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.
Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.
[Untitled]
[From the
London Times, January 25,
1867.]
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.