Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward.

No. 1308]

Sir: I have the honor to transmit a copy of the Times of this morning announcing the fact of the final surrender of the steamer Beatrice, alias the Rappahannock, by the default of the defendants in the suits. I had reason to believe that after the decision of the judge the other day requiring a more particular detail of the accounts than was given in the first answer, this would be the result.

The general observations connected with the Times’ leader on this subject all tend to prove that the obstructions to a settlement of some kind are disappearing. It is, however, perhaps to be feared that the present ministry will not stand long enough to mature any arrangement that may be devised. There are many reasons why they can act with more freedom than any cabinet formed out of the materials of the other party, which is more or less committed to the policy of Lord Palmerston and Lord Russell. Nevertheless, I feel quite confident that the tendency of public opinion will be to overbear all these obstacles in the long run.

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS.

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

[Untitled]

The case of the “Beatrice,” alias the Rappahanock, alias the Scylla, alias the Victor, has at last been terminated in the court of admiralty. The very mention of these names carries us back two years to the trial of Mr. Rumble, the government inspector of machinery at [Page 59] Sheerness, for procuring the enlistment of seamen for this very ship. The prosecution of Mr. Rumble, however, commenced in June, 1864, and his alleged offence was committed before the end of 1863; so that it is above three years since the circumstances occurred upon which the United States government have just obtained a judgment by default with costs. These circumstances may be stated in a few words. The Beatrice, under her maiden name of Victor, originally belonged to our own navy, and was purchased of the admiralty by Mr. L. Pearson, on behalf of Messrs. Gordon, Coleman & Co., for £9,900 in the year 1863. She then became the Scylla and was partially fitted out, ostensibly for the China trade, at Sheerness, with the assistance of government workmen. Before this operation was complete she was suddenly transported to Calais by some mysterious agency which has never been fully explained, changing her name to the Rappahannock on the voyage and hoisting the confederate flag. At Calais some of the English artisans who happened to be on board were induced to enter the confederate service, and the equipment of the Rappahannock was carried on briskly, until the French government interfered and laid an embargo upon her. If we remember right, she was afterwards resold for mercantile purposes, but to whom or even by whom we cannot undertake to say, nor is it of much importance, for the object seems to have been, from beginning to end, to keep her real ownership a secret. However, at the end of the war she was claimed by the United States on the ground that she had been the lawful property of the confederate government. The claim was resisted, we presume, on the ground that she was not actually transferred to the confederate agents, but as the case never came on for hearing, the facts which might have been pleaded by the nominal defendants can only be conjectured. Not till the last moment, when all the technical means of delay had been exhausted and an argument on the merits was inevitable, did they withdraw all opposition, and abandon a counter-suit for the value of certain articles which they alleged to have been supplied by themselves to the American government. We cannot hesitate to characterize this proceeding, whoever may be responsible for it, as discreditable in the extreme. When a litigant instructs counsel to make no defence, after standing upon his assumed rights for 18 months, and entailing infinite trouble and expense upon his adversary, we can only attribute his conduct to one motive. It is a gross abuse of our legal procedure, for which the payment of costs is but an inadequate penalty, It would have been more satisfactory if Mr. Brett, who appeared for the parties concerned in disputing the claim, had given some explanation of the dilatory course pursued by his clients. Às it was, but for the emphatic disclaimer of Dr. Twiss, who represented the United States, the public would have been left to infer that some compromise dishonorable to that government had been made between the two sides. A rumor to this effect actually got abroad, and as rumors generally originate in quarters where there is most to be gained by fabricating them, we can easily imagine how it was first put into circulation. This incident is the more to be regretted because, of all the cases Which arose out of breaches of our foreign enlistment act during the late war, that of the Rappahannock was perhaps the most suspicious. Not only were British merchants of respectable position directly implicated in a wilful if not fraudulent evasion of our neutrality laws, but a government official had taken an active part in enlisting the crew, and had urged them to re-enlist after the destination of the vessel was openly avowed. The whole transaction was such that as a nation we had reason to be ashamed of it, without the addition of this sequel. Of course, legal rights are legal rights, and our government? was powerless to make over the Rappahannock to the United States until the suits in the admiralty court should be concluded; at the same time we cannot feel surprised if a government and people, already smarting under a sense of injury, should be impatient of every vexatious delay in obtaining that which is their due.

It is gratifying to know, on the other hand, that a conciliatory spirit prevails in America on the general question of neutral obligations in time of war. Our Washington correspondent informs us that General Banks’s measure of last session is strongly repudiated in the House of Representatives itself, and anticipates that a pamphlet just published on “the Past and Future of American Neutrality” will have a considerable effect in promoting moderate counsels. Mr. Bemis, the author of this pamphlet, is a lawyer of Massachusetts, and he writes with the object of enlightening his countrymen on the real tendency of Banks’s scheme. He maintains that nothing could be more fatal than its adoption to the permanent interests of America, and defends our own legislation against many of the charges ignorantly fixed upon it. He even contends that our English foreign enlistment act is more “high-toned and comprehensive” than the American, though he severely blames Lord Russell for his timidity in enforcing it. While he represents the settlement of the Alabama claims as an essential preliminary to any amendment of the neutrality laws by mutual consent, he boldly advocates the adherence of the United States to just principles, sanctioned by precedents and traditions coeval with the republic, even in the event of our refusing to do them justice. This last contingency, as we need hardly repeat, is one which it is superfluous to contemplate. There is not only a disposition, but a growing determination, in this country to put this important branch of law on a sound basis for the future, whatever sacrifices it may involve. It is easy, no doubt, to stigmatize any such compliance as cowardly subservience to the demands of America, just as General Banks accuses the United States of passing their first act against foreign enlistment to please England. The truth, however, as every one knows, is that a controversy about our alleged liability could not be dispassionately conducted during [Page 60] the war. Mr. Adams took ground too high to be maintained with success. Lord Russell fell back on a position only tenable in a court of law. The time has come when these matters can be discussed in the past tense—a great advantage in many delicate negotiations. Of the ultimate result we entertain very little doubt. That Great Britain will be held legally responsible in damages for the depredations of the Alabama by any competent arbitrator is very improbable; that she will be recommended, in equity and honor, to make some compensation for what her government might possibly have prevented, is almost certain. Public opinion could accept this solution of the difficulty with perfect satisfaction, and support every reasonable enactment which might put an effectual stop to the equipment of Rappahannocks or facilitate their prompt confiscation.