the Spanish government, prepared and handed to Mr. Banuelos by Mr. Perry on the 7th of February, in pursuance of an understanding arrived at on the 6th of February.

Sir: It is my duty to inform your excellency that the vessel reported in my note of the 4th instant turns out to be a new iron-clad ram, of 300 horse-power and three guns, which has escaped from the waters of France, not yet complete, and has entered the waters of Spain for the purpose of completing at the arsenal of the Ferrol her preparations to make war upon the flag of the United States.

Her history, as I am informed, is as follows: She was built at Bordeaux for American in-surgents, but before she was complete the government of France, at the instance of the representative of the United States, took effective measures to prevent her leaving that port as long as she was the property of those insurgents.

She was then sold to the Danish government, and went to Copenhagen. But upon inspection she was refused by that government, and she started again for France, with a small crew, ostensibly to be delivered back again to her builders.

But she seems meantime to have again become the property of the insurgents of the United States; how and when I am not informed. Instead of going to Bordeaux she went, therefore, to a retired rendezvous on the French coast, where an English steamer met her and put a warlike crew aboard, when she hoisted the flag of the insurgents and started for Ferrol to complete the preparations which she needed to become an efficient vessel-of-war.

Your excellency will allow me to express my firm conviction that she has mistaken her course, and that she will find the government of her Catholic Majesty no better disposed than that of France to permit her ports and arsenals to be the scene of warlike preparations against the government of the United States.

Against the recognition of the insurgents as belligerents in the royal decree of June 17, 1861. my government has constantly protested, as well as against the manner in which it was interpreted in the case of the Sumter at Cadiz, as not in accordance with the sound principles of international law.

But even the 1st article of that decree itself prohibited entirely to fit out, provision or equip any privateer in the ports of her Majesty.

It seems the Stonewall has never yet been completely fitted out, provisioned or equipped to make war against the United States, and has not yet begun her hostile operations against the United States.

She has come into a Spanish port to complete those preparations of which she has need, and which she would not be allowed to complete in France. This brings her clearly within the text and meaning of the 1st article of the royal decree of June. 17, 1861, and nothing caá be done in the way of fitting out, provisioning, equipping or getting that vessel ready for sea, without directly violating the terms of that decree.

And here I may be allowed to call your excellency’s attention to a case precisely similar in its circumstances which happened in France more than a year since. The facts are stated by the solicitor general of England in the case of the Queen vs. Rumble, as follows:

The Victor was an English war steamer, sold by the admiralty for some defect and purchased by private persons to go, as they said, to China. But it was afterwards known that the real purchasers were the American insurgents, and the English government gave orders to detain the vessel. The owners, however, received intelligence in time, and the ship escaped from the Thames, going to sea before certain repairs which she needed were completed. Once on the open sea she hoisted the insurgent flag, changed her name to the Rappahannock, her officers put on a uniform, her crew were put under military discipline, and after crossing the sea she entered the French port of Calais as a vessel of war of the so-called Confederate States of America, and begun to make the repairs in which she stood in need. But here the government of France intervened, and not feeling disposed to permit that a French port should be made the scene of hostile preparations against the government of the United States, stopped these repairs and stopped the vessel, by the simple plan of anchoring a French vessel-of-war across her bows, and the Rappahannock remains in that state to this day.

Your excellency will not fail to remark the precise similarity of this case with that of the so-called Stonewall now at Ferrol.

But there is another point which makes the case still stronger against the Stonewall. This ship now in a Spanish port is an iron-clad vessel, while the Rappahannock is simply a wooden ship. The government of England has recently decided, according to the decision of its competent tribunal, this new point in the law of nations, that, although it might be sufficient to disarm an ordinary vessel, take away her cannon and warlike stores to change her distinctive character and reduce her to the condition of a peaceful ship, this is not so in the case of an iron-clad vessel. Here the body of the ship itself, the machinery which moves it, the rudder which guides its course, in fact every part or the ship, is itself altogether a machine of war. It has no other object nor application possible. It cannot serve for peaceful purposes in any way. Take away the cannons, and the ship still retains perhaps her chief means of offensive and defensive war. She can run down her antogonist, while she is herself protected from his shot by her iron armor.

It was in this way that the frigate Cumberland was sunk by the Merrimack, in the first battle recorded in which an iron-clad ship took part. Therefore, according to the decision of the English tribunal and government in the case of iron-clad ships, the whole vessel must be treated as a machine of war, and no part of it, as long as it is connected with the iron-clad hull, can be considered under any circumstances as having any application for the purposes of peace.

Your excellency will not fail to see the force of these reasons; and though the action of the Spanish government will be entirely independent of those of England and France, still, as those governments were first to recognize belligerent rights in the insurgents of the United States, it cannot be out of place to cite their decisions in the cases which have occurred in those countries, and also the measures taken by those governments in view of the reclamations of the representatives of the United States.

It has been my pleasing duty thus far to report to my government the kind and friendly disposition of the government of Spain, though in the beginning of the intestine conflict in my country she followed the example of England and France and declared herself neutral, while we persisted in treating her as a friendly power.

The struggle, which at that time appeared to European nations as destined to separate the United States into two or more nations, is now drawing to a close. That powerful faction which begun by attacking the sovereignty of Spain in her American possessions, and subsequently, when they were thwarted in their filibustering schemes, turned their arms against the government of the United States itself, is already hopelessly defeated.

More than half the territory embraced in the so-called confederation of rebel States is already definitely pacified and obedient to the government at Washington. There is now no State in which the flag of the government is not displayed and sustained by superior forces. The faction has lost its last seaport. No vessel under its flag can ever again enter its ports. They are henceforth rovers without a home. Of all the imposing forces put under arms by this faction, one army only still holds and defends in its trenches the city of Richmond; but the position of this army is every day more critical, and it is already as certain as anything in war can be that the revolutionary junta is now passing the last winter of its existence in Richmond.

Why should not Spain, whose interests are entirely harmonious with those of the United States, whose increasing power and prosperity are a source of unfeigned satisfaction to the United States, whose position as a first-rate power would be hailed by us with unmixed pleasure—why should not Spain take the opportunity presented by the visit of this corsair to spontaneously review the basis of her declaration of neutrality made in 1861, more or less in accordance with the action of other powers, and be the first now to plant herself frankly on the basis of friendship towards the government of the United States, not recognizing nor conceding to the revolutionary cabal at Richmond the rights which belong only to sovereignty under any name or designation whatsoever?

But while I thus cherish what may not be more than a hope, born of that noble exhibition of patriotic indignation with which the people and press of Spain denounced the supposed recognition of belligerent rights in the insurgents of Santo Domingo, made, as was erroneously stated by the United States, in accord with England, I am at the same time certain that the Spanish government will at least take measures so that the treatment accorded to the corsair now at Ferrol shall not be less favorable to the United States than the conduct heretofore observed by the governments of England and France in cases precisely similar.