[53] *Part V: Statement of facts relative to the Florida.

Part V.—The Florida. On the 19th February, 1862, Earl Russell received from Mr. Adams the following note and inclosure:

Mr. Adams to Earl Russell. 1

Legation of the United States,
London, February 18, 1862.

My Lord: I have the honor to submit to your consideration the copy of an extract of a letter addressed to me by the consul of the United States at Liverpool, going to show the preparation at that port of an armed steamer evidently intended for hostile operations on the ocean. From the evidence furnished in the names of the persons stated to be concerned in her construction and outfit, I entertain little doubt that the intention is precisely that indicated in the letter of the consul, the carrying on war against the United States. The parties are the same which dispatched the Bermuda, laden with contraband of war at the time, in August last, when I had the honor of calling your lordship’s attention to her position, which vessel then succeeded in running the blockade, and which now appears to be about again to depart on a like errand.

Should farther evidence to sustain the allegations respecting the Oreto be held necessary to effect the object of securing the interposition of Her Majesty’s government, I will make an effort to procure it in a more formal manner.

I have, &c.,

(Signed) CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS.

[Inclosure.]

Mr. Dudley to Mr. Adams.

United States Consulate,
Liverpool, February 17, 1862.

Sir: The gun-boat Oreto is still at this port. She is making a trial trip in the river to-day. No armament as yet on board. She has put up a second smoke-stack since I wrote you. She therefore has two funnels, three masts, and is bark-rigged. I am now informed that she is to carry eight rifled cannon, and two long swivel-guns on pivots so arranged to rake both fore and aft. No pains or expense has been spared in her construction, and when fully armed she will be a formidable and dangerous craft. In strength and armament quite equal to the Tuscarora; so I should judge from what I learn.

Mr. Miller, who built the hull, says he was employed by Fawcett, Preston & Co., and that they own the vessel. I have obtained information from many different sources, all of which goes to show that she is intended for the southern confederacy. I am satisfied that this is the case. She is ready to take her arms on board. I cannot learn whether they are to be shipped here or at some other port. Of course she is intended as a privateer. When she sails, it will be to burn and destroy whatever she meets with bearing the American flag.

The Herald sailed for Charleston on Saturday last; Captain Coxeter went out in her. The Bermuda will sail this week.

I have, &c.,

(Signed) H. DUDLEY,
United States Consul.
[Page 275]

P. S.—The gun-carriages for the Oreto, I have just learned, were taken on hoard on Friday night last, in a rough state, and taken down into the hold. Fraser, Trenholm & Co. have made advances to Fawcett, Preston & Co., and Miller, the builder.

H. D.

[54] A fortnight before the date of Mr. Adams’s letter, Mr. Dudley, in writing to Mr. Seward, had mentioned the Oreto. He then said, “In my last two dispatches I called attention to the iron-screw steam gunboat Oreto or Oretis, being built at Liverpool, and fitted out by Fawcett, Preston & Co. She is now taking in her coal, and appearances indicate that she will leave here the latter part of this week without her armament. The probabilities are she will run into some small port and take it and ammunition on board. This of itself is somewhat suspicious. They pretend she is built for the Italian government, but the Italian consul here informs me that he knows nothing about it, and has no knowledge whatever of any vessel being built for his government. There is much secrecy observed about her, and I have been unable to get anything definite, but my impressions are strong that she is intended for the southern confederacy. I have communicated my impressions and all the facts to Mr. Adams, our minister in London. She has one funnel, *three masts, bark-rigged, eight port-holes for guns on each side, and is to carry sixteen guns.”

Mr. Adams had not, previously to his note of the 18th, made any communication respecting this vessel to Her Majesty’s government.

Immediately on the receipt of Mr. Adams’s note and inclosure, copies of both were sent to the secretary to the treasury, accompanied by the following letter signed by Mr. Hammond, one of the under secretaries of state for foreign affairs:l

Foreign Office, February 19, 1862.

Sir: I am directed by Earl Russell to transmit to you a copy of a letter from Mr. Adams, inclosing an extract of a letter from the United States consul at Liverpool, in which he calls attention to a steam-vessel called the Oreto, reported to be fitting out at Liverpool as a southern privateer; and I am to request that you will move the lords commissioners of Her Majesty’s treasury to cause immediate inquiries to be made respecting this vessel, and to take such steps in the matter as may be right and proper.

I am, &c.,

(Signed) E. HAMMOND.

Earl Russell on the same day acknowledged the receipt of Mr. Adams’s note and inclosure, and stated (as the fact was) that he had lost no time in communicating with the proper department of government on the subject.

The commissioners of customs were instructed to inquire and report upon the matter; and on the 24th of February, 1862, the secretary to the treasury transmitted to Mr. Hammond their report, which was as follows:2

Custom-House, February 22, 1862.

Your lordships having referred to us the annexed letter from Mr. Hammond, transmitting, by desire of Earl Russell, copy of a letter from Mr. Adams, inclosing an extract of a communication from the United States consul at Liverpool, in which he calls attention to a steam-vessel called the Oreto, reported to be fitting out, at Liverpool as a southern privateer, and requesting that immediate inquiries may be made respecting this vessel,

We report—

That, on the receipt of your lordships’ reference, we forthwith instructed our collector at Liverpool to make inquiries in regard to the vessel Oreto, and it appears from his report that she has been built by Messrs. Miller & Sons for Messrs. Fawcett, Preston & Co., engineers, of Liverpool, and is intended for the use of Messrs. Thomas Brothers, of Palermo, one of that firm having frequently visited the vessel during the process of building.

[Page 276]

The Oreto is pierced for four guns; but she has as yet taken nothing on board but coals and ballast. She is not, at present, fitted for the reception of guns, nor are the builders aware that she is to be supplied with guns while she remains in this country. The expense of her construction has been paid, and she has been handed over to Messrs. Fawcett & Preston. Messrs. Miller & Sons state their belief that her destination is Palermo, as they have been requested to recommend a master to take her to that port, and our collector at Liverpool states that he has every reason to believe that the vessel is for the Italian government.

We beg further to add that special directions have been given to the officers at Liverpool to watch the movements of the vessel, and that we will not fail to report forthwith any circumstances which may occur worthy of your lordships’ cognizance.

(Signed) THO. F. FEEMANTLE.
GEENVILLE C. L. BERKELEY.

The reports which the commissioners of customs had received from their officers at Liverpool were as follows:1

Mr. Edwards to the commissioners of customs.

Liverpool, February 21, 1862.

Honorable Sirs: The builders of the vessel Oreto are Messrs. Miller & Sons. Mr. Miller is the chief surveyor of tonnage. By their note inclosed the vessel is correctly described, and I have every reason to believe that she is for the Italian government, and not for the confederates.

It will be seen by the note of the surveyor, Mr. Morgan, which I annex, that as yet she has nothing in her, so that the information furnished to the government is, so far, incorrect.

Special directions have been given to the officers to observe the movements of the vessel, so that whatever takes place can be made known to the board at any time.

Respectfully, &c.,

(Signed) S. PRICE EDWARDS.

Mr. Miller to Mr. Edwards.

Liverpool, February 21, 1862.

[55] Sir: We have built the dispatch-vessel Oreto for Messrs. Fawcett, Preston & Co., engineers, of this town, who are the agents of Messrs. Thomas Brothers, of Palermo, for whose use the vessel, we understand, has been built. She is pierced for four guns; she has taken nothing whatever on board except coals and ballast; she is in no way fitted for the reception of guns, as yet; nor do we know *that she is to have guns while in England. Mr. Thomas, of the firm at Palermo, frequently visited the ship while she was being built.

We have handed her over to the engineers, and have been paid for her. According to the best of my information the present destination of the vessel is Palermo; and we have been asked to recommend a master to take her out to Palermo.

I remain, &c.,

(Signed) T. MILLER.

Mr. Morgan to Mr. Edwards,

February 21, 1862.

Sir: I beg to state that I have inspected the Oreto, now lying in Toxteth Dock, agreeably with your directions issued to-day.

She is a splendid steamer, suitable for a dispatch-boat; pierced for guns, but has not any on board, nor are there any gun-carriages. Coals and ballast are all that the holds contain.

Respectfully, &c.,

(Signed) C. MORGAN, Collector.

A copy of the report of the commissioners of customs was sent on the 26th February by Earl Russell to Mr. Adams.

Her Britannic Majesty’s minister at Turin was directed to inquire whether the vessel was intended for the use of the Italian government 5 and, on the 1st March, 1862, he telegraphed as follows: “Ricasoli tells me that he has no knowledge whatever of the ship Oreto, but will cause inquiry to be made.”2

[Page 277]

Up to this time no information whatever tending to prove that the vessel was intended for belligerent use had been obtained by Mr. Adams or was possessed by Her Majesty’s government. She had been built for a Liverpool firm of engineers and iron-founders, and was stated by the builders to be for the use of a firm at Palermo, a member of which (himself a native of Palermo) was known to have often visited her while building. She was pierced for guns, but not fitted for the reception of them, and had none on board. Beyond this Mr. Adams’s note and Mr. Dudley’s letter contained only vague hearsay and conjecture.

No further information could be obtained by Mr. Adams, or was received by Her Majesty’s government, up to the time of the sailing of the ship.

On the 3d March, 1862, the Oreto was registered at the port of Liverpool, in the name of “John Henry Thomas, of Liverpool, in the county of Lancaster, merchant,” as sole owner thereof. The declaration made by the said John Henry Thomas at the time of registry was as follows:1

Official member of ship. 44,200: date of registry March 3, 1862.

General description of ship. Port of registry. How propelled.
Name of ship. British or foreign built.
Oreto British bunt at Liverpool in 1861. Liverpool. Screw.
Number of decks Two. Build Cravel.
Number of masts Three. Galleries None.
Rigged Schooner. Head Shield.
Stern Elliptic. Frame-work Wood.

measurements.

Feet. Tenths.
Length from the fore part of stem, under the bowsprit, to the aft side of the head of the stern-post. 185 2
Main breadth to outside plank 28 3
Depth in hold from tonnage-deck at midships 13 7

tonnage.

No. of tons.
Tonnage under tonnage-deck 410.41
Closed-in spaces above the tonnage-deck, if any, viz:
Space or spaces between decks
Poop
Round-house
Other inclosed spaces, if any, naming them
Gross tonnage 410.41
Reduction for space required for propelling power 231.90
Registered tonnage 178.51
Length of engine-room 61 feet.
Number of engines 2
Combined power, (estimated horse-power,) number of horse-power 200

[56] *I, the undersigned, John Henry Thomas, of Liverpool, county of Lancaster, merchant, declare as follows: I am a natural-born British subject, born at Palermo, in the island of Sicily, of British parents, and have never taken the oath of allegiance to any foreign state. The above general description of the ship is correct. James Alexander Duguid, whose certificate of competency or service is No. 4073 is the master of said ship. I am entitled to be registered as owner of sixty-four shares of the said ship. To the best of my knowledge and belief no person or body of persons other than [Page 278] such persons or bodies of persons as are by the merchant-shipping act, 1854, qualified to be owners of British ships is entitled, as owner, to any interest whatever, either legal or beneficial, in the said ship. And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously, believing the same to be true.

(Signed) JOHN H. THOMAS.

Made and subscribed the 1st day of March, 1862, by the above-named John Henry Thomas, in the presence of

(Signed) J. C. JOHNSTONE, Jr.,
Registrar of Shipping, Port of Liverpool.

On the 4th March, 1862, the Oreto was cleared from the office of customs, Liverpool, for Palermo and Jamaica, as appears from her victualing-bill, of which the following is a copy:1

Victualing-bill.

Pilot,_____ _____. Granted number, [662.]

Port of Liverpool.—Oreto.

Bonded and drawback stores in the_______. James A. Duguid, master, for Palermo and Jamaica. Men, 52; passengers or troops, ——; guns, ——; 178 tons.

Net quantities taken on board.
Spirits, foreign:
Rum per gallon 2 cases; 54 gallons.
Brandy do 10 cases; 20 gallons.
Geneva do
Other spirits, not sweetened do
Spirits, British or plantation:
Rum do
Gin do 8 cases; 16 gallons.
Whisky do
Other spirits, not sweetened do 12 cases; 23 13/22 gallons.
Wine do 20 cases; 40 gallons.
Wine, (for drawback) do
Beer, (for draw back) do
Vinegar do
Tea per pound 3 chests, 5 canisters; 240 lbs.
Coffee do 4 bags: 646 lbs.
Coffee, roasted, (for drawback) do
Cocoa do
Cocoa-paste do
Sugar, refined per hundred-weight 1 barrel; 1 cwt. 8 lbs.
Sugar, (for drawback) do 5 bags
} 13 cwt. 2 qrs. 12 lbs.
Sugar, unrefined do 3 barrels
Sugar, unrefined, (for drawback) do
Sugar, bastard, (for drawback) do
Molasses do
Tobacco, (for draw back) per pound 3 boxes; 63 lbs.
Tobacco, negro-head do
Tobacco, roll do 2 boxes; 10 lbs.
Sugars do
Pepper do 12 boxes; 2 cwt. 1 qr. 26 lbs.
Raisins per hundred-weight 11 jars; 2 cwt. 1 qr. 18 lbs.
Currants do
Figs do
Prunes do
Plums do
Sundries do
Surplus stores do
(Signed) J. MUDIE, Searcher.
_____ ______, 1862. ____ ________, Collector.
SAMUEL WAKEHAM, Broker, 17 Park Lane.

Examined.

Cleared March 4.

[Page 279]

[57] The above victualing bill is in the usual form, printed with blanks to be filled up according to the facts in each case. The blanks following the words “passengers or *troops” and the word “guns,” respectively, are equivalent to a statement that the vessel had on board no passengers or troops and no guns. The words “178 tons” denote the registered tonnage of the ship.

It may be convenient here to explain briefly what is meant by the words “registry” and “clearance,” and what are the duties of the officers empowered to register ships and of the officers of the customs in respect to granting clearances.

Registry signifies the recording, in a book kept for that purpose, of the name of a ship which the owner desires to have recognized as a British ship, together with certain particulars composing a general description of the ship.

The effect of registry is to entitle the ship to use the British flag and assume the British national character. The conditions necessary for obtaining a registry, in the case of a ship not already registered, are the production to the registrar of a certificate by the builder, in a form prescribed by law, and of a declaration (also in a prescribed form) that the ship is British-owned.

It is not the duty of the registrar to question or ascertain the accuracy of either the builder’s certificate or the declaration of ownership. As a ministerial officer, he is bound to accept them, if tendered to him. For false statements in the certificate the builder is liable to a penalty; and for making a willfully false declaration, the owner is liable to be indicted for a misdemeanor and to forfeit his interest in the ship.

In Great Britain, as in the United States, the law does not positively require the registration of any vessel. But the disadvantages and disabilities incurred by omitting to procure it are practically sufficient to make the registration of British-owned ships universal.

The register, though, in ordinary questions arising under municipal law, evidence of the title of the person registered as owner, is not conclusive in a question arising between other parties, nor is it necessarily sufficient proof of the national character of the ship. A transfer to a foreigner, at sea or beyond seas, of a registered British ship is sufficient to change its ownership and the nationality of the vessel, though not followed by any registry. The law of registry is a part of the law by which British trade and navigation are regulated for fiscal and other purposes; and a ship is registered as British on the voluntary declaration of the person claiming to be owner, without further proof.

The number of vessels which were placed on the registers of the various ports of the United Kingdom in the year 1870 was 1,043, of which 970 were built within the United Kingdom.

Clearance signifies the final official act by which the proper officer of customs notifies that all has been done which the law requires to be done before the departure of ship and cargo. It is purely for customs purposes, the main objects being to protect the revenue and to secure statistics as to the number of ships and quantity of merchandise entering and leaving British ports. As there are in ordinary times no restrictions or duties on the export of articles of any kind from the United Kingdom, no rigid inspection is exercised by the customs authorities over the general nature of the goods shipped on board vessels in British ports. The attention of the authorities is mainly directed to the shipment of those articles on which an exemption from import duties otherwise payable, or a remission of import duties already paid, is claimed on the ground [Page 280] of their exportation abroad. The object of the inspection is to ascertain that the goods of this nature stated to be thus exported are really shipped and carried away on board the vessel. The agents who ship such goods furnish the customs department with statements, in the form of shipping-bills, of the amount and nature thereof, and it is the duty of the examining officer to ascertain that the packages placed on board the vessel correspond with these statements. Before starting on his voyage the master of the vessel is bound to produce a paper called a content, giving the number and description of any packages of merchandise shipped on board on which exemption from or remission of duty is claimed, but merely specifying any other articles as “sundry packages of free goods.’ The master has also to produce a victualing-bill, enumerating the amount of stores liable to duty (such as tea, spirits, tobacco, and the like) which he has shipped for the use of his crew. These papers are compared with the shipping-bills and certificates already in the possession of the customs authorities, and if they are found to tally, a label, signed and sealed by the examining officer and collector, is affixed to the victualing-bill and certificates, and these papers are delivered to the master as his clearance.

[58] It is true that, for statistical purposes, the agents to the master of the vessel are required to furnish to the customs department a list, called a manifest, giving the number and description of all packages of goods, whether liable to duty or not, shipped on board the vessel, and the shipping agents or exporters are also required to furnish specifications of all goods, described by the master on his content as “sundry packages of free goods,” and subsequently further described in his manifest; but the law does not require that these particulars should be given before the vessel sails; it is complied with provided they be furnished within six days after she has cleared.

Previously to the year 1867, no penalty was attached by law to the departure of a vessel for foreign ports without a clearance, provided she was in ballast and had on board no stores except such as were free or had paid duty. Since that date, however, clearance has been required in these as well as in other cases.

A clearance may not be granted until the master of the ship has declared the nation to which he affirms that she belongs; and a ship attempting to proceed to sea without a clearance may be detained until such a declaration has been made. The officer, however, cannot question, or require proof of, the truth of the declaration. As to the destination of ships sailing from the United Kingdom, the officers of customs have little or no means of ascertaining this beyond the information which the master or owner gives on entering outward. It frequently happens that a vessel entered outward for a specified destination changes her course when at sea and proceeds to a different destination. There are no means of preventing this.

The number of vessels clearing from ports of the United Kingdom in the course of the year is very great. In the year 1870 the number of clearances granted was 203,031. Of these 13,214 were for vessels sailing from Liverpool and 17,037 for vessels sailing from London.

On the 22d of March, 1862,1 the Oreto sailed from Liverpool. Her master was James Alexander Duguid, a master-mariner residing at Liverpool, and the person named in the above declaration. Her crew were hired, as appears from the articles signed by them, for a voyage from Liverpool to Palermo, and thence, if required, to a port or ports in the Mediterranean Sea or the West Indies, and back to a final port of discharge [Page 281] in the United Kingdom, the term not to exceed six months. They were not enlisted in the service of the Confederate States and it is clear, from what subsequently occurred at Nassau, that they had no intention whatever of entering that service, and had at the time of sailing no knowledge or suspicion that the vessel was intended to be employed as a confederate ship of war.

The subjoined statements, made in the month of August, 1862, for the information of the commissioners of customs and of Her Majesty’s government, by officers of the customs at Liverpool, and by the pilot who took the Oreto out of the Mersey, further show what was the condition of the vessel at the time of her departure, and the precautions taken in respect of her:l

Statement of Mr. Edward Morgan.

I am one of the surveyors of customs at this port; pursuant to instructions I received from the collector on the 21st of February in the present year and at subsequent dates, I visited the steamer Oreto at various times, when she was being fitted out in the dock, close to the yard of Messrs. Miller & Sons, the builders of the vessel. I continued this inspection from time to time until she left the dock, and I am certain that when she left the river she had no warlike stores of any kind whatever on board.

After she went into the river she was constantly watched by the boarding officers, who were directed to report to me whenever any goods were taken on board, but, in reply to my frequent inquiries, they stated nothing was put in the ship but coals.

(Signed) EDWARD MORGAN, Surveyor.

Statement of Mr. Henry Lloyd.

In consequence of instructions received from Mr. Morgan, surveyor, I, in conjunction with the other three surveyors of the river, kept watch on the proceedings of the vessel Oreto from the time she left the Toxteth Dock, on the 4th March last, till the day she sailed, the 22d of the same month. On one occasion I was alongside of her, and spoke to Mr. Parry, the pilot, and the chief mate. Neither I nor any of the other river surveyors saw at any time any arms or warlike ammunition of any kind taken on board, and we are perfectly satisfied that none such was taken onboard during her stay in the river.

(Signed) H. LLOYD, Examining Officer.

Statement on oath of Mr. William Parry.

I was the pilot in charge of the ship Oreto when she left the Toxteth Dock on the 4th March, 1862. I continued on board to the day of her sailing, which was the 22d of the same month, and never left her save on Sunday, when all work was suspended.

[59] I saw the ship before the coals and provisions were taken into her; there were no munitions of war in her—that is to say, she had no guns, *carriages, shot, shell, or powder; had there been any on board I must have seen it. I piloted the ship out of the Mersey to Point Lynas, “off Anglesea, where I left her, and she proceeded down the channel, since which she has not returned. From the time the vessel left the river until I left her she held no communication with the shore, or with any other vessel, for the purpose of receiving anything like cargo on board. I frequently saw Mr. Lloyd, the tide surveyor, alongside the ship while in the river.

(Signed) WM. PARRY.

Sworn before me, at the custom-house, Liverpool, this 23d August, 1862.

(Signed) S. PRICE EDWARDS, Collector.

On the 26th March, 1862, Earl Russell received from Mr. Adams a note2 dated the previous day, which contained the following passage:

It is with great reluctance that I am drawn to the conviction that the representations made to your lordship of the purposes and destination of that vesel were delusive; and that, though at first it may have been intended for service in Sicily, yet that such an intention has long been abandoned, in fact, and that the pretense has been held up only the better to conceal the true object of the parties engaged. That object is to make war against the United States. All the persons thus far known to [Page 282] be most connected with the undertaking are either directly employed by the insurgents of the United States of America or residents of Great Britain, notoriously in sympathy with and giving aid and comfort to them on this side of the water.

Mr. Adams proceeded to enlarge on the dissatisfaction felt in the United States at the circumstance that the trade with blockaded ports was (as he alleged) chiefly carried on from Great Britain and her dependencies, and that this was permitted or not prevented by Her Majesty’s government. He added:

The duty of nations in amity with each other would seem to be plain not to suffer their good faith to be violated by ill-disposed persons within their borders, merely from the inefficacy of their prohibitory policy. Such is the view which my government has been disposed to take of its own obligations in similar cases, and such it doubts not is that of all foreign nations with which it is at peace. It is for that reason I deprecate the inference that may be drawn from the issue of the investigation which your lordship caused to be made in the case of the Oreto, should that vessel be ultimately found issuing safely from this kingdom, and preying on the commerce of the people of the United States. Not doubting myself the sincerity and earnest desire of your lordship to do all that is within your power to fulfill every requirement of international amity, it is to be feared that all the favorable effect of it may be neutralized by the later evidence of adverse results. It is no part of my intention to imply the want of fidelity or of good-will in any quarter. I desire to confine myself closely within the pale of my duty, a representation of the precise causes of uneasiness between the two countries, and an earnest desire to remove them. Firmly convinced that the actual position of things in connection with the hostile equipment in British waters by no means does justice to the true disposition of Her Majesty’s government, I am anxious to place the matter before your lordship in such a light as to obtain the evidence more perfectly to establish the truth.

In the above note Mr. Adams inclosed a copy of a letter received from Mr. Dudley, which was as follows:

Mr. Dudley to Mr. Adams.

United States Consulate, Liverpool, March 22, 1862.

Sir: The Oreta is still in the river. A flat-boat has taken part of her armament to her. A part of the crew of the steamer Annie Childs, which came to this port loaded with cotton, have just left my office. They tell me that Captain Bullock is to command the Oreto, and that four other officers for this vessel came over with them in the Childs. The names of three are Young, Low, and Maffit or Moffit; the fourth was called Eddy; the two first are lieutenants, and the two last-named midshipmen. They further state that these officers during the voyage wore naval uniforms; that they came on the Childs at a place called Smithville, some twenty miles down the river from Wilmington; that it was talked about and understood by all on board that their object in coming was to take command of this vessel, which was being built in England for the southern confederacy. They further state that it was understood in Wilmington, before they left, that several war vessels were being built in England for the South. As they were coming up the river in the Childs, as they passed the Oreto she dipped her flag to the Childs. I have had this last from several sources, and the additional fact that the same evening after the arrival of this steamer a dinner was given in the Oreto to the officers who came over in the Childs. I understand she will make direct for Maderia and Nassau.

I have, &c.,

(Signed) THOMAS H. DUDLEY.

[60] *The above note was dated on the third day, and received (with its inclosure) on the fourth day, after the Oreto had put to sea. In answer to the above note, Earl Russell, on the 27th March, 1862, wrote to Mr. Adams as follows:

Earl Russell to Mr. Adams. 1

Foreign Office, March 27, 1862.

Sir: Upon receiving your letter of the 25th instant, I immediately directed that the treasury and customs department should be requested to take such steps as may be necessary to ascertain whether the Oreto is equipped for the purpose of making war on the United States, and, if that fact can be proved, to detain the Vessel.

[Page 283]

The charge that nearly all the assistance now obtained from abroad by the persons still in arms against the Government of the United States, and which enables them to continue the struggle, comes from Great Britain and its dependencies, is somewhat vague. I believe the greater part of the arms and ammunition sent from this country to America during the struggle has gone to the United States.

I agree with you in the statement that the duty of nations in amity with each other is not to suffer their good faith to be violated by ill-disposed persons within their borders, merely from the in efficacy of their prohibitory policy. But it is, at the same time, a duty not to punish persons on suspicion without any proof of their evil intent. It is not the custom of this country to deprive any person of liberty or property without evidence of some offense. If such evidence can be obtained, the laws are sufficient to prevent the accomplishment of their evil designs against friendly nations.

You have not yourself hitherto furnished me with evidence that any vessel has received a hostile or warlike equipment in British waters, which has been afterward used against the United States. The care that was taken to prevent the warlike equipment of the Nashville in British waters must be familiar to your recollection.

With regard to co-operation with the policy of the United States in respect to the blockade, I must remind you that Great Britain has abstained, as far as possible, from complaints of the irregularity of the blockade which has been instituted. Her Majesty’s government have been mindful of the suddenness of the danger with which the United States were threatened; of the inadequacy of the naval force then at the disposal of the government; and of the great difficulty of blockading a coast of 3,000 miles.

But beyond forbearance, and a liberal interpretation of the law of nations in favor of the United States, Her Majesty’s government cannot go. If by co-operation with the policy of the United States is meant, either taking part in the civil war still raging, or imposing restraint’s on the Queen’s subjects unknown to international law, I cannot undertake that Her Majesty’s government will adopt either of those courses. It would be an unheard of measure to prohibit merchants from sending ships to sea destined to the southern ports. Should such ships attempt to violate the blockade, capture and condemnation are the proper penalty of such attempts; no authority can be found for any other.

But while these attempts are made on the one side, the United States Government have willingly received in the ranks of their army British subjects, who violate the Queen’s proclamation in order to serve against the confederates. Nay, the law of the United States, by which parents can prevent the enlistment of their sons, being minors, has been set aside to the prejudice of British subjects, the fathers and mothers of thoughtless lads of sixteen or seventeen years of age.

These evils are, perhaps, inseparable from the unhappy contest now carried on in America. I can only trust it may have a speedy termination, suitable to the reputation of the United States, and conducive to the future happiness of all the inhabitants of a country so lately prosperous and united.

I am, &c.,

(Signed) RUSSELL

Information that the Oreto had put to sea had not at this time been received by Her Majesty’s government.

On the 8th April, 1862, Earl Russell sent to Mr. Adams the following report of inquiries made respecting the Oreto by order of the commissioners of customs:1

Custom-House, April 4, 1862.

Your lordships having referred to us the annexed letter from Mr. Hammond, transmitting, by desire of Earl Russell, a copy of a further letter, addressed by the United States consul at Liverpool to Mr. Adams, the United States, minister at this court, in which it is again affirmed that the Oreto is being fitted out as a vessel of war for the southern confederacy, and various statements are reported in support of that assertion, and requesting that your lordships would instruct this board to give directions that the Oreto might be vigilantly watched, and that, if any armament prohibited by the foreign-enlistment act should be discovered, the vessel might be at once detained.

We report—

[61] That, on the receipt of your lordship’s reference, we directed our collector at Liverpool immediately to inquire into the further allegations made in regard to the Oreto, and to govern himself in accordance with the instructions contained in Mr. Hammond’s letter, and, having received the report of the collector, we find that the vessel in question was registered on the 3d ultimo, in the name of John Henry Thomas, of Liverpool, as sole owner; that she cleared on the following day for Palermo [Page 284] and *Jamaica in ballast, but did not sail until the 22d, the day on which the American consul’s letter is dated, having a crew of fifty-two men, all British, with the exception of three or four, one of whom only was an American. She had no gunpowder, nor even a signal-gun, and no colors, saving Marryatt’s code of signals and a British ensign, nor any goods on board except the stores enumerated on the accompanying copy of her victualing-bill.

With regard to the statements in the letter of the consul, the collector further reports that it is clear the passengers brought by the Annie Childs, the vessel therein mentioned, which has recently arrived from one of the Southern States, were not intended to form any portion of the crew of the Oreto, inasmuch as they were still in Liverpool, and that the dipping of the ensign on board the latter vessel on the arrival of the Annie Childs, as far as the collector had been enabled to ascertain, was intended as a compliment to one of the Cunard steamers and another vessel which saluted the Annie Childs on her arrival, the masters of the several vessels being known to one another.

(Signed) THO. F. FREMANTLE.
GRENVILLE C. L. BERKELEY.

This report was accompanied by a copy of the ship’s victualing-bill

On the 28th April, 1862, the Oreto arrived at Nassau, as appears by the subjoined entry in the books of the revenue department of the colony of the Bahamas:1

Inwards.

(No. 48.)

In the British steamer Oreto, Duguid, master, from Liverpool; 178 tons; 12 feet; 52 men.

Ballast.

Nassau, New Providence, April 28, 1862.

On the 29th April she quitted the part of the harbor which is adjacent to the town of Nassau, and proceeded to Cochrane’s Anchorage, a station distant from the town about fifteen miles, measuring by the course usually taken by vessels of heavy draught. It was stated that this was done on the advice of the pilot, and tor the reason that there was not room for her in the harbor. On the 9th May, 1862, the governor of the Bahamas received from Mr. Whiting, United States consul at Nassau, the following letter:2

United States Consulate,
Nassau, New Providence, May 9, 1862.

Sir: I have the honor to communicate to your excellency several facts of importance, deeming it to be my duty so to do, as representative of the Government of the United States of America.

The tug Fanny Lewis, which arrived here from Liverpool on the 6th instant, has on board, I am credibly informed by letters received from that port, a large quantity of powder for the rebel States of America, or for the so-called Confederate States.

On the 28th ultimo the steamer Oreto also arrived off this port from Liverpool, and now lies at Cochrane’s Anchorage, where it is believed, and so reported by many residents here, that she is being prepared and fitted out as a confederate privateer to prey on the commerce of the United States of America.

I inclose for your excellency’s perusal a slip from the Wilmington, North Carolina, paper of the 20th April.

I cannot but think that your excellency will consider it proper that some inquiry should be made to ascertain how far the vessels alluded to are preserving the strict neutrality so earnestly enjoined by Her Majesty’s late proclamation, and I am confident that I pay but a deserved tribute to your excellency’s high character when I express my firm belief that no illegal steps will be allowed to those who seek to subvert the Government which I have the honor to represent.

I am, &c.,

(Signed) SAML. WHITING,
United States Consul.

Mr. Whiting was on the same day informed in answer by the colonial secretary that the governor would cause inquiries to be made into the circumstances alleged in his (Mr. Whiting’s) letter. The letter was at the same time referred, by order of the governor, to the attorney-general of the colony, who reported as follows:3

[Page 285]

Assuming the cargo of the Fanny Lewis to be such as is stated by the United States consul, it is nevertheless one that can be legally imported here from the United Kingdom, and its future presumed destination does not invest it with any character of illegality which calls for or would authorize any action with respect to it on the part of the executive or other authorities of the colonies.

2. [62] With respect to the Oreto the consul’s allegation is to the effect that it is believed and reported by many residents here that she is being prepared and fitted out where she now lies, at Cochrane’s Anchorage, which is within the limits of the port of Nassau, as a confederate privateer. Now if such is the fact, an offense against the foreign enlistment act has been committed, all parties implicated in which are liable to be criminally proceeded against for misdemeanor, and the vessel may be seized by any naval or revenue officer; but to justify proceedings either against the parties or the vessels, the matter must not rest on repute or belief alone, but the authorities must have positive facts to *ground their proceedings on, and unless the consul can adduce such, or they can be obtained through other channels, no steps can be taken either for the arrest of the vessel or those on board of her.

(Signed) G. C. ANDERSON.

On the 28th May, 1862, Commander McKillop, commanding Her Majesty’s ship Bulldog wrote to the governor as follows:1

Bulldog, Nassau, May 28, 1862.

Sir: Several steamers having anchored at Cochrane’s Anchorage, I sent an officer yesterday to visit them and muster their crews, and ascertain what they were and how employed.

The officer reports that one steamer, the Oreto, is apparently fitting and preparing for a vessel of war; under these circumstances I would suggest that she should come into the harbor of Nassau to prevent any misunderstanding as to her equipping in this port, contrary to the foreign-enlistment act, as a privateer or war vessel.

I am, &c.,

(Signed) H. F. McKILLOP.

No facts were furnished by Commander McKillop in support of the statement that the Oreto was “apparently fitting and preparing for a vessel of war.” On receiving this communication the governor requested Commander McKillop to take such steps as he might think best for ascertaining the true character of the Oreto and the nature of her equipment; and if he should be convinced that she was really a man-of-war or privateer arming herself there, to concert measures for bringing her down into the part of the harbor adjacent to the town, or else to remove his own ship to Cochrane’s Anchorage and there watch her proceedings from day to day.

Early in the month of June, 1862, the consignees of the vessel, who were a mercantile firm at Nassau, applied to the receiver-general (the proper officer for that purpose) for permission to load her for an outward voyage to Saint John’s, New Brunswick.

Her Majesty’s government is informed and believes that during the blockade of the Confederate States it was a common practice for ships leaving the port of Nassau, with the intention of endeavoring to run their cargoes into the blockaded ports, to clear for Saint John’s, New Brunswick, and many of them took in their outward cargoes at the anchorages adjacent to the harbor of Nassau. In the application itself, therefore, there was nothing peculiar; but in consequence of the suspicions which had arisen about the ship, the receiver-general, before granting the usual permission to load, referred the matter to the governor, and it was brought by him before the executive council of the colony on the 4th June, 1862, when the following order was made:2

June 4, 1862.

At an executive council his excellency the governor, with the advice of the board, was pleased to make the following order:

  • “1. That the Oreto, if practicable, should take in her cargo within the port of Nassau.
  • “2. That if, however, it be found impracticable, from the depth of water in port or [Page 286] otherwise, that she cannot conveniently take in her cargo within the port, then that she be permitted to do so at Cochrane’s Anchorage, under the direct supervision or officers of the revenue department to be specially appointed for the purpose.
  • “3. That in consequence of the suspicions which have arisen respecting the character of the Oreto, it is advisable that a British vessel of war should remain at Cochrane’s Anchorage, in the immediate vicinity of the Oreto, while she is taking in cargo, and to prevent such vessel being detained at the anchorage an inconveniently long time there be imposed as a condition, for the permission for the Oreto to load without the port, that she complete her lading at Cochrane’s Anchorage within a period to be designated by the chief officer of the revenue department.”

His excellency was further pleased to direct that a copy of the foregoing order be furnished to the receiver-general and treasurer, and the commander of Her Majesty’s ship Bulldog, respectively, for their information and guidance.

On the same 4th June, 1862, the United States consul sent to the governor the subjoined letter and inclosure:1

United States Consulate,
Nassau, New Providence, June 4, 1862.

Sir: I have the honor to inform your excellency that I am in receipt of a communication from one of the crew (in prison here) of the steamer Oreto, now lying at Cochrane’s Anchorage, a copy of which I inclose.

May I request your excellency to inform me if any steps have been taken by the colonial government to ascertain the true character of the Oreto, the service for which she is intended, and if her longer stay at Cochrane’s Anchorage, under all the circumstances disclosed, is in accordance with Her Majesty’s late neutrality proclamation.

I am, &c.,

(Signed) SAML. WHITING,
Consul.

[63] *[Inclosure.]

Mr. Jones to Mr. Whiting.

Nassau Prison, June 4, 1862.

Sir: The ship I am from is the Oreto, built by W. C. Miller, in Liverpool, after the model of the English navy gun-boats, with magazine, shot-lockers, ports, and bolts for twenty guns. Everything is rigged and ready for mounting; even all the articles necessary for seamen, such as hammocks, bedding, kettles, and pans, with three years’ provisions. In short, she is a perfect man-of-war. Captain, James Duguid; chief officer, William Duggin; second officer, ___ Hudson; I, sir, was third officer and boatswain. The chief steward and purser, who refused duty, are in jail here.

* * * * * * *

Yours, &c.,

(Signed) EDW’D JONES.

The counsel renewed his representations on the 12th June.2

In conformity with the above resolutions of the executive council, the commander of the Bulldog proceeded to Cochrane’s Anchorage, put one of his officers in charge of the Oreto, and placed his own ship near her. On the 7th June she was removed by the consignees to the part of the harbor close to Nassau.

On the 8th June, 1862, the governor received from Commander McKillop a letter dated the 6th,3 reporting that he had visited and examined the Oreto; that she was fitted for war purposes, and had fittings at variance with the character of a merchant-vessel, but had on board no guns or ammunition.

On the 9th June the consignees began to load the vessel with cargo, part of which consisted of arms and ammunition, including some boxes of shells. On the morning of the 10th, however, the cargo which had been put on board was discharged, the consignees having obtained leave to land it, and to clear the vessel in ballast for the Havana.

Commander McKillop quitted Nassau on the 9th June, and was succeeded, as senior naval officer at the port, by Commander Hickley, of [Page 287] Her Majesty’s ship Greyhound. On the 10th June, Commander Hickley went on board the Oreto, but, being informed that she had cleared for the Havana, in ballast, and was to sail shortly, forbore at that time to examine her. On the 13th he again went on board of her, and sent in a report to the governor, which was as follows:1

Greyhound, Nassau, New Providence,
Bahamas, June 13, 1862.

Sir: On going on board the Oreto this morning, the captain informed me that the crew had refused to get the anchor up until they could be certain as to where the ship was going, as they did not know what might become of them after leaving port, and that the Oreto was a suspicious vessel. I then proceeded round the decks to note her fittings, &c., and to ascertain whether she had any warlike stores on board for her own equipment, and I have the honor to make the following report:

That the Oreto is in every respect fitted as a man-of-war, on the principle of the dispatch gun-vessels in Her Majesty’s naval service.

That she has a crew of fifty men, and is capable of carrying two pivot-guns amidships and four broadside, both forward and aft, the ports being made to “ship and unship,” port bars, breeching, side tackle, bolts, &c.

That she has shell-rooms, a magazine and light-rooms, and. “handing-scuttles” for handing powder out of the magazine, as fitted in the naval service, and shot-boxes, for Armstrong shot, or short similar to them. Round the upper deck she has five boats, (I should say,) a ten-oared cutter, an eight-oared cutter, two gigs, and a jolly-boat, and davits for hoisting them up—her accommodation being in no respect different from her similar class of vessel in the royal naval service.

And on my asking the captain of the Oreto, before my own officers and three of his own, whether she had left Liverpool fitted in all respects as she was at present, his answer was, “Yes, in all respects,” and “that no addition or alteration had been made whatever.”

In witness of this report, and ready to testify to its correctness, we, the undersigned, affix our names.

(Signed) H. D. HICKLEY, Commander.
JNO. L. GILBY, Lieutenant.
C. S. CARD ALE, Lieutenant.
B. B. STUART, Master.
P. O. M. PRESGRAVE, Assistant Paymaster.
E. B. GIDLEY, Gunner.
E. EDWARDS, Carpenter.
W. ROSKILLY, Gunner’s Mate.
JOHN LEWAN, Seaman Gunner.

The attorney general of the colony, being called upon to advise the governor upon this report, gave his opinion that it would not justify the detention of the vessel.

[64] *On the 15th June some of the crew of the Oreto came on board the Greyhound and stated to Commander Hickley that they had left the Oreto because they were not able to ascertain her destination, and that she was endeavoring to ship another crew. Commander Hickley thereupon seized the vessel, but, on the morning of the 17th, released her, the attorney-general being still of opinion that there was not evidence sufficient to justify a seizure. Notwithstanding this opinion, however, the seizure was forthwith (namely, on the morning of the 17th June) renewed, with the sanction of the governor, that officer holding that, after the statements which had been made to him by Commander Hickley, it was right and proper to submit the case to judicial investigation. The sanction of the governor was given on the 17th June, and proceedings were, by his direction, forthwith instituted in the vice-admiralty court of the colony (which was and is the court having by law jurisdiction in matters of this nature) for the condemnation of the vessel.

Oh the trial of the case, the following witnesses were examined on behalf of the Crown: [Page 288]

Wynn Fely James Duggan, chief officer of the Oreto.

William Porter, seaman of Oreto.

Peter Hinson, seaman of Oreto.

Charles Ward, steward of Oreto.

Walter Irving fireman of Oreto.

John Quinn, fireman of Oreto.

Thomas Robinson, fireman of Oreto.

Daniel Hamy, coal-trimmer of Oreto.

Commander Hickley, of Her Majesty’s ship Greyhound.

Thomas Joseph waters, a master mariner in the merchant-service.

Lieutenant Cardale, royal navy.

Bay Beaufoy Stuart, master and pilot of Her Majesty’s ship Greyhound.

One of the firm of merchants who were consignees of the vessel at Nassau, the master under whom she had made her outward voyage, and other witnesses, were examined for the defense. The consignee, in the course of his evidence, made the following statements on oath:1

We (meaning his firm) had the sole direction and management of the Oreto. I know of no person but Captain Duguid having any control over the Oreto. * * * In placing the cargo on board the Oreto, it was distinctly understood as cargo. I stated to the receiver-general that it was cargo only; that we intended to ship a full load by that vessel. We were fully aware that we could not ship such goods otherwise than as cargo, unless committing a breach of the foreign-enlistment act; and had we been ordered to do it, we should have handed the consignment over to some one else. No act was done by authority of Henry Adderly & Co. [the witness’s firm] with the intent that the vessel should be employed as a cruiser.

On cross-examination he stated as follows:

The vessel was consigned to us by Messrs. Fraser, Trenholm & Co., of Liverpool. She was consigned to us as a merchant-vessel, and we considered her as such. No instruction, in the first instance, was given to us, except the general instructions of shipping cargoes by all their vessels to Messrs. W. and R. Wright, Saint John’s, New Brunswick, on account and risk of J. R. Armstrong, of Liverpool. Mr. John Lowe, I think, brought a letter of introduction from Mr. Trenholm to the firm. I do not know whether Mr. Lowe was in any way interested in the Oreto. I do not recollect Mr. Lowe being mentioned in any correspondence which we received from Fraser, Trenholm & Co. We never had any transactions with Mr. Lowe in regard to the Oreto. She remained here several weeks before any attempt was made to ship cargo in her. We thought we should receive some instructions from our friends about her, but we did not. The shipping of the cargo on board the Oreto was performed by us under our general instructions. I am not prepared to say whether the vessel was actually going to Saint John’s, New Brunswick.

The master, James Alexander Duguid, gave evidence as follows:2

[65] I am master of the Oreto. * * * The owner of the Oreto, I believe, is named Mr. Thomas. I took my instructions from Fawcett, Preston & Co., the agents. * * * I arrived here at the latter end of April. I went to Cochrane’s Anchorage, and communicated with H. Adderly & Co. as the agents of the vessel representing my owners in England. I had no instructions, when leaving England, who the agents of the vessel were; but, on my arrival here, I understood who they were. Mr. Lowe had a letter, and told me that Messrs. Adderly & Co. were the agents of the vessel, and they would enter the ship. I remained at Cochrane’s Anchorage seven weeks: we were waiting orders *from the agents, who were waiting orders from the owners at home. * * * The shell was taken on board by the direction of the agents. I never thought that it was intended for the vessel, neither did I know that it was. * * * I had not intent, nor would I do so, to use the Oreto to commit hostilities against any power or state.

On cross-examination he said:3

I received my instructions from Messrs. Fawcett, Preston & Co. as to the voyage. They were written. [The instructions were produced in court.] In the conversation referred to in the letter dated 22d March, 1862, I proposed going to Nassau instead of Havana. No instructions were given to me as to the ultimate destination of the vessel after she reached Nassau. * * * I had no knowledge whatever, when the vessel cleared for Havana, that she was ultimately bound to the Confederate States of [Page 289] America. I have no knowledge whether the vessel was to return to Europe or not; I have no knowledge one way or the other. I have no knowledge whatever that she had been sold or agreed to be sold to any persons in the Confederate States.

With respect to the crew of the vessel, the consignee gave evidence as follows:l

We had some difficulty with the crew. They set up a plea that the vessel not having touched at Palermo, there had been a deviation of the voyage, and therefore they claimed their discharge. We demurred to this, but afterward agreed to pay them their wages up to date, and give them a bonus of £5 and pay their passage to England if they would not remain in the ship. This they refused to accept, stating that, from the several visits of the officers of the man-of-war on board the vessel, they considered she was of a suspicious character, and that they would not go in her unless the governor and Captain Hickley guaranteed their safety. Some accepted the terms that were offered. In consequence of this they were summoned before the police magistrate, and the case was brought under his adjudication. They elected to take their discharge. I was present at the time they then and there agreed to quit the ship. They then obtained leave to go on board for their clothes. The men were discharged by the magistrate. In consequence of this we got a shipping-master to ship another crew for the Oreto. I think there were fifteen or sixteen new hands then shipped. The received the usual advance. It was our intention to send her immediately to sea. I had arranged with the pilot to take her out the following morning, (Sunday;) they, however, missed the tide, the crew not having come on board. The vessel was again, seized that day. The crew we shipped then left the Oreto. I have not seen them since, and all the advance that we paid is lost.

As to the same matter, the master stated as follows:2

Two mornings following, previous to this seizure, (I mean on Friday and Saturdays,) I ordered my crew to get the vessel under way, but they refused, stating that I had deceived them once, and that they would not believe what I told them again. I told them she was cleared for Havana, and bound there as far as I knew. They still continued to refuse to work, and said that they would not believe anything that I told them. In consequence of this I sent warrants on board for them. They all appeared before the magistrate. They said that they would not proceed in the vessel unless they were guaranteed that they would be safe from any American cruisers. They then said that they would take their discharge, and the whole of them took their discharge.

On the 2d of August, 1862, the judge of the court pronounced judgment in the case, reviewing at considerable length the evidence which had been produced on both sides, and stating what, in his opinion, was the effect and value of that evidence. At the beginning, he said:3

To support the libel, it is necessary that proof should be given—

1st.
That the aforesaid parties, having charge of the Oreto, while the vessel was within the jurisdiction of the vice-admiralty court of the Bahamas, attempted to equip, furnish, and tit her out as a vessel of war;
2dly.
That such attempt was made with the intent that she should be employed in the service of the Confederated States of America; and,
3dly.
That such service was to cruise and Commit hostilities against the citizens of the United States of America. Witnesses have accordingly been produced to prove that the Oreto is constructed for and fitted as a war-vessel; that acts have been done in her, since she came to Nassau, which constitute an attempt to equip, fit, and arm her as a vessel of war; that from certain conversations which were overheard between the master of the vessel and a person who came out passenger in her, and from certain acts done by this person, there is proof that she was intended for the service of the Confederated States of America, and to cruise against the citizens of the United States.

After recapitulating the substance of the evidence, he said:4

The question now to be decided is, whether, upon a careful consideration of the evidence, there appears proof, or circumstantial evidence amounting to reasonable proof, that a violation of the provisi*ons of the foreign-enlistment act has been committed by the parties having charge of the Oreto. First, by attempting, by any act done since she came into this colony, to fit or equip the Oreto as a vessel of war. Secondly, by making such attempt for the purpose of fitting and equipping her as a vessel of war for the service of the Confederated States of America, to cruise and commit [Page 290] hostilities against the citizens of the United States of America. I have already said that what took place before the vessel came here can only be received as elucidatory or explanatory of what has occurred since that time. Two facts have been proved, both of which, it has been contended, are violations of the act. One is that, while the vessel lay at Cochrane’s Anchorage, some blocks were stropped in such a manner that they might be used as gnu-tackle blocks, and that they were so called in an entry in the ship’s log-book, and by some of the crew. The other, that a number of boxes containing shells were put in the ship after she came into this harbor, and were taken out again.

He arrived at the conclusion that there was no sufficient evidence of any act done, or attempt made since the Oreto had come to the colony, to fit out or equip her as a vessel of war.

He was further of opinion that, although the vessel might not be calculated to carry the ordinary bulky cargo of merchant-ships, she was capable of carrying a considerable quantity of some kinds of cargo, and that it was not improbable that a vessel of her description might be used for running the blockade.

He was also of opinion that the evidence connecting her with the Confederate States, as a vessel to be used in their service to cruise against the United States, was “slight.”1

It rests entirely on her connection with a gentleman named Lowe, who came out passenger in her, and some evidence has been given from which it may be inferred that this Mr. Lowe is connected in some way with the Southern States. He is said by some of the crew to have exercised some control over the Oreto. This is denied on oath by Mr. Harris and Captain Duguid. But assuming it to be true, and assuming also that Mr. Lowe is connected with the Confederated States, no one can state that Mr. Lowe, or his employers, if he have any, may not have engaged the Oreto for the purpose of carrying munitions of war, which we have seen she is well capable of doing, and this would not have been an infringement of the act under which she is libeled. But the evidence connecting the Oreto with the Confederated States rests almost entirely on the evidence of the steward, Ward, whose testimony I have already explained my reasons for receiving with much doubt.

The judge, therefore, made a decree for the restoration of the vessel to the master, claiming on behalf of the alleged owner, John Henry Thomas—

Under all the circumstances of the case, I do not feel that I should be justified in condemning the Oreto. She will, therefore, be restored.

With respect to costs, although I am of opinion that there is not sufficient evidence of illegal conduct to condemn the vessel, yet I think all the circumstances of the case taken together seem sufficient to justify strong suspicion that an attempt was being made to infringe that neutrality so wisely determined upon by Her Majesty’s government. It is the duty of the officers of Her Majesty’s navy to prevent, as far as maybe in their power, any such infringement of the neutrality. I think that Captain Hickley had prima facie grounds for seizing the Oreto; and I, therefore, decree that each party pay his own costs.

The assumption, on which the judge appears to have proceeded, that evidence of acts done before the Oreto arrived at the Bahamas could not be received, unless for the purpose of explaining or elucidating acts done after her arrival, may have been erroneous, and Her Majesty’s government believes that it was so. Her Majesty’s government believes that in a proceeding in rem against a ship, to enforce a forfeiture for an alleged infringement of the statute, a court, wherever locally situate within the dominions of the Crown, might lawfully receive and adjudicate upon evidence of such infringement, wherever the act or acts constituting it might have been committed.

The decision, however, although founded in part on an assumption that Her Majesty’s government considers open, at least, to grave doubt, was the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, and was, as such, binding on the executive authorities of the colony. And it is further to be observed, that proof of acts done out of the limits of the colony [Page 291] had it been tendered and admitted, could not have altered the decision of the court, unless it had supplied evidence also of an unlawful intention.

Her Britannic Majesty’s government, on the 31st July, 1862, received from the governor of the Bahamas intelligence of the measures taken in respect of the Oreto.

[67] The seizure of the vessel was approved by Her Majesty’s government, and the governor was informed that she should be detained until instructions could be given as to what further process should be instituted.1 The lords commissioners of the treasury *were at the same time requested to consider the propriety of sending an officer of customs from Liverpool who could give evidence of the facts which occurred in regard to the Oreto at that place, and inquiries with that view were forthwith made by the commissioners of customs.

Intelligence of the decree of the vice-admiralty court of the Bahamas, ordering the restoration of the Oreto, was received by Her Majesty’s government on the 16th September, 1862.

The Oreto was released, in obedience to the decree of the court; and on the 7th August, 1862, she was cleared at the Nassau customhouse as a merchant-vessel with cargo, for Saint John’s, New Brunswick, as appears from the subjoined copy of the manifest of cargo, extracted from the books of the revenue department of the Bahamas:2

Outwards.

Manifest of cargo on board British steamer Oreto, A. L. Read, master, for Sb. John’s, N. B. 178 tons; 12 feet water; 52 men.

  • 4 kegs white lead.
  • 3 barrels oil.
  • 2 puncheons rum.
  • 6 cases ½ and ¼ boxes tobacco.
  • 4 barrels sugar.
  • 4 bags coffee.
  • 28 barrels bread.
  • 8 cheese.
  • 3 kegs butter.
  • 8 bags pepper.
  • 4 boxes candles.
(Signed) J. L. READ.

Nassau, New Providence, August 7, 1862.

On or about the 7th August the Oreto sailed from Nassau. Of the subsequent history of this vessel, from the time of her leaving Nassau to that of her arrival in a port of the Confederate States, Her Britannic Majesty’s government has no knowledge; but it has been informed and believes that she was subsequently armed for war by a Captain Maffit, who had formerly held a commission in the United States Navy, and was then a commissioned officer in the service of the Confederate States; that she was then commissioned as a ship-of-war of the Confederate States, under the command of the said Maffit, and her named changed from “the Oreto” to “the Florida;” and that, after keeping the sea for a few days, she put in at the port of Cardenas, in Cuba, where (or at the Havana) she remained for nearly a month. On the 4th September the vessel arrived at and entered the port of Mobile in the Confederate States, which was then blockaded by three United States ships of war. She remained in port for upward of four months. She was repaired and refitted, and shipped a crew, and, in January, 1863, was sent to sea from Mobile, under the command of Maffit, as a Confederate States ship of war.

The United States consul at Nassau, after the departure of the [Page 292] vessel, and on the 8th September, 1862, wrote to the governor as follows:1

United States Consulate,
Nassau, New Providence, September 8, 1862.

Sir: I have the honor to inform your excellency that I have good authority for stating that the schooner Prince Alfred, of Nassau, took the Oreto’s armament from this port and discharged the same on board that steamer at Green Cay, one of the Bahamas; that the Oreto afterward left Green Cay with the secession flag flying at her peak; that the Prince Alfred has returned to this port, and now lies at Cochrane’s Anchorage, and I am credibly informed that her captain is again shipping men to be sent to the Oreto, in direct contravention of the foreign-enlistment act.

I earnestly urge upon your excellency the propriety of instituting some inquiry into these matters, and of preventing acts so prejudicial to the interests of the friendly government which I have the honor to represent.

I have, &c.,

(Signed) SAMUEL WHITING.

The colonial secretary replied as follows:

Colonial Office,
Nassau, September 9, 1862.

Sir: In reply to your letter of the 8th instant, directed to the governor, I am instructed by his excellency to inform you that, if you feel assured that you have sufficient credible evidence to substantiate your allegation, and will put your evidence into the hands of the attorney-general, his excellency will direct a prosecution against the captain of the Prince Alfred, or others who may have been guilty of violating the foreign-enlistment act.

But his excellency has no authority to take any steps against the Oreto, which is out of his excellency’s jurisdiction.

I have, &c.,

(Signed) C. R. NESBITT,
Colonial Secretary.

[68] *No evidence whatever in support of the allegations of the consul appears to have been furnished by him, and no facts were produced on which a prosecution could be founded.

The subsequent history of the Florida, so far as it is known to Her Majesty’s government from official reports and other sources, is as follows:

On the 25th January, 1863, the Florida came into the harbor of Nassau, where she remained twenty-six hours; and on the 24th February she put in at Barbados, where she remained about two days, (being detained for twenty-four hours at the request of the United States consul, in order to allow time for the sailing of a United States merchant-vessel then in the harbor.) Each of these colonies had been repeatedly visited by United States ships of war. It was alleged that in each of them some advantage or indulgence which United States vessels had not enjoyed had been granted to the Florida. But it was shown by the governors of those colonies that this assertion was entirely erroneous, and that no advantage was conceded to the Florida which had not been before granted to cruisers of the United States. It appeared, however, that both the United States ship San Jacinto and the confederate ship Florida had been permitted to obtain coal at Barbados within a less time than three months after they had respectively coaled at another British colony, the commander of each vessel having alleged that his supply of coal had been exhausted by stress of weather. In consequence of this the following dispatch was addressed by Her Majesty’s secretary of state for the colonies to the governor of Barbados; and instructions, substantially to the same effect, were sent to the governors of the other British colonies in the West Indies:2

[Page 293]

Downing Street, July 16, 1863.

Sir: I have received and had under my consideration your dispatch of the 7th March, giving an account of certain communications which have passed between yourself and Rear-Admiral Wilkes, of the United States Navy.

You were quite right in refusing to enter into correspondence with that officer upon the matter adverted to in his dispatch of the 5th March. On this and other occasions it has become evident that interviews and explanations such as you accorded to Rear-Admiral Wilkes were made the pretext for placing on record charges more or less direct against officers of Her Majesty. And I think that, as the governor of one of Her Majesty’s colonies owes no explanation of his conduct to an officer of the United States Navy, it will be prudent hereafter to avoid such explanations as far as the rules of courtesy will allow. It is the wish of Her Majesty’s government that matters of complaint should in general be discussed between the two governments concerned rather than between any subordinate officers.

With regard to the issue of coal to the war-vessels of the belligerents, you have, I think, allowed yourself too much liberty in giving the “special permission” to take in fuel contemplated in Her Majesty’s proclamation. Coal, in the opinion of Her Majesty’s government, ought not to be supplied to a vessel of war of either belligerent except in such quantity as may be necessary to carry such vessel to the nearest port of her own country, (or, of course, any nearer port,) and this, I will add, without reference to the question whether the ports of that country are or are not under blockade. In case of such blockade it will rest with the officer in command to seek some more convenient destination. If within the period prescribed by the proclamation a vessel thus furnished with coal in one of Her Majesty’s possessions should apply for a second supply in the same or another colony, the application may be granted if it is made to appear that, owing to real necessities arising from stress of weather, the coal originally given has been prematurely exhausted before it was possible that the vessel could, under existing circumstances, have reached the destination for which she coaled.

But if it should be the case that the vessel has not, since taking in coal, been bona fide occupied in seeking her alleged destination, but has consumed her fuel in cruising, the coal should not be replenished under the terms of the proclamation. Such a case is not one to which “special permission” referred to in that proclamation was intended to apply.

Her Majesty’s government are of opinion that the regulations of the proclamation thus interpreted should be strictly adhered to without any arbitrary concession to either belligerent. It is by such a course that misunderstandings and complaints of partiality will be most certainly avoided. An unauthorized concession to one belligerent, it may be safely assumed, will not be accepted by those to whom it is made as a justification of a similar concession in an opposite direction.

I approve of your having communicated to the officers administering the government of the other West Indian islands the fact that certain Federal and confederate vessels of war had called at Barbados.

I shall instruct the governors of the other islands to follow the same course, communicating in all cases the name of the vessel, its alleged destination, and the date of receiving the coal, and the quantity allowed to be placed on board.

I have, &c.,

(Signed)

[69] On the 8th May, 1863, the Florida entered the harbor of Pernambuco, and received permission to remain there for twenty-four hours. Captain Maffit stated to the president of the province that the machinery of his ship was out of order and required repair; and *he obtained, on this ground, leave to stay for three or four days. The machinery was repaired on shore, and he sailed on the 12th May.

The United States consul at Pernambuco addressed a remonstrance to the authorities protesting against any accommodation being granted to a vessel which he insisted should be regarded as piratical.

The president replied that there had been no infringement of the letter or spirit of international law in the course which had been pursued by the authorities; that he could not agree with the consul in regarding the Florida as piratical, and could not admit his protest.

On the 16th July, 1863, the Florida came into the port of St. George’s, Bermuda, her commander having previously applied for and obtained leave to enter for the purpose of procuring coals and making necessary repairs. Being unable to obtain coal from private persons, Captain [Page 294] Maffit requested to be allowed to purchase some from the Government stores, and he requested also that permission might be given him to have his ship repaired in the government dock-yard. These requests were refused, as appears from the following correspondence:1

Mr. Walker to Governor Ord.

Saint George’s, July 18, 1863.

Sir: At the request of Captain Maffit, commanding Confederate States steamer Florida, I have the honor to inform your excellency that, on his application at the dock-yard this morning for coals, he was informed by Captain Glasse that, under his present instructions, he did not feel authorized to furnish the Florida with the small amount even which Captain Maffit required.

As the Florida must therefore of necessity be detained at this port as a vessel in distress until the arrival of coals which are daily expected, Captain Maffit begs me to inquire of your excellency if the privilege will be accorded to him of proceeding to the dock-yard for the purpose of having effected some repairs to machinery and hull of ship, which are of essential importance, and which cannot be effected in the port of St. George’s.

I have, &c.,

(Signed) NORMAN STEWART WALKER.

Governor Ord to Mr. Walker.

Mount Langton, July 19, 1863.

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 18th instant, informing me, at the request of Captain Maffit, of the Confederate States steamer Florida, that, having applied yesterday at the dock-yard for coals, he was informed by Captain Glasse, royal navy, that he did not feel authorized to furnish the Florida with the small amount she required, and further stating that, as the Florida must therefore of necessity be detained at this port as a vessel in distress until the arrival of coals, which are daily expected, Captain Maffit begs you to inquire whether the privilege will be accorded to him of proceeding to the dock-yard for the purpose of having effected some repairs to machinery and hull of ship which are of essential importance, and which cannot be effected in the port of St. George’s.

Having referred this application to Captain Glasse, superintendent of the dock-yard, I have the honor to acquaint you that he informs me that he does not feel himself at liberty to allow of any repairs to the machinery or hull of the Confederate States steamer of war Florida being effected in Her Majesty’s dock-yard.

In making this communication I have to express a hope that Captain Maffit may yet find it in his power to obtain for his vessel such supplies of coal and such necessary repairs as will enable her to proceed without delay to her destination, but I must at the same time point out that Her Majesty’s instructions (with a copy of which Captain Maffit was supplied on the 16th instant) are very stringent as to the limitation of the stay in British waters of vessels of war of the United States or Confederate States, and that it is necessary that whatever may be required to enable the Florida to take her departure from these islands should be provided in the shortest possible period. If, however, Captain Maffit should find it impossible to procure at the present time whatever may be requisite for this purpose, I must request that he will at once proceed with the Florida to Grassy Bay, there to remain until his departure from the colony is rendered practicable.

I have, &c.,

(Signed) H. ST. GEORGE ORD.

Mr. Walker to Governor Ord.

St. George’s, July 20, 1863.

Sir: Since the communication which I had the honor to address to your excellency’ on Saturday evening last, Captain Maffit has been informed that there is a large quantity of coals at this port belonging to the commissariat department.

He therefore requests me, in his great emergency, to apply, through your excellency, to the proper officers, for a quantity sufficient to carry his vessel to some other coaling depot.

[70] *Captain Maffit will be happy to have the opportunity of paying for the coals in coin immediately, or of having them returned in kind, within two or three weeks, at any point in the island which may be indicated.

I have, &c.,

(Signed) NORMAN STEWART WALKER.
[Page 295]

Governor Ord to Mr. Walker.

Mount Langton, July 20, 1863.

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of this day’s date, requesting, on behalf of Captain Maffit, Confederate States steamer Florida, that he may be permitted to take from a large quantity of coal belonging to the commissariat department at St. George’s a quantity sufficient to carry his ship to some other coaling depot.

In reply I have to inform you that the coal in question is not under my control, but under that of Colonel Munro, the commandant of the troops.

I have, &c.,

(Signed) H. ST. GEORGE ORD.

Colonel Munro refused to allow coal to be supplied to the Florida from the commissariat department. She subsequently obtained some from a vessel which arrived at the colony from Halifax.

The commandant of the fort at Bermuda had, on the arrival of the Florida there, consented to exchange salutes with her. This act was disapproved by Her Majesty’s government for the reason that, while Great Britain had recognized the Confederate States as a belligerent, she had not recognized those States as independent or their government as a sovereign government.

On the 23d August, 1863, the Florida arrived at Brest, having two days before taken and destroyed at sea a United States merchant-ship bound from Liverpool to New York. The following report of what then occurred at Brest was subsequently furnished to Her Britannic Majesty’s government by Her Majesty’s consul at Brest, and is believed by Her Britannic Majesty’s government to be true and correct:1

Brest, September 22, 1871.

My Lord: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your lordship’s dispatch of the 12th instant., instructing me to furnish you with a report containing all the particulars of which I could obtain information respecting the proceedings at this port of the confederate cruiser Florida in 1863–’64.

In obedience to your lordship’s commands I have now the honor to report that the Florida arrived in Brest Bay at 11 o’clock on the morning of the 23d of August, 1863; and her commander having declared that she entered the port in order that her engines and copper sheathing might be repaired, and for purposes of general refitting, she obtained free pratique on the evening of the following day.

Captain Maffit, the commander of the Florida, was informed by the admiral of the port, (préfet maritime,) Vice-Admiral Count de Gueyton, that he was at liberty to effect the repairs of the ship and provide her with coal and provisions, the same as any merchant-ship.

Captain Maffit then selected as his agents Messrs. Massurier & Sons; but to this selection an objection was raised by Count de Gueyton, on account of their not being sworn brokers; and, at his suggestion, M. Aumaltre, sworn broker and interpreter, was appointed agent.

Later, a M. Puquet du Belley arrived from Paris as the special agent of the Confederate States for France. He, however, did not remain here long, but confirmed the appointment of M. Aumaître.

The commercial resources of Brest proving insufficient to effect the repairs of the Florida, application was made to the port admiral to allow her to enter the government dock-yard, and permission for her to do so was granted, it being stipulated that all expenses should be re-imbursed by the agent, M. Aumaître, and that her powder-magazine should be cleared before entering the dock. To effect the latter operation, a government barge was furnished for the purpose of removing the ammunition; and; this barge was, later, moored in the bay.

On the 9th of September, 1863, the Florida entered the government dock, and remained there for general repairs for a period of about five weeks.

On the 17th of the same month the Federal corvette Kearsarge put into Brest for a supply of coal; but this appears simply to have been a pretext, as she took but a small quantity on board. She, however, remained at anchor in the bay, with tires banked, until the 30bh of October, when she proceeded to sea, Queenstown being reported as her destination.

[Page 296]

The Federal corvette, however, returned to her anchorage at Brest on the 27th of November, and remained there until the 4th of December, when she again left Brest, and cruised off Cherbourg until, as I am informed, her commander ascertained that the confederate vessel Georgia, then repairing at that port, would not be ready for sea for some time; whereupon the Kearsarge returned to Brest Bay, and anchored there on the 11th of the same month.

[71] Meanwhile the Florida had completed her repairs in the dock-yard, and afterward took moorings *in the merchant harbor of Brest, where she was slowly refitted. On the 27th of December she was moved to the roadstead, and there anchored within a half a mile of the Kearsarge.

At half-past 1 o’clock on the afternoon of the 29th of December the Kearsarge again left Brest for an unknown destination.

It appears that some of the mechanism of the more heavy guns of the Florida had never been regulated; and her commander desiring to have this done, an application was made to the port admiral for permission to land the guns for that purpose, but this was at once and positively refused, on the ground that such an act might be interpreted as an equivalent to allowing a re-enforcement of arms.

But, it appears, her small-arms were allowed to be landed, in order to be repaired by a gun-maker of Brest, named Kock. This permission was granted on the agent, M. Aumaître, giving a guarantee to the authorities of the custom-house that they should be: reshipped on board the Florida.

No arms or ammunition were furnished to the Florida while here.

Through M. Aumaître, the agent, I have ascertained that thirty-five seamen claimed and obtained their discharge from the Florida here; that they were, in part, replaced by others, chiefly natives of Belgium, Germany, Italy, and Southern Austria, brought to Brest by railway direct from Paris, in numbers never exceeding four at a time, and that they were quietly sent on board in similar numbers.

The Federal corvette Kearsarge re-appeared in Brest waters on the 3d of January, 1864, and after steaming about the bay to within a mile of the town, again proceeded to sea.

The confederate cruiser Florida, being ready for sea, left Brest between 9 and 10 o’clock on the evening of the 9th of February, 1864, in charge of a pilot, and at a distance of about thirty miles from this port passed through the dangerous passage Du Raz, inside the Saints, landing the pilot at Audierne.

On the 18th of February the Kearsarge, coming, from Cadiz, re-appeared in Brest Roads; but her commander, finding that the Florida had left, departed the following day for an unknown destination.

During the stay of these two ships of war in the port of Brest the French ship-of-the-line Louis XIV was placed in a position to watch their movements, the commanding officer having orders, in the event of one of these vessels quitting the port, to prevent the other from leaving until after the expiration of twenty-four hours.

I am informed that the agent, M. Aumaître, paid the authorities of the dock-yard for repairs to the Florida 135,000 francs, and that the total sum expended on her here exceeded 300,000 francs, which amounts were later re-imbursed by Mr. Taylor, the paymaster of the ship.

The Florida, on her arrival at Brest, was commanded by Captain Maffit, who was later replaced by Captain Barney, who was again relieved by Captain Morris, under whose command she finally left this port.

In conclusion, I beg leave to state that your lordship’s dispatch of the 12th instant, calling for this report, having been received by Captain Clipperton, then acting consul, the day before I took charge of the consulate, he had already collected valuable information on the subject to which it refers, and I am, therefore, indebted to him for a portion of that furnished in the present dispatch. I would, however, add that before availing myself of such information I had it verified by persons competent to do so.

I have, &c.,

(Signed) HARRY RAINALS.

The United States minister at Paris, Mr. Dayton, addressed several remonstrances to the French government against the facilities afforded at Brest to the Florida, but without success. An account of these remonstrances and the answers given to them was furnished by him to his Government, and is contained in the following extracts from his dispatches, published by order of the Government of the United States:

[72] I have this day sent out a note to the minister informing him that I had learned that the Florida had come into Brest, not for repairs of machinery only, but for coal, which had been denied to her at Bermuda, from which port she had come. The fact is that, as she is a good sailing-vessel, and has crossed the Atlantic, as I believe, principally [Page 297] by that means, neither coal nor machinery is necessary to her safety, although a great convenience, doubtless, in enabling her to prey upon our commerce. It may well be doubted whether the rule which limits aid in such cases to what is called for by necessity and humanity applies at all to her case.—(Mr. Dayton to Mr. Seward, 25th August, 1863.)

I have to-day had a conversation with M. Drouyn de Lhuys upon the subject. He says they are much annoyed that the Florida should have come into a French port. But, having recognized the South as belligerents, they can only deal with the vessel as they would deal with one of our ships of war under like circumstances. They will give her so much aid as may be essential to her navigation, though they will not provide her with anything for war. I stated that she was a good sailer, and really needed nothing in the shape of repairs to machinery, &c., to enable her to navigate. He said that if she were deprived of her machinery she would be pro tanto disabled, crippled, and liable, like a duck with its wings cut, to be at once caught by our steamers. He said it would be no fair answer to say the duck had legs, and could walk or swim. But he said that, in addition to this, the officers of the port had reported to the government that the vessel was leaking badly; that she made water at so much per hour, (giving the measurement,) and unless repaired she would sink; that this fact, coming from their own officers, he must receive as true. They said nothing, however, about her copper being damaged, but reported that she needed calking and tarring, if I understood the French word rightly. I then asked him if he understood that the rule in such cases required or justified the grant of a *government dock or basin for such repairs, especially to a vessel like this, fresh from her destructive work in the channel, remarking that, as she waited no judicial condemnation of her prizes, when repaired in this government dock she would be just at hand to burn other American ships entering or leaving Havre and other French ports. He said where there was no mere commercial dock, as at Brest, it was customary to grant the use of any accommodations there to all vessels in distress, upon the payment of certain known and fixed rates; that they must deal with this vessel as they would with one of our own ships, or the ships of any other nation, and that to all such these accommodations would be granted at once.—(The same to the same, 3d September, 1863.)

On the 19th instant I received a note from M. Drouyn de Lhuys requesting to see me on the next day (yesterday) in reference to certain matters of business. I of course attended at the foreign office at the time named. He then informed me that it had been reported to him that the United States steamship Kearsarge, Captain Winslow, now in the port of Brest, kept her steam constantly up, with the view, as supposed, of instantly following and catching, if possible, the Florida, upon her leaving that port; and that France, having resolved to treat this vessel as a regularly commissioned ship of war, could not, and would not, permit this to be done. He said that the rule which requires that the vessel first leaving shall have twenty-four hours the start must be applied. To avoid the difficulty which he said must inevitably follow a disregard of this rule by Captain Winslow, he requested me to communicate to him the determination of this government, and apprise him of the necessity of complying with the rule. Inasmuch as nothing was to be gained by inviting the application of force, and increased difficulties might follow that course, I have communicated to Captain Winslow the letter of which I herewith send you a copy.

M. Drouyn de Lhuys furthermore informed me that this government, after much conference, (and, I think, some hesitation,) had concluded not to issue an order prohibiting an accession to the crew of the Florida while in port, inasmuch as such accession was necessary to her navigation. They had made inquiries, it would seem, and said they had ascertained that the seventy or seventy-five men discharged after she came into Brest were discharged because the period for which they had shipped had expired. He said, furthermore, that it was reported to him that the Kearsarge had likewise applied for some sailors and a pilot in that port, as well as for coal and leave to make repairs, all which had been and would be, if more were needed, cheerfully granted.

I told him I was quite confident the Kearsarge had made no attempt to ship a crew there, and that, as respects a pilot, that stood on ground peculiar to itself, and had no reference to the general principle.

The determination which has been reached by the French authorities to allow the shipment of a crew, or so large a portion of one, on board of the Florida while lyiug in their port, is, I think, wrong, even supposing that vessel a regularly commissioned ship of war. I told M. Drouyn de Lhuys that, looking at it as a mere lawyer, and clear of prejudices which my official position might create, I thought this determination an error. He said, however, that in the conference they had reached that conclusion unanimously, although a majority of the ministry considering *the question were lawyers.—(The same to the same, 21st October, 1863.

The Florida remained in the harbor of Brest, repairing and refitting, during nearly six months, from the 23d August, 1863, till the 9th February, 1861.

[Page 298]

On the 13th April, 1864, the Florida touched at Bermuda, but remained only a very short time, anchoring on the afternoon of that day and putting to sea the same evening.

On the 18th June, 1861, she again arrived at Bermuda, and obtained permission to remain during five days for the purpose of making necessary repairs. The circumstances which occurred, and the course pursued by the authorities at Bermuda, are set forth in the subjoined dispatch from the acting governor:1

Bermuda, July 7, 1884.

Sir: I have the honor to report the following particulars connected with a recent visit to these islands of the Confederate States steamer Florida. On Saturday, the 18th June, the Florida arrived at the outer anchorage, and Commander Morris sent one of his officers to report his arrival and ask permission to take in coal, and permission, also, to effect some repairs. I was informed that no supplies or coal had been furnished to the Florida in any English port for ten months past, and that it would not be possible to ascertain the full extent of the repairs necessary until the vessel came into port. I then gave permission for the Florida to be brought into Saint George’s Harbor for twenty-four hours, exclusive of Sunday. The vessel came in accordingly on Sunday, and, shortly after his arrival, Commander Morris waited upon me and delivered me a letter asking that the repairs which were found necessary might be carried out at Her Majesty’s dock-yard. I immediately transmitted this letter to Vice-Admiral Sir James Hope, who declined to allow any repairs to be carried out in the dock-yard, but offered to send competent officers on board the Florida to ascertain the extent of the repairs necessary. Commander Morris was very glad to obtain the opinion of these officers, and the knowledge was necessary to me, in order that I might judge what time should be granted. The admiral sent the flag lieutenant, chief engineer, and two assistant engineers on board the Florida, and the reported on the vessel:

  • “1st. She can proceed to sea with such repairs as can be made good here, which, as far as we are able to judge, will require five days for one man, viz, a diver for two days and a fitter for three days, or three complete days in all.
  • “2d. [73] She can proceed to sea with safety in her present state under steam, but under sail *is unmanageable with her screw up in bad weather, and her defects aloft (cross-trees) render main top-mast unsafe. This could be made good in two days.”

I consulted personally with Sir James Hope, and gave Commander Morris permission to remain five working days in Saint George’s to complete the repairs. I also furnished Commander Morris with printed extracts of some portion of the circular dispatch dated the 16th July, 1853, informing him of the regulations under which alone he could be allowed to take in coal. He asserted that Mobile was the first confederate port he expected to visit, and reports that he took in about eighty tons of coal. The five working days expired on the 27th June, and the Florida quitted Saint George’s harbor on that day, but was seen off the island on the following day and also on the morning of the 29th. I had the advantage of the advice of Sir James Hope until he quitted Bermuda in the Duncan for Halifax, and our views were completely in accord. During this visit the conduct and demeanor of Commander Morris were all that I could wish, and he appeared very desirous to avoid the least infringement of the instructions laid down in Her Majesty’s proclamation. Since that time, however, I cannot think Commander Morris has behaved quite properly. On the 28th June the Florida was seen off the islands ail day, and also on the morning of the 29th. Again she was signaled off the south side on the 2d July, about 7.30 a.m., and on the afternoon, about 4 p.m. I received a verbal message to say that two men, supposed to be deserters, had been found on board, and requested that I would send some persons off to identify them, in a steam-tug that was going off to visit the Florida. The departure of this tug was delayed until after sunset, and the fort adjutant then perceived that she was going to tow out a barge full of coal. This officer immediately told Mr. Black, who is temporarily acting as agent for the Confederate States, that he ought not to take out coal without the governor’s permission. Mr. Black then sent me a note, of which I inclose a copy, asking for permission to take out fifteen tons of coal to the Florida in consequence of her having returned to Bermuda for the purpose of bringing back the two deserters. To this I immediately replied that I could not sanction any further issue of coal. The fort adjutant was present when my letter was delivered to Mr. Black, and at that moment the tug-steamer started off to the Florida with the barge in tow. Mr. Black stated that she had gone without his orders, and that he would follow her in a gig. This he did, and I am informed that about half the coals had been already taken on board before Mr. Black had arrived in the gig, and the remainder was brought back. [Page 299] The deserter belonging to the royal engineers was placed on board and handed over. It will be observed in Mr. Black’s note that he stated the deserters were discovered in twenty-four hours. The Florida remained in sight for at least thirty-six hours after her departure, and the deserter was not landed for five days.

Commander Morris never applied to me for permission to take the coal, I suppose, being fully aware that the circular dispatch of the 16th July, 1863, prohibited coal being supplied to vessels such as his, which “had consumed their fuel in cruising” as he had done in sight of these islands.

Mr. Black, who belongs to the Southern States, states that, he sent the coal at the request of Commander Morris. The Florida then immediately left the islands, and has not since been seen.

I beg to annex a copy of a printed extract from the circular dispatch of the 16th July, 1863, which I forwarded to Commander Morris.

I have, &c.,

(Signed) WILLIAM MUNRO.

With reference to these circumstances the following correspondence passed between Mr. Adams and Earl Russell:1

Mr. Adams to Earl Russell.

Legation of the United States,
London, August 19, 1864.

My Lord: It is with very great regret that I find myself compelled to call the attention of your lordship to the abuse made of the neutrality of the island of Bermuda by the vessels under the direction of the insurgents in the United States, in making it a base for hostile operations against the commerce of a friendly nation. I have the honor to submit to your consideration the copy of an extract from a report of Mr. Allen, consul of the United States at that place, to the Secretary of State, in which he makes certain statements respecting the reception there of the gun-boat known under the name of the Florida, and her subsequent proceedings, which appear to be directly in violation of the regulations heretofore laid down by Her Majesty’s government. I beg permission to remind your lordship of the remonstrances which were promptly made, a short time since, in the case of one of the vessels of the United States, for proceedings of a far less exceptionable character.

Not doubting the disposition of Her Majesty’s government to do full justice in the premises, I pray, &c.,

(Signed) CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS.

[Inclosure.]

Mr. Allen to Mr. Seward.

United States Consulate, Bermuda, June 30, 1864.

[74] Sir: The Florida, after remaining in port nine days, went to sea last Monday evening, but has not been far from land. She is in sight to-day from the hills, about six miles off. She boards all vessels *approaching these islands. She received all the coal and supplies they wanted. The coal was taken from the ship Storm King, C. L. Hobson, of Richmond, agent.

I am, &c.,

(Signed) C. M. ALLEN, Consul.

Earl Russell to Mr. Adams.

Foreign Office, September 5, 1864.

Sir: In reply to your note of the 19th ultimo respecting the proceedings of the Florida at Bermuda, I have the honor to inform you that Her Majesty’s government have received reports on the same subject from Her Majesty’s colonial and naval authorities, and that, after due consideration of the same, they are of opinion that although some disposition was manifested by the commander of the Florida to evade the stringency of Her Majesty’s regulations, the most commendable strictness and diligence in enforcing those regulations was observed on the part of the authorities, and that no substantial deviation, either from the letter or from the spirit of those regulations, was permitted to, or did, take place.

I have further the honor to inform you that Her Majesty’s government consider that the conduct of the lieutenant-governor of Bermuda on the occasion in question was perfectly proper.

I am, &c.,

(Signed) RUSSELL.
[Page 300]

On or about the 5th October, 1864, the Florida entered the port of Bahia. On this occasion the following correspondence passed between the United States consul at that place and the president of the province of Bahia:l

The United States consul to the president of the province.

Consulate of the United States of America,
Bahia, October 5, 1864—9 a.m.

Sir: This morning a steamer anchored in this port bearing the flag adopted by those who are involved in the rebellion against the Government of the United States of America, and I am informed that the said vessel is the Florida, which is engaged in, capturing vessels navigating under the flag of the United States of America, and in destroying them by making bonfires of them and their cargoes.

The vessel in question is not commissioned by any recognized government whatever and her officers and crew are composed of persons of various nationalities, who are not subject to any international or civilized law, and are consequently not entitled to the privileges and immunities conceded to vessels navigating under the flag of a civilized nation. I therefore protest, in the name of the United States of America, against the admission of this vessel to free practice, by which she might be enabled to supply herself with coal, provisions, tackle, or utensils of any kind whatever, or receive on board any persons whatever; finally, against any assistance, aid, or protection might be conceded to her in this port, or in any other belonging to this province.

I likewise claim that the piratical cruiser which, in combination with the pirate Alabama, violated the sovereignty of the imperial government of Brazil, by capturing and destroying vessels belonging to citizens of the United States of America within the territorial waters of Brazil, near the island of Fernando de Noronha, in April, 1883, be detained with all her officers and crew, in order to answer for so flagrant a violation of the sovereignty of the government of Brazil and of the rights of citizens of the United States within the jurisdiction of the Brazilian government.

I avail, &c.,

(Signed) THOMAS F. WILSON,
Consul of the United States.

His Excellency Antonio Joaquim de Silva Gomes,
President of the Province of Bahia.

The president of the province to Mr. Wilson.

Palace of the Government of the Province of Bahia,
October 5, 1864.

In a note, dated this day, Mr. Thomas F. Wilson, consul of the United States, claims that the steamer Florida, now anchored in this port, shall not be admitted to free pratique, nor obtain permission to provide herself with coal, provisions, supplies, and utensils of any kind whatever, nor receive on board any person whatever; he likewise requests that, as the cruiser, in combination with the Alabama, violated the sovereignty of the imperial government of Brazil, by capturing and destroying vessels belonging to citizens of the United States of America within the territorial waters of the empire, near the island of Fernando de Noronha, in April, 1883, she may be detained, with all her officers and crew, in order to answer for this flagrant violation of the sovereignty of the government of Brazil and of the rights of citizens of the United States within the jurisdiction of the Brazilian government.

[75] In reply to the consul, I have to inform him that, as the said vessel belongs to the Confederate States, in whom the imperial government recognized the character of belligerents, all the assistance *required by humanity may be furnished her, which does in no wise constitute assistance for warlike purposes, as laid down by international law, and does not conflict with that neutrality which this government studiously seeks to preserve, and has always preserved, in the contest between the States of North America. The undersigned cannot, therefore, admit the first portion of the claim of the consul, in the general manner in which it was presented, and particularly in relation to those articles considered as contraband of war, in conformity with instructions issued on that subject by the imperial government, and according to which the said vessel will only be permitted to remain in this port for the length of time absolutely indispensable.

In regard to the second part of his note, it is my duty to observe to the consul that, even if it were fully established that the Florida had previously violated neutrality, such a proceeding would scarcely authorize us to refuse her permission to enter the [Page 301] ports of the empire, and would never warrant us to commit the acts required by the consul, which would be equivalent to a hostile rupture, without the intervention of the supreme government of the state, which is alone competent to authorize such a rupture.

I renew, &c.,

(Signed) ANTONIO JOAQUIM da SILVA GOMES.

Mr. Thomas F. Wilson,
Consul of the United States.

Before dawn on the morning of the 7th October, 1864, the Florida was surprised and captured in the port of Bahia by the United States war-steamer Wachusett, and was carried as a prize to the United States. Shortly after her arrival she sank in Chesapeake Bay, in consequence, as was affirmed, of having sprung a leak during her voyage and of having been injured while at anchor by a United States transport-steamer.

The government of Brazil protested immediately, in strong terms, against this violation of its sovereignty and of the neutrality of the port) and the United States minister at Bio declared, in reply, that the capture of the Florida had not been directed or authorized by himself, condemned the act of the captain of the Wachusett, and promised that reparation should be made.

Mr. Seward, on learning what had occurred, wrote as follows to the United States minister at Rio:1

Mr. Seward to Mr. Webb.

Department of State,
Washington, November 11, 1864.

Sir: In the years 1862 and 1863, remonstrances were addressed by us to the government of Brazil against the policy, different as it was from that of all other American States, in regard to the furnishing of shelter and a haven to pirates who were engaged in depredating upon the peaceful commerce of the United States. The correspondence came to a close without having produced any satisfactory result, and not without leaving a painful presentiment that a continuance of measures so injurious to the United States would sooner or later affect the harmonious relations heretofore existing between the two countries.

We have just now heard of the capture of the Florida by the Wachusett, at Bahia, and of the consequent hostilities adopted by the Brazilian forces in that port; but we have no particular information of the circumstances which preceded the collision, and our information concerning the transaction itself is incomplete. At the same time, we are absolutely without knowledge of any correspondence that it may have elicited between yourself and the Brazilian government.

In this stage of the matter, the President thinks it proper that you should inform the minister of foreign affairs that we are not indisposed to examine the subject upon its merits carefully, and to consider whatever questions may arise out of it, in a becoming and friendly spirit, if that spirit shall be adopted by His Imperial Majesty’s government.

I am, &c.,

(Signed) WILLIAM H. SEWARD.

With reference to this occurrence, the following correspondence passed between the Brazilian minister at Washington and the United States Secretary of State:2

[Translation.]

Imperial Legation of Brazil,
Washington, December 12, 1864.

The undersigned, chargé d’affaires ad interim of His Majesty the Emperor of Brazil, has just received orders from his government to address himself, without-delay, to that of the United States of North America about an act of the most transcendent gravity done on the morning of the 7th day of October last, in the port of the capital of the province of Bahia, by the war-steamer Wachusett, belonging to the Navy of the [Page 302] Union, an act which involves a manifest violation of the territorial jurisdiction of the empire, and an offense to its honor and sovereignty.

On the fourth day of the month referred to, there entered that port, where already had been lying for some days the Wachusett, the confederate steamer Florida, for the purpose, declared by her commander to the president of the province, to supply herself with alimentary provisions and coal, and to repair some tubes of her machinery.

[76] *The president, proceeding in accordance with the policy of neutrality which the empire resolved to adopt on the question in which unfortunately these States are involved, and in conformity with the instructions in this respect issued by the imperial government on the 23d of June of the year last past, assented to the application of the commander of the Florida, and fixed the term of forty-eight hours for taking in supplies, and fixing, in dependence on the final examination by the engineer of the arsenal, the determination of the residue of the time which, per ad venture, should be deemed indispensable for the completion of the repairs.

The same authority at once took, with the greatest impartiality, all the measures necessary to avoid any conflict between the two hostile steamers.

The Florida was placed under cover of the batteries of the Brazilian corvette D. Januaria, on the in-shore side, at the request of her commander, who, reposing on the faith with which, without doubt, the chief authority of the province could not faii to inspire him, considered himself sheltered from any attack of his adversary, and in this confidence not only staid a night on shore, but gave liberty to a great part of the crew of his vessel.

It behooves me to say that, as soon as the confederate steamer entered the port at Bahia, the American consul, Wilson, addressed to the president a dispatch claiming that the Florida should not be admitted to free pratique, and that on the contrary she should be detained, alleging for this, that that vessel had, in concert with the Alabama, violated the neutrality of the empire by making captures in 1863, near the island of Fernando de Noronha.

Such exaggerated pretensions, founded on facts not proven, which had already been the subject of discussion between the imperial government and the legation of the United States, could not be even listened to.

If the president should have refused the hospitality solicited by the commander of the Florida, he would have infringed not only the duties of neutrality of the empire, but also those of humanity, considering that steamer, coming from Teneriffe, had been sixty-one days at sea, was unprovided with food, and with machinery in the worst condition.

Afterward, the president having stated to the same consul that he hoped, from his honor and loyalty toward a friendly nation, that he would settle with the commander of the Wachusett that he should respect the neutrality and sovereignty of the empire, he was answered affirmatively, the consul pledging his word of honor. Things were in this condition, the term of forty-eight hours being to expire at one o’clock of the afternoon of the 7th, when, about dawn of that day, the commander of the steamer Wachusett, suddenly leaving his anchorage, passed through the Brazilian vessels of war and approached the Florida.

On passing across the bows of the Brazilian corvette D. Januaria he was hailed from on board that he must anchor; but, as he did not attend to this intimation, and continued to approach the Florida, at the same time firing a gun and some musketry, the commander of the naval division of the empire stationed in those waters sent an officer to board the Wachusett and inform her commander that the ships of the division and the forts would open fire upon her if she should attack the Florida. The Brazilian officer was not allowed to make fast to the Wachusett, but the officer of the deck hailed him, saying in reply that he accepted the intimation given, that he would do nothing more, and that he was going to return to his anchorage. The commander of the Brazilian division then thought proper to ratify his intimation by firing a gun, upon which a complete silence followed between the two ships Wachusett and Florida.

At the time this was passing, the corvette D. Januaria, on board which the commander of division had hoisted his Hag, lay head to flood, the steamer Florida anchored B. B., side by side of her, and quite close to the shore, and between her and the corvette the Wachusett stopped her wheels.

The commander of division then observing, notwithstanding the darkness of the night, that the Wachusett, from the position in which she was, kept moving onward and was passing ahead of the corvette, in a course E. B., became convinced that, in fact, she was steering for her anchorage, thus complying with the promise made.

But a few moments afterward, perceiving that the Florida was in motion, the commander discovered that the Wachusett was taking her off in tow by means of a long cable.

Surprised at such an extraordinary attempt, the commander immediately set about stopping this, and redressing, at the same time, as behooved him, the offense thus done to the dignity and sovereignty of the empire.

[Page 303]

But availing himself of the darkness of the night, and of other circumstances, the commander of the Wachusett succeeded in carrying his prize over the bar, and escaping the just punishment he deserved.

The consul, Wilson, preferred to abandon his post, with drawing on board the Wachusett.

The government of His Majesty, as soon as it had official information of the event, addressed to the legation of the United States at Rio Janeiro a note, in which, giving a succinct exposition of the fact, it declared that it had no hesitation in believing it would hasten to give to it all proper assurances that the Government of the Union would attend to the just reclamation of the empire as promptly and fully as the gravity of the case demanded.

In correspondence with this expectative note, the worthy representative of the United States was prompt in sending his reply, in which he declares he is convinced that, his Government will give to that of the empire the reparation which is due to it.

Such are the facts to which the undersigned has received order to call all the attention of the honorable William H. Seward, Secretary of State of the United States.

The principles of international law which regulate this matter, and in respect of which there is not the least divergence among the most distinguished publicists, are common and known to all. The undersigned would fail to recognize the high intelligence of the honorable Mr. Seward, if, perchance, he should enter in this respect into fuller developments.

[77] He limits himself then only to recall a memorable example, in which these principles, invariably *sustained by the United States, had entire application. In 1793, the great Washington then being President of the United States, and the illustrious Jefferson Secretary of State, the French frigate l’Embuscade captured the English ship Grange, in Delaware Bay, thus violating the neutrality and the territorial sovereignty of the United States. The American Government remonstrated energetically against this violation, and required from the government of the French republic not only the immediate delivery of the captured vessel, but also the complete liberation of all the persons found on board. This reclamation was promptly satisfied. Much more grave, certainly, is the occurrence in the port of the province of Bahia which makes the subject of the present note. By the special circumstances which preceded and attended it, this act has no parallel in the annals of modern maritime war.

The commander of the Wachusett not only gravely offended the territorial immunities of the empire, passing beyond the laws of war by attacking treacherously, during the night, a defenseless ship, whose crew, much reduced because more than sixty men were on shore with the commander and several officers, reposed unwary beneath the shadow of the protection which the neutrality of the empire guaranteed to them; and so open was the violation, so manifest the offense, that the enlightened American press was almost unanimous in condemnation of the inexcusable proceeding of Commander Collins.

On this occasion, remembering the United States, whose antecedents are well known and noted in history by the energetic defense of and respect for neutral rights, of these unshaken principles, the undersigned cannot consider the event which occurred at Bahia otherwise than as the individual act of the commander of the Wachusett, not authorized or approved by his Government, and that it will consequently give to the government of His Majesty the Emperor the explanations and reparation which, in conformity with international laws, are due to a power which maintains friendly and pacific relations with the United States.

The just reclamation of the imperial government being thus presented, the undersigned awaits the reply of the honorable Mr. Seward, and, fully confiding in his exalted-wisdom and in the justice of the Government of the United States, he has not even for a moment doubted but that it will be as satisfactory as the incontestable right which aids the empire and the vast gravity of the offense which was done to it may require.

The undersigned, &c.,

(Signed) IGNACIO DE AVELLAR BARBOZA DA SILVA.

His Excellency the Hon. William H. Seward.

Mr. Seward to Mr. Barboza.

Department of State,
Washington, December 201, 1864.

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note, which sets forth the sentiments of the imperial government of Brazil concerning the capture of the Florida by the United States war-steamer Wachusett in the port of Bahia.

You will, of course, explain to your government that, owing to an understanding between you and myself, your note, although it bears the date of the 12th December, was not submitted to me until the 21st instant.

Jealousy of foreign intervention in every form, and absolute non-intervention in the [Page 304] domestic affairs of foreign nations, are cardinal principles in the policy of the United States. You have therefore justly expected that the President would disavow and regret the proceedings at Bahia. He will suspend Captain Collins and direct him to appear before a court-martial. The consul at Bahia admits that he advised and incited the captain and was active in the proceedings. He will therefore be dismissed. The flag of Brazil will receive from the United States Navy the honor customary in the intercourse of friendly maritime powers.

It is, however, not to be understood that this Government admits or gives credit to the charges of falsehood, treachery, and deception which you have brought against the captain and the consul. These charges are denied-on the authority of the officers accused.

You will also be pleased to understand that the answer now given to your representation rests exclusively upon the ground that, the capture of the Florida was an unauthorized, unlawful, and indefensible exercise of the naval force of the United States within a foreign country in defiance of its established and duly recognized government.

This Government disallows your assumption that the insurgents of this country are a lawful naval belligerent; and, on the contrary, it maintains that the ascription of that character by the government of Brazil to insurgent citizens of the United States, who have hitherto been and who still are destitute of naval forces, ports, and courts, is an act of intervention in derogation of the law of nations and unfriendly and wrongful, as it is manifestly injurious, to the United States.

So also this Government disallows your assumption that the Florida belonged to the aforementioned insurgents, and maintains, on the contrary, that that vessel, like the Alabama, was a pirate, belonging to no nation or lawful belligerent, and therefore that the harboring and supplying of these piratical ships and their crews in Brazilian ports were wrongs and injuries for which Brazil justly owes reparation to the United States as ample as the reparation which she now receives from them. They hope and confidently expect this reciprocity in good time, to restore the harmony and friendship which are so essential to the welfare and safety of the two countries.

In the positions which I have thus assumed the imperial government will recognize an adherence to rights which have been constantly asserted, and an enduring sense of injuries which have been the subject of earnest remonstrance by the United States during the last three years. The government of Brazil is again informed that these positions of this Government are no longer deemed open to argument.

[78] It does, not, however, belong to the captains of ships of war of the United States, or to the commanders of their armies, or to their consuls residing in foreign ports, acting without the authority of Congress, and without even Executive direction, and choosing their own time, manner, and occasion, to assert the rights and redress the wrongs of the country. This power can be lawfully exercised only by the Government of the United States. As a member of the family of nations, the United States practice order, not anarchy, as they always prefer lawful proceedings to aggressive violence or retaliation. The United States are happy in being able to believe that Brazil entertains the same sentiments. The authorities at Bahia are understood to have unsuccessfully employed force to overcome the Wachusett and rescue the Florida, and to have continued the chase of the offender beyond the waters of Brazil, out upon the high seas. Thus, in the affair at Bahia, subordinate agents, without the knowledge of their respective governments, mutually inaugurated an unauthorized, irregular, and unlawful war. In desisting from that war on her part, and in appealing to this Government for redress, Brazil rightly appreciated the character of the United States, and set an example worthy of emulation.

The disposition of the captured crew of the Florida is determined upon the principles which I have laid down. Although the crew are enemies of the United States, and, as they contend, enemies of the human race, yet the offenders were, nevertheless, unlawfully brought into the custody of this Government, and therefore they could not lawfully be subjected here to the punishment which they have deserved; nor could they, being enemies, be allowed to enjoy the protection of the United States. They will therefore be set at liberty, to seek a refuge wheresoever they may find it, with the hazard of recapture when beyond the jurisdiction of this Government.

The Florida was brought into American waters, and was anchored, under naval surveillance and protection, at Hampton Roads. While awaiting the representation of the Brazilian government, on the 28th November, she sunk, owing to a leak which could not be seasonably stopped. The leak was at first represented to have been caused, or at least increased, by a collision with a war-transport. Orders were immediately given to ascertain the manner and circumstances of the occurrence. It seemed to affect the Army and the Navy. A naval court of inquiry and also a military court of inquiry were charged with the investigation. The naval court has submitted its report, and a copy thereof is herewith communicated. The military court is yet engaged. So soon as its labors shall have ended, the result will be made known to your Government. In the mean time it is assumed that the loss of the Florida was a [Page 305] consequence of some unforeseen accident, which cast no responsibility upon the United States.

I avail, &c.,

(Signed) WILLIAM H. SEWARD.1

Senhor Ignacio de Avellar Barboza da Silva, &c.

It has been stated above that the crew of the Florida were shipped principally at Mobile. Representations having been made to Her Majesty’s government to the effect that some of the men who served in her were British subjects, the law-officers of the Crown were consulted on the question whether proceedings could be instituted against these persons for an infringement of the foreign-enlistment act. The law-officers advised as follows:2

We do not think that sufficient evidence has yet been obtained to warrant the institution of proceedings against any of these seamen.

If it were shown that their enlistment on board the Florida had taken place in England, or within British jurisdiction, they might perhaps have been presumed to be natural-born British subjects, owing obedience at that time to British law; so far, at all events, as to make slight evidence in confirmation of that presumption sufficient.

Next it appears, by the fourth column of the list annexed to Thompson’s first affidavit, that, with two exceptions only, all these men took service on board the Florida beyond the limits of British jurisdiction, and by far the greater number of them at Mobile, within the territory of the Confederate States. With respect to the two, Dennis Sullivan and Charles Ballinger, who are alleged, the one to have enlisted at Nassau, and the other to have been shipped at the first, (which we suppose means when the ship first sailed from England,) no evidence whatever has yet been obtained in support of either of these allegations.

In the former report of the law-officers upon this subject it was noticed that the first section of the foreign-enlistment act, which prohibits the enlistment of British subjects in the belligerent service of any foreign power, is not limited (as the seventh section as to equipping vessels is) to acts done within British jurisdiction, but that it seems to be intended to apply, and is in its literal terms applicable, to all natural-born British subjects who may enter into the service of any foreign belligerent power without Her Majesty’s license, wheresoever the prohibited act may be clone. Assuming this to be the construction and effect of the statute, we apprehend that it would be impossible to procure a conviction under it in the case of persons who were not resident within British jurisdiction at the time of their taking foreign service, without strict proof that such persons were in fact, at the time of their doing so, natural-born British subjects, owing exclusive obedience, wherever they might be, to the statute law of Great Britain; and we think it is at least very doubtful whether those sections of the statute would be held to be applicable to any persons who were naturalized, or even domiciled, at the time of their taking such service, within the territory of the belligerent power in whose service they enlisted.

[79] *Bearing these considerations in mind, we turn to the original depositions of Thompson and Müller, and we find in the former no evidence whatever bearing upon the essential question of the nationality and origin of any of these seamen; while the statements of the latter, as to seventeen of the thirty-three persons who are described as of British origin in the second column of the lists, depend upon admissions or inferences of so loose a character that we do not think any reliance ought to be placed upon them. So far as they rest only on the deponent’s belief, they are inadmissible; so far as they prove that certain individuals associated on board the ship as Irishmen, and sung Irish songs, &c., they are insufficient; and we think it would be unsafe to trust to the statements of this witness as to the admissions said to have been made by some of the parties (as we count them, by seven only, viz, Considine, Conway, Doris, McNevin, McCabe, McGarroch, and Welch) to the effect that Ireland was their home, their country, or the place of residence of their parents. Every one of these seven persons, it is to be remembered, joined the Florida, according to the lists, at Mobile; and it may serve as some test of the value of this kind of evidence, that the same witness makes very similar statements as to four other seamen, (Taylor, Rivers, Grover, and King,) with a view to prove them to be either Englishmen or Irishmen, although they are described as native Americans in the second column of the list referred to in his own affidavit.

The opinion which we had formed, as above expressed, upon the perusal of the original depositions of Thompson and Müller is strongly confirmed by the subsequent [Page 306] affidavit of Thompson, who in that affidavit speaks of admissions made to him by eighteen of these seamen, to the effect that they were born in Ireland, Scotland, or England; and by six others, to the effect either that they were Irishmen, or that Ireland or Liverpool was their home.

But of these twenty-four persons there are only seven on whose history any further light is thrown by these depositions, and every one of these seven appears to have emigrated from Great Britain or Ireland to the United States previous to the existing civil war, under circumstances from which it is prima facie to be inferred that, at the time when he took service on board the Florida, he was either a naturalized or a domiciled American. Some of them appear to have resided for many years in the United States; and two (Good and Doris) are expressly stated to have acquired the rights of citizens there, and to have voted at presidential and other elections. With respect to the rest of the crew there is nothing whatever to show that they may not have enlisted tinder similar circumstances.

As to all persons so situated, we think that it would be a reasonable construction of the foreign-enlistment act to hold that, although they are natural-born subjects of Her Majesty, the word “foreign,” which pervades the first section of the statute, is not, as regards them, applicable to the service into which they have entered. And even assuming that this construction might not be admitted, we think that it would not be a proper exercise of discretion on the part of the Crown to attempt to put the statute in force, so far as relates to acts done by persons so situated beyond the limits of British jurisdiction, and within the territory in which such persons may have been naturalized or domiciled.

(Signed) ROUNDELL PALMER.
R. P. COLLIER.

Lincoln’s Inn, October 20, 1863.

SUMMARY.

The Florida was a vessel built at Liverpool by a firm of ship-builders there, to the order of another Liverpool firm carrying on an extensive business as engineers and iron-founders. She was stated to be ordered for and on account of a person resident at Liverpool, who was a partner in a mercantile house at Palermo, and upon the completion of the vessel this person was duly registered as her owner, on his own declaration. Her builders stated that, according to the best of their information, they believed her to be really destined for Palermo.

She was a vessel built for speed, and her internal fittings and arrangements were not such as are usual in vessels constructed to carry cargo, but were suitable to a ship of war. She was unarmed, however, and had on board no guns, carriages, ammunition, or other warlike stores of any kind.

No facts whatever proving, or tending to prove, that she was intended to cruise or carry on war against the United States were ever, before the departure of the ship, communicated by Mr. Adams or Mr. Dudley to Her Majesty’s government. Mr. Adams alleged, indeed, that advances of money had been made to the firm which ordered the vessel, and to that which constructed her, by the firm of Fraser, Trenholm & Co., who were believed to have been engaged in blockade-running, and to be employed as agents for the government of the Confederate States; but this assertion, whether material or not, was not substantiated in any way. These were all the facts respecting the vessel which had been communicated to or were in the possession of Her Majesty’s government previously to and at the time of her departure from England.

It is certain that, had the vessel been seized by Her Majesty’s government, a court of law would have ordered, and would indeed have been bound to order, the immediate restoration of her, for want of evidence to support a forfeiture. It was not the duty of Her Majesty’s government to seize a vessel which it would have been the duty of a court of law to restore.

[Page 307]

[80] The means and opportunities possessed by Mr. Adams and Mr. Dudley of ascertaining *the truth were fully as great as those possessed by Her Majesty’s government. They were, indeed, greater; since Mr. Dudley was the United States consul on the spot, in constant communication with Americans of all classes, always on the watch for information, and provided with means of gaining it which could not have been employed by Her Majesty’s government.

The vessel sailed from Liverpool with a clearance for Palermo and Jamaica, unarmed, and with no warlike stores of any kind, under the command of a master belonging to the British mercantile marine, and manned by a crew who were not enlisted for the confederate service and had no thought or intention of engaging in it, and who afterward left the ship as soon as they conceived a suspicion that she might be employed in that service.

Although no directions, nor any notice or warning, had or could have been sent to the authorities of Nassau before her arrival there, the vessel was, upon her arrival and while she remained there, strictly watched by order of the governor; a ship of war was placed near to her; she was finally seized by order of the governor; and proceedings were instituted against her in the proper court of the colony. On being released by the decree of the court, she sailed from Nassau unarmed, and with a clearance for New Brunswick.

Before committing any hostilities against vessels of citizens of the United States, she sailed for and entered a port of the Confederate States, where she remained during more than four months and was put in condition for war, and enlisted a crew, and from whence she was finally sent out to cruise.

She was commissioned as a ship of war of the Confederate States, and was commanded by an officer commissioned by the de facto government of those States. She was received on the footing of a public ship of war in the ports of neutral nations—Spain, France, and Brazil; and on the same footing, and in the same manner, without favor or partiality, she was received likewise in those ports of the British colonies which she had occasion to enter.

The United States ships of war blockading the port of Mobile failed to capture the Florida when she entered it, under circumstances which made the capture so easy of accomplishment that the officer to whose incapacity the failure was due was dismissed the service. They again failed to capture her when she left the port to commence her cruise. From that time, until her unlawful seizure in the port of Bahia, she was, for a year and nine months, engaged in cruising, sometimes near the coast of the United States. It does not appear, however, that during all that period she was ever encountered or chased by a United States ship of war. No serious endeavor, indeed, to intercept or capture her appears to have been made on the part of the Government of the United States.

Her Britannic Majesty’s government cannot admit that, in respect of the Florida, it is justly chargeable with any failure of international duty for which Great Britain owes reparation to the United States.

  1. Appendix, vol. i, p, 1.
  2. Appendix, vol. i, p. 2.
  3. Ibid., p. 2.
  4. Appendix, vol. i, p. 159.
  5. Ibid., p. 3.
  6. Appendix, vol. i, p. 10.
  7. Appendix, vol. i, p. 8.
  8. Appendix, vol. i, p. 161.
  9. Appendix, vol. i, p. 34.
  10. Ibid., p. 4.
  11. Appendix, vol. i, p. 6.
  12. Appendix, vol. i, p. 7.
  13. Appendix, vol. i, p. 58.
  14. Ibid., p. 14.
  15. Ibid., p. 15.
  16. Appendix, vol. i, p. 16.
  17. Ibid., pp. 19, 53.
  18. Appendix, vol. i, p. 19.
  19. Ibid., p. 21.
  20. Ibid., p. 20.
  21. Appendix, vol. i, p. 23.
  22. Appendix, vol. i, p. 47.
  23. Ibid., p. 48.
  24. Ibid., p. 50.
  25. Appendix, vol. i, p. 46.
  26. Ibid., p. 49.
  27. Ibid., p. 39.
  28. Ibid., p. 50.
  29. Appendix, vol. i, p. 52.
  30. Appendix, vol. i, pp. 29, 31, et seq.
  31. Ibid., p. 58.
  32. Appendix, vol. i, p. 87.
  33. Ibid., p. 102.
  34. Appendix, vol. i, p. 109.
  35. Appendix, vol. i, p. 126.
  36. Appendix, vol. i, p. 132.
  37. Appendix, vol. i, p. 134.
  38. Extracted from the “World” (American journal) of December 2, 1864. (See Appendix, vol. i, p. 146.)
  39. Appendix, vol. i, p. 152.
  40. Ibid., p. 153.
  41. Should be dated December 26, 1864.
  42. These two letters, as well as the preceding one, are extracted from the Daily Morning Chronicle, (American journal,) of 31st December, 1864.
  43. Appendix, vol. i, p. 124.