Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, Transmitted to Congress with the Annual Message of the President, December 2, 1872, Part II, Volume II

[238] *No. 2.—the arman contract.

[undated.]

*E.

Consultation de M. Berryer.

L’ancien avocat soussigné, vu le mérnoire à consulter présenté au nom du gouvernement des États-TJnis d’Amérique, ensemble les pièces justifieatives qui y sont jointes, délibérant sur les questions qui lui sont soumises, est d’avis des résolutions suivantes:

De l’exposé contenu dans le mémoire à consulter, et des documents qui l’accompagnent, résulte la preuve complète des faits qu’il importe d’abofd de résumer.

En 1861, au mois de février, plusieurs états du sud de l’Amérique Septentrionale, régie alors par la Constitution fédérale des États-Unis, résolurent de se séparer des États du nqrd, et se réunirent en un congrès pour constituer le gouvernement des États-Confédérés d’Amérique. La guerre entre les confédérés et le gouvernement fédèral éclata dans le mois d’avril.

[239] Au 10 juin, de la meme année, parut dans la partie offlcielle du Moniteur une declaration *soumise par le ministre des affaires étrangères a l’Empereur des Français et revêtue de son approbation.

Par cet acte solennel, l’Empereur, prenant en considération l’état de paix qui existe entre la France et les Éats-Unis d’Amérique, résolut de maintenir une stricte neutralité dans la lutte engagée entre le gouvernement de l’ Union et les états qui prétendent former une confédération particulière, déclare, entre autres dispositions:

. . . . . . . 30. Il est interdit à tout Français de prendre commission de l’une des deux parties pour armer des vaisseaux de guerre . . . ou de concourir, d’une manière quelconque, à l’équipement ou l’armement d’un navire de guerre ou corsaire de l’une des parties.

. . . . . .50. Les Français résidant en France ou à l’étranger devront également s’abstenir de tout fait qui, commis en violation des lois de l’empire ou da droit des gens, pourrait être considéré comme un acte hostile à 1’une des deax parties et contraire à la neutralité que nous avons résolu d’adopter.

La déclaration impériale se termine en ces termes:

[240] Les contrevenants aux défenses et recomman *dations contenues dans la présente déclaration seront poursuivis, s’il y a lieu, conformément aux dispositions de la loi du 10 avril 1825, et aux articles 84 et 85 du Code pénal, sans, préjudice de l’application qu’il pourrait y avoir lieu de faire aux dits contrevenants des dispositions de l’article 21 du Code Napoléon et des articles 65 et suivants du décret du 24 mars 1852 sur la marine marchande, 313 et suivants du Code pénal pour l’armée de mer.

Malgré cette déclaration publique de la neutralité de la France, malgré les prohibitions formelles qu’elle prononce conformément aux règies du droit des gens et aux dispositions spéciales des lois françaises, une convention a été conclue le 15 avril 1863, entre M. Lucien Arman, constructed maritime à Bordeaux, et le capitaine James Dun woody Bullock, Américain, agent du gouvernement des états-conféderés du sud, stipulant dans cet acte d’ordre et pour compte des mandats qu’il ne fait pas connaître, et dont, est-il dit, il aproduit lespouvoirs en règle. Pour l’exécution du traité, M. Bullock élit domicile chez M. Erlanger, banquier, à Paris.

Par ce traité, M. Arman “s’engage à constriiire quatre bateaux à vapeur de quatre cent chevaux de force et disposés à recevoir un armement de dix à douze canons.”

[241] *Il est stipulé que M. Arman construira dans ses chantiers à Bordeaux deux de ces navires, et confiera à M. Voruz l’exécution des deux autres navires, qui seront construits simultanément dans les chantiers de Nantes.

Pour déguiser la destination de ces quatre navires, il est écrit dans l’acte qu’ils doivent être consacrés à “établir une communication régulière entre Shang-haï, Yédo, et San Francisco, passant par le détroit de Van Diémen, et aussi qu’ils doivent être propres, si le cas se présente, à être vendus, soit à l’empire chinois, soit à l’empire du Japon.”

Enfin M. Bullock s’engage à faire connaître aux constructeurs la maison de banque qui sera chargée d’effectuer à Paris le paiement du prix de chacun de ces navires, fixé à la somme de 1,800,000 francs.

Le 1er juin suivant, M. Arman, pour sec onformer à l’ordonnance royale du 12 juillet 1847, adressa à M. le ministre de la marine la demande d’une autorisation de munir d’un armement de douze à quatorze canons, de 30, quatre navires à vapeur en bois et fer, en construction, deux dans ses chantiers à Bordeaux, un chez MM. Jollet et Babin à Nantes, un chez M. Dubigeon à Nantes.

[242] “Ces navires,” est-il dit dans la lettre adressée au ministre, “sont destinés, par un armateur étranger, à faire le service des mers de Chine et du Pacifique entre *la Chine, le Japon, et San Francisco.

Leur armement spécial a en outre pour but d’en permettre eventuellement la vente aux gouvernements de Chine et du Japon.

“Les canons seront exécutés par les soins de M. Voruz aîné, de Nantes.” La lettre de M. Annan se termine en ces mots:

. . . .Les constructions étant déjà entreprises depuis le 15 avril dernier, je prie voire excellence de vouloir bien accorder le plus tôt possible à M. Voruz l’autorisation que je sollicite et que prescrit l’ordonnance royale du 12 juillet 1847.

Sur cet exposé, et pour la destination supposée des quatre navires, l’autorisation fut accordée par M. le ministre de la marine dès le 6 juin, ainsi qu’elle était demandée par M. Arman.

Le même jour, 6 juin 1863, M. Slidell, autre agent du gouvernement des états-confédérés, adressait à M. Arman la lettre suivante:

En conséquence de l’autorisation ministérielle que vous m’avez montrée, et que je juge sufrlsante, le traité du 15 avril devient obligatoire.

Trois jours après, le 9 juin, M. Erlanger, banquier à Paris, chez qui M. Bullock avait pris domicile dans le traité du 15 avril, et qui devai garantir les paiements aux constructeurs, écrivait à M. Arman:

[243] *Je m’engage à vous garantir les deux premiers paiements des navires que vous constrnisez pour les confédérés, moyennant une commission, etc.

Les conditions financièred proposées par M. Erlanger furent acceptées par M. Arman, qui, le même jour, le 9 juin, adressa à M. Voruz, à Nantes, le télégramme suivant:

À M. Voruz, Grand Hôtel, Paris:

J’ai signé, sans modification, la lettre à Erlanger; elle est au courrier.

arman.

De son côté, M. Erlanger écrivait, sous la même date, à Mr. Voruz, à Nantes:

Voici les lettres d’engagenients, le contrat et la copie. Commevous habitez sous le même toit que le capitaine Bullock, vous aurez peut-être l’obligeance de lui faire signer la copie du contrat. J’ai écrit directement à M. Arman. Recevez, etc.

Le lendemain, 10 juin, M. Arman adressait à M. Voruz une lettre ainsi conçue:

[244] Cher Monsieur Voruz: Je vous accuse réception de votre lettre chargée du 9, et du mandat de Bullock de 720,000 fr., qui était inclus. Je m’enipresse de vous donuer décharge, ainsi que vous le désirez, des pièces que vous avez signées aux mains de M. Bullock pour le premier paiement des deux navires de 400 chevaux, que je construis pour le compte des confédérés *simultanément avec ceux que vous faites construire par MM. Jollet et Babin, et Dubigeon. . . . . .

Je vous prie de faire en sorte d’obteuir de M. Bullock la promesse de nous rembourser enfin de compte des escomptes de garantie que nous payons à M. Erlanger. Recevez, etc.

D’autre part, MM. Jollet et Babin, et Dubigeon fils, chargés de la construction, dans leurs chantiers à Mantes, de deux des quatre navires, ainsi qu’il est dit dans la lettre adressée le 1er juin par Mr. Arman à M. le ministre de la marine, écrivaient, le 10 du même mois, à M. Voruz:

Mon Cher Voruz: Après avoir pris connaissance des conditions financières qui vous ont été faites par la maison Erlanger, ainsi que des lettres intervenues entre vous et MM. Slidell et Bullock, nous venons vous rappeler nos conventions verbales, afia de bien préciser nos positions respectives dans cette affaire.

[245] D’autres personnes, avec entière connaissance de la véritable destination de ces constructions et de ces armementsmaritimes, devaient prendre une part notable dans les bénéfices de l’opération et supporter proportionellement les escomptes de garantie stipulés en faveur de M. Erlanger. C’est pour s’entendre sur ce dernier objet que M. Henri Arnous Rivière, négociant à Nantes, écrivait dès *le 8 juin à M. Voruz aîné:

La complication financière survenue aujoiird’hui dans l’affaire dont le contrat a été signé le 15 avril dernier entre M. Arman, vous et le capitaine Bullock, motive la proposition que je viens vous soumettre.

MM. Mazeline et Cie, du Havre, étaient chargées de la confection des machines à vapeur pour les quatre navires à hélice, dont les coques se construisaient dans les chantiers de Bordeaux et de Nantes. Mais ignoraient-ils la véritable destination de ces bâtiments de guerre lorsqu’ils écrivaient à M. Voruz aîné, le 23 juin 1863?

Monsieur: En paraphant, il y a quelques jours, le marché Bullock, etc., nous avons oinis, vous et nous, de redresser une erreur de dimension des machines, etc. Nous vous prions de nous écrire que ces dernières mesures, qui sont en construction, sont bien celles convenues entre nous.

Tout était done parfaitement concerté entre les divers participants pour l’exécution du traité passé le 15 avril 1863 entre M. Arman, constructeur français, et M. le capitaine Bullock. Ce traité a été expressément ratifié par M. Slidell, agent diplomatique des états-confédérés, suivant sa lettre adressée à M. Arman le 6 juin 1863.

[246] Les authorisations ministérielles exigées par la loi française pour la construction et, l’armement *des bâtiments de guerre ont été accordées, l’adrainistration ayantsansdoute été abusée par la pretendue destination qu’un armateur étranger devait donner à ces navires de guerre dans les mers de Chine et du Pacifique, et par la condition éventuelle de les vendreaux gouvernments de Chine ou du Japon. Mais leur destination véritable pour le service des états belligérants du sud est parfaitementconnue de tous les interéssés. Les construictions des vaisseaux, de leurs machines, de leurs armements, sont en pleine activité. Les paiements, garantis aux constructeurs par une maison de banque puissante, sont en partie effectués.

Une seconde opération doit avoir lieu. Le 14 juillet 1863, M. Voruz aîné, écrivant de Paris à son fils, M. Anthony, lui annonce que le capitaine Bullock et M. Arman sont partis la veille pour Bordeaux, ainsi que M. Erlanger, banquier, et qu’il s’agit d’un traité pourdes navires blindés. En même temps il lui dit qu’une affaire est faite avec un sieur Blakeley, fondeur anglais, pour la fourniture de 48 pièces de canon avec 200 boulets par pièce. “Le marché,” dit-il, “est fait d’une manière qui nous assure la fourniture exclusive de tout ce qui pourra être exécuté en France.”

[247] Le 15 juillet, le même M. Voruz, en rappelant à M. le ministre de la marine que, par *sa lettre en date du 6 juin, il a bien voulu l’autoriser à exécuter, dans ses usines à Nantes, les canons nécessaires à l’armement de quatre navires, dont deux sont en construction à Bordeaux, dans les chantiers de M. Arman, et deux dans les chantiers de Nantes, demande au ministre “la permission de visiter l’établissement du gouvernement à Ruelle, pour avoir les améliorations effectuées dans l’outillage,” etc. Cette permission fut accordée le 9 août.

Une nouvelle convention est signée double à Bordeaux le 16 juillet 1863:

Entre M. Arman, constructeur maritime à Bordeaux, député au Corps législatif, quai de la Monnaie, 6, et M. James Dunwoody Bullock, agissant d’ordre et pour compte de mandants dont il a produit les pouvoirs en règie, élisant; domicile chez M. M. Émile Erlanger, rue de la Chaussée d’Antin, 21, à Paris, ont été arrâtés les conventions suivantes:

Art. ler. M. Arman s’engage envers M. Bullock, qui l’accepte, à construire pour son compte, dans ses chantiers de Bordeaux, deux bâtiments hélices à vapeur, à coque bois et fer, de 300 chevaux de force, à deux hélices, avec deux blockhaus blindés, conformes au plan accepté par M. Bullock.

* * * * * * *

*Art. 3. [248] Resterbnt seuls à la charge de M. Bullock les canons, les armes, les projectiles, les poudres, le combustible et enfin les salaires et les vivres de l’équipage.

* * * * * * * *

Art. 5. Les bâtiments seront munis d’une machine à vapeur de 300 chevaux de force, de 200 kilogrammes le coeval, à condensation, construite par M. Mazeline du Havre.

Art. 6. Les deux navires devront êfcre admis et prêts à faire leurs essais dans un délai de dix mois.

* * * * * * *

Art. 9. Le prix de chacun cle ces navires est fixé à la somme de deux millions de francs, qui sera payée à Paris un cinqième comptant.

* * * * * * * *

Art. 11. M. Bullock a désigné la maison É. Erlanger et Cie, comme étant chargée d’effectuer les paiements à Paris et devant accepter les clauses financières du présent traité.

Le 17 juillet, M. Voruz aîne écrit:

Je reçois aujourd’hui une lettre d’Arnous, de Bordeaux, qui me dit qu’Arm an vient de signer le marché pour deux canonnières blindées, de 300 chevaux de force, pour deux millions chaque.

[249] Enfin, le 12 août, M. Bullock, resté chargé, par Particle 3 du traité du 16 juillet ci-dessus, des canons, des armes, des projectiles, etc., pour les deux canonnieres blindées, adressait à M. Voruz *la lettre suivante:

Liverpool, 12 août 1863.

J’ai reçu, M. Voruz, votre lettre, du 4 courant, avec les indications de prix du canon de 30, et, de ses accessories. Il ne m’est pas possible de dire si je vous donnerai un ordre positif et direct pour de semblables canons avant d’avoir appris du capitaine Blakeley comment 1’afTaire de son propre modele de canon cerclé à été comprise. Je serais cependant charmé de traiter une affaire avec vous, si nous pouvons nous accorder sur les conditions. Nous discuterons tout cela quand j’irai à Nantes.

Il est dans mes intentions de confier mes affaires à aussi peu de mains que possible, et j’espère que nous tomberons d’accord sur tous les points essentiels, de telle sorte que nos relations pourront prendre une plus grande extension meme en cas de paix. Notre gouvernement aura besoin, sans doute, pendant un certain temps, de s’adresser en France pour la construction de ses vaisseaux et machines, et, pour ce qui me concerne personnellement, je serais enchanté que les rapports que j’ai eus avec vous vous amenassent pour l’avenir à des commandes plus considérables encore. Veuillez, s’il vous plaît, m’informer si les corvettes avancent et me dire quand les seconds paiements seront dus. Je vous écrirai une semaine avant mon arrivée à Nantes.

bullock.

[250] *Les termes de cette lettre s’appliquent évidemment au projet d’armement des deux canonnières blindées, dont la construction a été l’objet du traité passé a Bordeaux, le 16 juillet, entre MM. Arman et Bullock. Ce dernier, capitaine au service de la confédération des états du sud, a agi d’ordre et pour compte de son gouvernement. Il n’est pas possible de méconnaître que ces deux canonnières sont, ainsi que les quatre navires pour lesquels avait été conclu le marehé du 15 avril précédent, destinées au service des états-conféderés du sud dans la guerre qu’ils soutiennent contre les états fédéraux de l’Amérique du Nord.

[251] La preuve matérielle de ces faits résulte trop évidemment des conventions passées entre les diverses personnes qui ont partieipé à leur réalisation, et de la correspondance échangée entre elles pour le règlement de leurs intérêts particuliers. Les faits sont de la plus haute gravité. Expressément interdits à tous les Français par la déclaration impériale du 10 juin 1861, ils constituent de flagrantes violations des principes du droit des gens et des devoirs imposés aux sujets de toute puissance neutre, devoirs dont l’accomplissement loyal est la premiere garantie du respect dû à la liberté des états neutres et à la dignité de leurs *pavillons. Ce sont là des actes de manifeste hostilité contre l’une des deux parties belligérantes à l’égard desquelles le gouvernement français a résolu de maintenir une stricte neutralité.

Il faut éviter (dit Vattel, livre 3, chapitre 7) de confondre ce qui est permis à une nation libre de tout engagement, avec ce qu’elle peut faire si elle prétend être traitée comme parfaitement neutre dans une guerre. Tant qu’un peuple neutre veut jouir surement de cet état, il doit montrer, en toutes choses, une exacte impartialité entre ceux qui se font la guerre; car, s’ilfavorise l’un au préjudice de l’autre, il ne pourrapas se plaindre quand celui-ci le traitera comme ahérent et associé de son ennemi. La neutralité serait une neutralité frauduleuse, dont person ne ne veut être la dupe.

Cette impartialité, (ajoute Vattel,) qu’un peuple neutre doit garder, comprend deux choses: 10 ne point dormer de secours, ne fournir librement ni troupes, ni armes, ni munitions, ni rien de ce qui sert directement à la guerre.

Ce sont là des actes d’hostilité qui, réprouvés par le droit des gens, sont caractérisés crimes et délits par les lois françaises, qui en prononcent la répression pénale.

L’article 84 du Code pénal est ainsi conçu:

[252] Quiconque aura, par des actions hostiles, non-approu *vées par le gouvernement, exposé l’état a une déclaration de guerre, sera puni du bannissement; et, si la guerre s’en est suivie, de la déportation.

Cette disposition de la loi est, dans l’opinion du soussigné, évrdem-ment applicable aux auteurs et complices des faits qui sont résumés plus haut. Quels que soient les motifs et quel que soit le caractère de la lutte si déplorablement engagée au sein de l’Union américaine, soit qu’on la considère comme une guerre civile, même comme une insurrection d’une partie de la nation americaine contre le Gouvernement établi, soit que l’on envisage la séparation qui veut s’opérer les armes à la main, comme une division de la nation en deux peuples différents, la guerre entre ces deux parties, nous dit encore Vattel, retombe à tous égards dans le cas d’une guerre publique entre deux nations diiférentes. Les peuples qui ne veulent point être entraînés à prendre part à cette guerre doivent se renfermer dans les stricts devoirs de la neutralité qu’ils proclament.

[253] Au milieu du déchirement intérieur de la nation américaine, dans l’état de paix où est la France avec le gouvernment des États-Unis, dans l’état des relations d’amitié et de commerce qui lient les deux pays, il n’est pas d’action hostile qui puisse provoquer plus d’irritation *et faire soulever contre la France de plus justes griefs que le secours et la fourniture d’armements maritimes donnés par des Français a l’ennemi du Gouvernement de Washington, au moyen des traités conclus avec les confédérés, et de construction de navires et de fabrication d’armes de guerre opérées publiquement dans les ports, sur les chantiers et dans les usines de la France.

L’action des entrepreneurs de ces armements est d’autant plus compromettante, et expose d’autant plus notre pays à être considéré comme ennemi et à voir faire contre lui une déclaration de guerre, que les armerments dont il s’agit se font avec des automations régulièrement données par l’administration française. Ce n’est plus icile cas d’appliquer les principes qui règlent d’ordinaire, à l’égard des nations neutres, les conséquences des expéditions de contrebandes de guerre, quoique naviguant sous pavilion neutre. Les expéditeurs de ces marchandises, telles que les armes, les munitions, toutes les matières préparées pour la guerre, sont seuls responsables: Elles peuvent être saisies et déclarées de bonne prise, leur pavilion ne les couvre pas; mais il n’en résulte aucune responsabilité à la charge du gouvernement auquel ces expéditeurs et armateurs appartiennent.

[254] *Dans les traités et dans l’exécution des traités iutervenus entre les constructeurs français et les agents des états-confédérés, le nomet l’autorité du gouvernement français ont été compromis par les autorisations accordées. Les faits se présentent done avec le caractère d’une action hostile de la part de notre gouvernement contre le gouvernement américain. Avec ce caractère, les faits pourraint done exposer la France à une déclaration de guerre.

[255] Mais il est vrai de dire que cette apparente compromission du gouvernement français n’est que le résultat du dol pratiqué par les constructeurs et participants du traité du 15 avril, qui, à l’aide d’une fausse indication de la destination des navires, ont trompé les ministres de la marine et de la guerre. Que des explications loyalement données de gouvernement à gouvernement, que le retrait des autorisations accordées a MM. Arman et Voruz, fassent tomber toute plainte et récrimination de la part du gouvernement des États-Unis, le caractère criminel des faits dont ces messieurs et leurs coopérateurs se sont rendus coupables n’en sera pas modifié, et ils n’en auront pas moins fait des actions hostiles qui exposaient la France à une déclaration de guerre; ils sont *donc dans le cas textuellement prévu par l’article 84 du Code pénal. Ils n’ont ias le droit d’alléguer qu’ils ont été légalement autorisés par le gouvernement. La fraude dont ils ont usé, viciant dans leur essence même les actes dont ils préténdaient se prévaloir, leur culpabilité est aggravée aux yeux de la justice française.

Il est d’autres de nos lois dont les contractants et participants des marchés des 15 avril et 16 juillet 186.3 ont frauduleusement elude les dispositions.

La loi du 24 mai 1834 porte:

• Art. 3. Tout individu qui, sans y être légalement autorisé aura fabriqné ou confectionné des armes de guerre, des cartouches et autres munitions de guerre . . . . sera puni d’un emprisonnement d’un mois à deux ans et d’une amende de 16 francs à 1,000 francs.
• Art. 4. Les infractions prévues par les articles précédents seront jugées par les tri-hunaux de police correctionnelle. Les armes et munitions fabriquées sans autorisation seront confisquées.

[256] Dans l’intérêt du développement de la fabrication française et de notre commerce extérieur, une ordonnance royale, du 12 juillet 1847, a règlé l’application de cette loi de 1834 *et les formalités administratives qui doivent être remplies par les fabricants d’armes. On lit dans l’article ler de l’ordonnance du 12 juillet:

Conformément à l’article 3 de la loi du 24 mai 1834, tout individu qui voudra fabriquer ou confectionner des armes de guerre pour l’usage des navires de commerce, devra obtenir préalablement l’austorisatiou de notre ministre secrétaire d’état au départemeut de la guerre, et de notre ministre secrétairé d’état au département de la marine et des colonies, quant aux bouches a feu et aux munitions.

Dans la pratique, ces dispositions de l’ordonnance qui semblaient n’être applicables qu’à l’armement de nos navires de commerce, ont été étendues à la fabrication et à la livraison des armes de guerre an com merce étranger.

Pour obtenir les autorisations toujours requises en pareil cas, et pour pouvoir livrer aux confédérés les armements de guerre qu’ils s’étaient engagés à leur fournir, MM. Arman et Voruz ont addressé leurs demandes à MM. les ministres de la marine et de la guerre. Les autorisations leur ont été accordees, même ils ont obtenu la permission de visiter les établissements de l’état pour profiler des améliorations apportées à l’outillage.

[257] *C’est à la vue de ces autorisations qu’il a dit lui paraître suffisantes que l’agent diplomatique des confédérés à ratiné, le 6 juin 1863. le traité passé le 15,avril précédent entre MM. Arman et Bullock. Mais, comme on l’a vu dans la lettre adressée par M. Arman à M. le ministre de la marine le 1er juin, ce n’est qu’en trompant sciemment le ministre sur la destination des armements dont ils voulaient munir les quatre navires construits à Bordeaux et à Nantes que ces messieurs se sont fait accorder les autorisations qu’ils sollicitaient indument.

De telles autorisations subrepticement obtenues doivent done etre considerées comme nulles et de nul effet. MM. Arman, Voruz et leurs complices sont done dans un cas de violation de la loi du 24 mai 1834, et sous le coup des peines correctionelles qu’elle prononce.

Le crime et le délit résultant de la violation de l’article 84 du Code pénal et de la loi de 1834 constituent MM. Arman et Voruz et leurs co-intéressés contrevenants aux défenses et recommendations contenues dans la déclaration impériale du 10 juin, et doivent être, ainsi qu’il est dit dans cette déclaration, poursuivis conformément aux dispositions de la loi.

[258] Les faits qui doivent donner lieu à ces poursuites légales ont été commis au préjudice et contre la sécurité du gouvernement des Étas-Unis. Il est hors de cloute que le gouvernement est en droit, comme tout étranger, de se *pourvoir devant les tribunaux Français pour réclamer la répression et la réparation de faits accomplis en France qui lui sont dommageables. Ici, le dommage est incontestable, parce que, indépendamment de la livraison des navires et de leurs armements de guerre, le fait notoire de la construction et de l’armement en France, sous l’apparente autorisation du gouvernement français, de navires de guerre destinés aux confédérés, était en lui-meme pour ceux-ci un jmissant encouragement à soutenir la lutte, et portait ainsi un incalculable préjudice au Gouvernement fédéral.

Il reste au soussigné à indiquer au Gouvernement des États-Unis quelles voies judiciaries il peut suivre pour faire prononcer contre les coupables les réparations qui lui sont dues, et quelles doivent être ces réparations.

Le Gouvernement des États-Unis peut rendre plainte devant les tribunaux français pour raison des faits dont la criminalité vient d’être établie, et notamment quant au crime prévu par l’article 84 du Code pénal. Cette plainte devra être remise, soit à la diligence d’un agent spécialement autorisé, soit sur la poursuite de l’envoyé extraordinaire et plénipotentiaire des États-Unis en France, au procureur impérial.

[259] Conformément aux dispositions des articles 63 et 64 du Code d’instruction criminelle, la plainte peut etre portée, ou devant le magistrat du lieu où le crime et le délit ont été commis, ou devant celui de la résidence de l’inculpé. Comme il y *a plusieurs complices et agents des faits incriminés, le juge du domicile de l’un d’eux est compétent pour recevoir la plainte, et tous les complices seront appelés devant lui en raison de la connexité des faits dénoncés.

MM. Bullock et Slidell, agents des confédérés, sont, quoiqu’étrangers, justiciaries des tribunaux Français pour raison des faits coupables qu’ils ont provoqués ou auxquels ils ont participé sur le territoire français. La plainte clevra énoncer les faits inculpés et être appuyée des pièces justificatives.

Pour faire prononcfer les réparations qu’il se propose de demander, le Gouvernement américain devra, par son agent spécial, déclarer qu’il entend se constituer partie civile—c’est-à-dire, qu’il entend soutenir la poursuite à fin de réparation, concurremment avec le ministère public. En se constituant partie civile, le Gouvernement des États-Unis doit être averti qu’il pourra être tenu de donner caution judicatum solvi, aux termes de l’article 166 du Code de procédure civile, ainsi conçu:

Tous étrangers, demandeurs principaux ou intervenauts seront tenus, si le défendeur le requiert, avant toute exception, de fournir caution et payer les frais et domniagos-intérets auxquels ils pourraient être condamnés.

[260] Enfin, il faut faire observer que l’une des personnes contre lesquelles la plainte devra être portée collectivement est membre du Corps législatif, et qu’en raison de la qualité qui lui appartient, avant de donner suite à la plainte, le ministère public devra demander *a l’assemblée l’autorisation de poursuivre, conformément à l’article 11 du décret organique de février 1852.

Dans le cas où l’on ne voudrait porter plainte que pour raison de la violation de la loi du 24 mai 1834 et de l’ordonnance de 1847, au lieu de soumettre la plainte au juge d’instruction ou de la remettre au procureur impérial, l’action devant être portée devant un tribunal correctionnel, le Gouvernement american pourrait procéder par voie cle citation directe, et il porterait devant le juge correctionnel sa demande à fin de réparations civiles et de dommages-intérêts.

Dans le cas enfin où le Gouvernement des États-Unis renoncerait à intenter, pour raison des faits dont il s’agit, soit une action au criminel par voie de plainte, soit une simple action correctionnelle, il peut séparer l’action civile de l’action publique, et intenter contre ceux qui lui out fait préjudice une action devant les tribunaux civils, sauf au ministère public à exercer l’action publique en répression du crime et du déli, s’il le juge à propos.

Devant le tribunal civil, le Gouvernement des États-Unis n’aura à invoquer, en justifiant des actes dont il a souffert, que les dispositions de l’article 1382 du Code civil, où il est écrit:

[261] Tout fait quelconque de l’homme, qui cause *à autrni un dommage oblige celui, par la faute duquel il est arrivé, à réparer.

À fin de réparation du crime ou da délit commis envers lui, le Gouvernement fédéral demandera, à titre d’indemnité, la confiscation des constructions et fabrications faites à son préjudice. Il pourra même, après avoir intenté le procès, demander, à titre de mesure conservatrice, d’être autorisé à saisir provisoirement, et à ses risques et périls, tous les objets construits et fabriqués, comme éléments des faits criminels dont la réparation pent être ainsi ordonnée sans que, devant les juridictions compétentes, les dispositions des lois pénales aient reçulear application.

Délibéré à Paris, le 12 novembre 1863.

BERRYER,
Ancien Bâtonnier de l’Ordre des Avocats de Paris.

[262.] *E.
Translation of the opinion of Mr. Berryer.

The undersigned, formerly advocate, after examination of the consultative memoir presented in the name of the United States of America, together with the documents justificative, hereto annexed, and after deliberation upon the questions submitted to him, is of the following opinion:

From the exposé contained in the memorandum and the accompanying documents results the complété proof of the facts, which it will be advantageous first to recapitulate.

In the month of February, 1861, several of the Southern American States, until that time under the Government of the Federal Constitution of the United States, resolved to separate themselves from the Northern States, and assembled a congress for the purpose of constituting the government of the Confederate States of America. War between the confederates and the Federal Government broke out in the month of April.

On the 10th of June, in the same year, in the official part of the Moniteur, a declaration appeared, submitted by the minister of foreign affairs to the Emperor of the French and by him approved.

[263] *By this solemn act the Emperor, considering the peaceful relations existing between France and the United States of America, resolved to maintain a a strict neutrality in the struggle commenced between the Government of the Union and the States préténding to form a distinct confederation.

It declares, among other things:

3. All Frenchmen are forbidden to take a commission from either of the two parties for arming vessels of war, * * * or to co-operate in any manner whatsoever in the equipment or armament of a war-vessel or corsair of either of the parties.

5. Frenchmen residing in France or in other countries will be required equally to abstain from every act which, committed in violation of the laws of the empire or of the laws of nations, could be considered as a hostile act by one of the parties, and contrary to the neutrality which we have resolved to maintain.

The imperial declaration ends thus:

[264] Offenders against the prohibitions and recommendations contained in the presen declaration will be prosecuted, if opportunity shall offer, in conformity with the terms of the law of the 10th of April, 1825, and of articles 84 and 85 of the penal code, without prejudice to the application which may be made in the case of such offenders of *the terms of article 21 of the code Napoléon, and of articles 65 and following of the decree of the 24th of March, 1802, concerning the merchant marine, 313 and following of the penal code for the navy.

In spite of this public declaration ef the neutrality of France, in spite of the formal prohibitions which it pronounces in conformity with the law of nations and the special laws of France, an agreement was signed on the 15th of April, 1863, between Lucien Arman, ship-builder at Bordeaux, and James Dun woody Bullock, an American, agent of the confederate government, stipulating that it is by the order and for the account of his principal, whose duly-executed power of attorney it declares him to have produced.

For the execution of the agreement Mr. Bullock names the banking-house of Mr. Erlanger, of Paris.

By this agreement Mr. Arman “engages to construct four steamers of four hundred horse-power, and arranged for the reception of an armament of from ten to twelve cannons.”

It is stipulated that Mr. Arman shall construct two of these ships in his yards at Bordeaux, and shall intrust the execution of two other ships to Mr. Voruz, to be constructed at the same time in his yards at Nantes.

[265] To disguise the destination of these four ships the agreement states that they are intended to establish a “regular communication between Shanghai, Jeddo, and San Francisco, passing the strait of Van Dieman, and also that they are to *be fitted out, should the opportunity present itself, for sale to the Chinese or Japanese empire.”

Finally Mr. Bullock engages to make known to the constructors the banking-house which will be charged with effecting the payment at Paris of the price of each of these ships, which is fixed at the sum of 1,800,000 francs.

The 1st of June following, Mr. Arman, in order to conform to the royal ordinance of 12th July, 1847, addressed to the minister of marine a demand for authorization to supply with an armament of twelve to fourteen thirty-pound cannon four steamships, iron-clad, in process of construction, two in his ship-yards at Bordeaux, one in that of Jollet & Babin at Nantes, and one in that of Mr. Dubigeon at Nantes.

These ships (it is said in the letter addressed to the minister) are destined for a foreign shipper, to do service in the Chinese seas and on the Pacific between China, Japan, and San Francisco. Their special armament has the additional object of permitting their eventual sale to the government of China and Japan.

The cannons will be made under the superintendence of Mr. Voruz, sr., of Nantes.

Mr. Arman’s letter ends as follows:

The construction being under way since the 15th of last April, I pray your excellency to grant Mr. Voruz, as soon as possible, the authorization I solicit and which the royal ordinance of July 12, 1847, requires.

Upon this exposé, and for the supposed destination of the four ships, authorization was accorded by the minister of marine on the 6th June, as requested by Mr. Arman.

[266] *On the same 6th of June Mr. Slidell, another agent of the government of the Confederate States, addressed to Mr. Arman the following letter:

In consequence of the ministerial authorization which you have shown me, and which I deem sufficient, the agreement of the 15th of April becomes obligatory.

Three days after, the 9th of June, Mr. Erlanger, a banker at Paris, whom Bullock had named in the agreement of the 15th of April, and who was to guarantee the payments to the constructors of the four ships, wrote to Mr. Arman:

I engage to guarantee you the first two payments for the ships which you are building for the confederates, in consideration of a commission, &c.

The financial conditions proposed by Mr. Erlanger were accepted by Mr. Arman, who, the same 9th of June, addressed to Mr. Voruz, at Nantes, the following telegram:

Mr. Voruz, Grand Hôtel, Paris:

I have signed, without modification, the letter to Erlanger. It is on the way.

arman.

On his part, Mr. Erlanger wrote on the same day to Voruz, at Nantes:

Here are the letters of engagement, the contract, and the copy. As you are living under the same roof with Captain Bullock, you will perhaps be good enough to have him sign the copy of the contract. I have”written directly to Mr. Arman. Receive, &c.

[267] *On the next day, the 10th of June, Mr. Arman addressed to Mr. Voruz, sr., a letter to the following effect:

Dear Mr. Voruz: I have to acknowledge receipt of your registered letter of the 9th, and of the draft of Bullock for 720,000 francs, which was inclosed. I hasten to discharge you, as you desire, from the documents signed by you in the hands of Mr. Bullock for the first payment of the two ships of four hundred horse-power, which I am constructing for the account of the confederates simultaneously with those which you are having built by Messrs. Jollet & Babin and Dubigeon.

I pray you to arrange in such manner as to obtain from Mr. Bullock the promise to re-imburse us finally on account of the discounts of guarantee we are paying to Mr. Erlanger. Receive, &c.

On the other hand, Messrs. Jollet & Babin and Dubigeon, charged with the construction, in their yards at Nantes, of two of the four ships, as above stated in the letter addressed on the 1st of June by Mr. Arman to the minister of marine, wrote on the 10th of the same month to Mr. Voruz:

[268] Dear Mr. Voruz: After having noted the financial conditions which have been addressed to you by the house of Erlanger, as well as the letters which have passed between *you and Messrs. Slidell and Bullock, we recall to you our verbal agreements, for the purpose of fixing precisely our respective positions in this affair.

Other persons, with full knowledge of the real destination of these constructions and of the naval armaments, were to take a notable part in the benefits to be derived from the operation, and were to support proportionally the discount of guarantee stipulated in favor of Mr. Erlanger. It is to arrive at an understanding upon this last head that Mr. Henri Arnous Riviere, a merchant at Nantes, wrote on the 8th of June to Mr. Voruz, sr.:

The financial complication arisen in the affair of which the contract was signed on the 15th of April last, between Arman, yourself, and Captain Bullock, is the motive of the proposition which I am about to submit to you.

Messrs. Mazetin & Co., of Havre, were charged with preparing the steam-engines for the four.screw-steamers whose hulls were building in the yardspf Bordeaux and Nantes. But were they ignorant of the actual destination of these war-ships when they wrote to Voruz, sr., on the 23d of June, 1863?

Monsieur: In signing some days since the Bullock agreement, &c., we omitted to correct an error in the dimensions of the engines, &c. We pray you to write us that the last measures, which are those in construction, are those agreed on between us.

[269] *All then was perfectly agreed upon between the different participants for the execution of the agreement completed on the 15th of April, 1863, between Arman, the French builder, and Captain Bullock. This agreement had been expressly ratified by Slidell, the diplomatic agent of the Confederate States, according to his letter addressed to Mr. Arman on the 6th of June, 1863. The ministerial authorization required by French law for the construction and armament of ships of war has been accorded; the administration having doubtless been deceived by the préténded destination that a foreign shipper had in view for these ships of war, in the China seas and the Pacific, and by the eventual condition of a sale to the governments of China and Japan. But their real destination for the service of the belligerent States of the South is perfectly known to all the parties interested.

The construction of the vessels, their engines, and armaments is in full activity. The payments, guaranteed to the constructors by a powerful banking-house, are partially effected.

[270] A second operation was to take place. On the 14th of July, 1863, Voruz, sr., writing from Paris to his son Anthony, announces to him that Captain Bullock and Mr. Arman set out the evening before for Bordeaux, together with Erlanger, the banker, and that there was question of an agreement for some iron-clads. At the same time he told him that an arrangement had been completed with a *Mr. Blakeley, an English iron-founder, for furnishing 48 cannon with 200 balls each.

The agreement, said he, is made in such a manner as to insure to us the exclusive furnishing of all which can be executed in France.

On the 15th of July, the same Voruz, recalling to the attention of the minister of marine the fact that by his letter of the 6th of June he had been good enough to authorize the preparation, in his works at Nantes, of the cannons necessary for the armament of four ships, of which two are being constructed at Bordeaux in the yards of Mr. Arman and two in the yards at Nantes, demands of the minister permission to visit the government establishment at Rueil, to see the improvements made in utensils, &c. This permission was given on the 9th of August.

A new agreement was signed in duplicate at Bordeaux, the 16th of July, 1863:

It has been agreed between Mr. Arman, ship-builder at Bordeaux, deputy of the Corps Législatif, No. 6 quai de la Monnaie, and Mr. James Dunwoody Bullock, acting under orders and for the account of principals whose duly-executed power of attorney lie has produced, electing domicile with M. M. fimile Erlanger, 21 rue de la Chausee d’Antin, Paris, as follows:

• Art. 1. [271] Mr. Arman engages with Mr. Bullock, who accepts the terms, to construct for his account, in his *yards at Bordeaux, two screw-steamships of wood and iron, of 300 horse-power, with two screws, with two iron-clad turrets, in conformity with the plan accepted by Mr. Bullock.
• Art. 3. The cannons, arms, projectiles, powder, combustibles, and finally the salaries and provisions of the sailors, shall be at the sole charge of Mr. Bullock.
• Art. 5. The ships are to be provided with an engine of 300 horse-power, at 200 kilograms the horse, constructed by Mr. Mazeline, of Havre.
• Art. 6. The two ships shall be admitted and ready to make their trial trips in ten months.
• Art. 9. The price of each of these ships is fixed at the sum of 2,000,000 francs, which shall be paid at Paris, one-fifth down.
• Art. 11. Mr. Bullock has designated the house of É. Erlanger & Co. as the one charged with effecting the payments at Paris and with accepting the financial conditions of the present agreement.

The 17th of July, Mr. Voruz, sr., writes:

I have received to-day a letter from Arnous, at Bordeaux, who says that Arman has just signed the agreement for two iron-clad gun-boats of three hundred horse-power for 2,000,000 francs each.

[272] Finally, on the 12th of August, Mr. Bullock, remaining charged by Article 3 of the agreement of July 18th, above named, with providing cannons, arms, projec*tiles, &c., for the two iron-clad gun-boats, addressed to Mr. Voruz the following letter:

Liverpool, August 12, 1863.

I have received, Mr. Voruz, your letter of the 4th instant, with statements of the price of the 30–pound cannon and accessories. It is impossible for me to say whether I shall give you a positive and direct order for such cannon before learning from Captain Blakeley how his own model of hooped cannon has been received.

I should be glad, however, to make an arrangement with you if we can agree upon the conditions. We will discuss all this when I go to Nantes. It is my intention to intrust my affairs to as few hands as possible, and I hope we shall agree in all essential points in such manner that our relations may proceed on a larger scale, even in case of peace. Our government will have need, doubtless, during a certain period, of sending to France for its vessels and engines, and, so far as I am personally concerned, I should be much pleased if our past relations should lead to orders still more considerable in the future.

Will you, if you please, inform me if the corvettes are progressing, and tell me when the second payments will be due?

I shall write you a week before my arrival at Nantes.

bullock.

[273] *The terms of this letter apply evidently to the project of arming the two iron-clad gun-boats, the construction of which was the object of the agreement executed at Bordeaux the 16th of July, between Arman and Bullock. This latter, a captain in the service of the Confederate States of the South, has acted by the order and for the account of his government. It is impossible not to understand that these two gun-boats, as well as the four ships, for which the agreement of the 15th of the preceding April had been concluded, are destined for the service of the Confederate States of the South in the war which they are carrying on with the Federal States of the North.

The material proof of these facts results too evidently from the agreements concluded between the different persons who have participated in their fulfillment, and from the correspondence exchanged between them for the regulation of their particular interests.

These facts are of the gravest importance. Expressly forbidden to all Frenchmen by the imperial declaration of the 10th of June, 1861, they constitute flagrant violations of the principles of the law of nations and of the duties imposed upon the subjects of every neutral power; duties, the loyal observance of which is the foremost guarantee of the respect due to the liberty of neutral states and to the dignity of their flags. These are acts of manifest hostility against one of the two belligerent parties in regard.to whom the French government has resolved to maintain a strict neutrality.

[274] *It is necessary to avoid (says Vattel, lib. III, chap. 7) confounding what is allowed to a nation free from all engagements from what it may do if it expects to be treated as perfectly neutral in a war. So long as a neutral people desires securely to enjoy that position, they should show, in all things, an exact impartiality toward those who carry on war. For, if this people favors one to the prejudice of the other, it cannot complain when the latter treats it as an adherent and ally of its enemy. Its neutrality would be fraudulent neutrality, of which no one wishes to be the dupe.

This impartiality (adds Vattel) which a neutral people ought to observe, comprises two things: the refusal to protect or voluntarily to furnish either troops arms, munitions, or anything of direct service in war.

These are acts of hostility which, forbidden by the law of nations, are characterized as crimes and misdemeanors, by the French laws, which decree their repression under penalties. Article 84 of the penal code is conceived in the following terms:

Whoever, by hostile acts not approved by the government, shall have exposed the state to a declaration of war, shall be punished with banishment, and, if war is the result, with deportation.

[275] This provision of the law is, in the opinion of the *undersigned, evidently applicable to the authors and accomplices of the facts recapitulated in the foregoing.

Whatever may be the motives and whatever the character of the struggle so deplorably carried on in the heart of the American Union, whether it be considered as a civil war or as an insurrection of a part of the American nation against the established Government, whether one regards the separation which is seeking to effect itself by force of arms as a division of the nation into two distinct bodies—into two different peoples—war between these two parts, Vattel continues, falls in all respects within the pale of a public ivar between two different nations.

[276] The nations which do not wish to be forced to take part in this war should keep themselves within the strict limits of’the neutrality which they proclaim. In the midst of the internal dissension of the American nation, in the peaceful state existing between France and the Government of the United States, in the relations of amity and commerce which unite the two countries, there is no hostile act that can provoke more irritation and awaken against France juster grievances than giving protection and furnishing naval armaments by the French to the enemy of the Government of Washington, by means of treaties with the confederates and of naval constructions and the fabrication of weapons of war, carried on publicly *in the ports, ship-yards, and workshops of France.

The action of parties undertaking these armaments is all the more compromising, and exposes our country all the more to the danger of being considered hostile, and of provoking against itself a declaration of war, for the reason that the armaments in question are made with the regular authorization of the French administration. It is no longer a case for the application of the principles which ordinarily govern in regard to neutral nations, the consequences of shipments of contraband. Although navigating under a neutral flag, the shippers of such merchandise, arms, munitions, and all material prepared for war, are alone responsible; they can be seized and declared as prize—their flag does not cover them—but there results no reponsibility on the part of the government to which such shippers and fitters-out belong. In the agreements and in the execution of the agreements entered into between the French builders and the agents of the Confederate States, the name and authority of the French government have been compromised by the authorizations accorded.

The facts then present themselves with the character of a hostile act on the part of our government against the Government of the United States.

With this character, the facts may then expose France to a declaration of war.

[277] *But it may be truly said that this apparent compromise of the French government is simply the result of deceit practiced by the constructors and parties to the agreement of the 15th of April, who, by misrepresentation of the destination of the ships, deceived the min isters of marine and of war.

Let the explanations loyally given by government to government, let the withdrawal of the authorizations granted to Arman and Voruz remove all complaint and recrimination on part of the United States Government; the criminal character of the acts of which these gentlemen and their co-operators have rendered themselves guilty will not be modified, and they will have none the less committed hostile acts which expose France to a declaration of war; they are then within the case provided for in the text of article 84 of the penal code. They have no right to allege that they have been legally authorized by the Government.

The fraud which they have practiced vitiating the very essence of the acts of which they would pretend to take advantage, their guilt is thereby aggravated in the eyes of French justice.

There are other of our laws whose provisions the contractors and parties to the agreements of the 15th of April and of the 16th of July, 1863, have fraudulently eluded.

[278] *The law of the 24th of May, 1834, declares:

• Art. 3. Every person who, without being thereunto legally authorized, shall have manufactured or complétéd arms, cartridges, and other munitions of war, shall be punished with imprisonment from one month to two years, and with a tine of from sixteen to a thousand francs.
• Art. 4. The misdemeanors provided for by the preceding articles shall be adjudged by the tribunals of correctional police; the arms and munitions manufactured without authorization shall be confiscated.

In the interest of the development of French manufacturers and of foreign commerce, a royal ordinance of the 12th of July, 1847, has regulated the application of this law of 1834, and the formalities which are to be observed by the manufacturers of arms.

We read in the first article of the ordinance of the 12th of July:

Conformably to article 3 of the law of the 24th of May, 1834, every person who shall desire to make or construct arms of war for the use of ships of commerce shall previously obtain authorization from our minister secretary of state for the department of war and from our minister secretary of state for the department of marine and of the colonies, so far as relates to cannon and munitions.

[279] *Practically these provisions of the ordinance, which seem to be applicable only to our commercial marine, have been extended to the manufacture and delivery of implements of war for foreign commerce.

In order to obtain the authorizations always required in such cases and to provide for the delivery to the confederates of the armaments of war which they had engaged to furnish them, Messrs. Arman and Yoruz addressed their demands to the ministers of marine and of war.

The authorizations have been accorded them; they have even obtained permission to visit the government establishments, in order to profit by the improvements there effected. It is in view of these authorizations, which he declared seemed to him sufficient, that the diplomatic agent of the confederates ratifies, on the 6th of June, 1863, the treaty concluded the 15th of April preceding between Messrs. Arman and Bullock.

But, as we have seen in the letter addressed by Arman to the minister of marine on the 1st of June, it was only by willfully deceiving the minister with regard to the destination of the armaments with which they desired to supply the four ships constructed at Bordeaux and at Nantes, that these gentlemen caused to be accorded them the authorizations which they unduly solicited.

[280] *Such authorization, surreptitiously obtained, ought then to be considered as null and of no effect. Messrs. Arman, Yoruz, and their accomplices are then in violation of the law of the 24th of May, 1831, and liable to the correctional penalties which it decrees.

The crime and misdemeanor resulting from the violation of article 84 of the penal code, and of the law of 1834, constitute Messrs. Arman and Yoruz, and those interested with them, offenders against the prohibitions and recommendations contained in the imperial declaration of the 10th of June, and should be, as declared in that declaration, prosecuted conformably to the provisions of the law.

The acts which ought to give rise to these legal prosecutions have been committed to the prejudice and against the security of the Government of the United States.

This Government has the Undoubted right, as has every foreign government, to demand before the French tribunals the repression and the reparation of acts committed in France which are prejudicial to it.

[281] Here the prejudice is incontestable, because, independently of the delivery of the ships and of their armaments of war, the notorious fact of construction and armament in France, under the apparent authorization of the French government, of ships of war destined for the confederates, was in itself, for the latter, a powerful encouragement to sustain the struggle, and thus an incalculable prejudice was offered to the Federal Government.

It remains for the undersigned to indicate to the Government of the United States what judicial means may be resorted to to obtain from the offenders the satisfaction due from them, and what this satisfaction should be.

The Government of the United States can prosecute before the French tribunals on account of the acts whose criminality has just been established, and especially on account of the crime provided for by article 84 of the penal code. This complaint should be intrusted either to the diligence of a special authorized agent, or upon prosecution by the minister plenipotentiary of the United States to the procureur impérial.

Conformably to the provisions of articles 63 and 64 of the code of criminal instructions, complaint may be made, either before, the magistrate of the place where the crime or offense has been committed, or before the magistrate of the residence of the criminal.

As there are several accomplices and agents incriminated by the acts, the judge of the residence of one of them is compétént to receive the complaint, and all the accomplices will be called before him by reason of the connection of the acts denounced. Messrs. Bullock and Slidell, agents of the confederates, are, although foreigners, legally responsible before the French tribunals by reason of the criminal acts which they have instigated, or in which they have participated upon French soil. The complaint should set forth the criminal acts, and should be supported by justificative documents.

To obtain the decree of satisfaction which it is proposed to demand, the American Government should by its special agent declare that it intends to constitute itself a civil party; that is to say, that it intends to sustain the prosecution concurrently with the public minister.

[282] *In constituting itself a civil party, the Government of the United States should be informed that it may be held to furnish a guarantee judicatum solvi, according to the terms of article 166 of the code of civil procedure, thus conceived:

All foreign claimants, principals, or attorneys will be held, if the defendant requires it, without exception, to furnish guarantee to pay expenses and penalties to which they may be condemned.

Finally, it should be observed that one of the persons against whom the complaint should be collectively made is a member of the Corps Législatif, and that, by reason of his position, before making complaint, the public minister must demand of the assembly authorization to prosecute, conformably to article 11 of the decree of February, 1852.

[283] In case it should be desired to prosecute only for the violation of the law of the 24th of May, 1834, and of the ordinance of 1847, instead of submitting the complaint to the juge d’instruction or of lodging it with the procureur impérial, the action should be brought before a correctional tribunal; the American Government may then proceed by direct citation, and *may bring before the correctional judge its demand for civil satisfaction, damages, and interest.

Finally, in case the Government of the United States should renounce its intention, by reason of the facts in question, to prosecute criminally by way of complaint, or by simple correctional action, it may separate the civil from the public actiou, and proceed against those who have acted to its prejudice, in an action before the civil tribunals, reserving to the public minister the right of public action for repression of crimes and offenses, if he shall judge proper.

Before the civil tribunal, the Government of the United States has only to appeal in judicial proceedings for the acts from which it has suffered to the provisions of article 1382 of the civil code, where it is written:

Every act whatsoever of a man which causes loss to another, obliges him, by whose fault it has been committed, to repair the loss.

[284] As a reparation of the crime or offense committed against it, the Federal Government will demand, under the title of indemnity, the confiscation of the objects constructed and the manufactures made to its prejudice. It may even, after having commenced the process, demand, as a *protective measure, authorization to seize provisionally, and at its own risk and peril, all the objects constructed and manufactured, being elements of the criminal acts, which reparation may be ordered before the provisions of the penal laws shall have received their application before the compétént jurisdiction.

Pronounced at Paris, the 12th of November, 1863.

BERRYER,
Ancien Bâtonnier de l’Oxdre des Avocats de Paris

[285] *F.
Correspondence relative to Arman Rams.
Mr. Dayton, United States minister, to Mr. Seward, Secretary of State.

Paris, September 18, 1863.

Sir: I have this morning called the attentiou of Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys to the evidence showing that at least four, if not five, ships are being built in the ship-yards at Bordeaux and Nantes for the confederates. This evidence is the same as that sent to you from the Paris consulate, and which I referred to in my dispatch No. 344. It is conclusive, I think, as to the facts charged. Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys expressed himself as greatly surprised, and I doubt not he was so. He assured me he had no knowledge of anything of the kind, and that the government would maintain its neutrality. He thanks me for calling his attention promptly to this matter, the importance of which he fully recognized.

He requested copies of the original papers; said that he would at once investigate the facts and the French legislation bearing on the question, and then let me know what would be done.

[286] *It seems to me that their action on this subject is likely to afford a pretty good test of their futqre intentions. As to what the law may be, it does not, I apprehend, much matter; if they mean that good relations with our country shall be preserved, they will stop the building of these ships, or at least the arming and delivering of them; if they mean to break with us, they will let them go on.

I am, sir, your obedient servant,

WM. L. DAYTON.

Hon. William H. Seward,
Secretary of State, &c.

Mr. Dayton, United States minister, to Mr. Seward, Secretary of State.

Paris, October 8, 1863.

Sir: The minister of marine has been absent some days recently,, and this has been assigned to me by Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys as a reason why my communication as to the rebel ships now being built at Bordeaux and Nantes had not been definitely answered.

[287] I left some additional evidence with him this morning, to wit: copy of contract between Arman and Bullock for building two iron clads, dated *16th July last; copy of letter from Emile Erlanger to Voruz, sr., dated 9th June last; copy of letter from Mazeline & Co. to Voruz, sr., dated 23d June last; copy of letter from O. B. Tollet, and L. Babin, and E. Dubigeon and tils, to Voruz, 10th June last; copy of agreement between Bullock and Yoruz, dated September 17, 1863, increasing the number of cannon contracted for from forty-eight to fifty-six, and the number of shells from five thousand to twelve thousand.

Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys did not intimate any doubt as to the facts charged, and the minister of marine, he said, had informed him that in granting the authorization to build and arm these vessels he did it as a matter of course, as he had done in like cases before, supposing that the representation in the application, that they were intended for the China sea, &c., was true. But Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys said that he, the minister of marine, entirely agreed with him that no violation of the neutrality of France should be permitted, and he (Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys) said I might be assured that it would not be.

I am. sir, your obedient servant,

WILLIAM L. DAYTON.

Hon. William H. Seward,
Secretary of State.

[288] *Mr. de Lhuys, minister of foreign affairs, to Mr. Dayton, United States minister.

[Translation.]

Paris, October 15, 1863.

[289] Sir: You have done me the honor to write to me, to call my attention to agreements entered into (marchés passés) in France, according to information which you have communicated to me, for the construction and delivery to the seceded States of several vessels armed for war. You have expressed the desire that the official authorization accorded for the armament of these vessels might be withdrawn, and that the government of the Emperor might take measures which it should judge proper, to prevent the completion and delivery of the vessels themselves. I hastened to speak of this matter to niy colleague of the department of the marine, recommending it very particularly to his examination. I do not believe that I can do better than to transmit to you, sir, a copy of the answer which he has just addressed to me. The only information which the department of the marine had directly received concerning the operation in question attributed to them, as you will see, is of such a character that, up to the present moment, there *was no motion for hindering them. It is only, then, by the explanations which he is going to call forth, by the aid of the papers which you have brought to my knowledge, that M. le Cointe de Chasseloup Laubat shall be able to judge of the measures to be taken conformably to our declaration of neutrality.

Accept the assurances of the high consideration with which I have the honor to be, sir, vour very humble and very obedient servant,

DEOUYN DE LHUYS.

Mr. Dayton,
Minister of the United States at Paris.

[290] [*Inclosure.]

M. the minister of the marine to M. the minister of foreign affairs.

[Translation.]

Paris, October 12, 1863.

M. the Minister and dear Colleague: You have done me the honor to communicate to me, the 25th of September last, the copy, with its annexes, of a letter from M. the minister of the United States at Paris, relative to bargains entered into by Messrs. Annan and Voruz for the construction and delivery to the confederate government of several vessels armed for war. In pointing out to my attention the gravity of this matter, which you recommend in a manner altogether special to my examination, you express the regret that my department had not thought proper to come to an understanding with that of the foreign affairs before answering the requests of Mr. Arman, who had obtained from the marine the authorization to provide his vessel with twelve cannon of 30 pounds. As to that which concerns the authorization solicited by Mr. Arman, and which was necessary to him by the terms, of the ordinance of the 12th July, 1847, I did not believe I ought to refuse it in consequence of the declaration of the constructor, who gave me the assurance, as moreover his correspondence with my department proves, that the vessels in construction in his work-yards were destined to do service in the China seas and the Pacific, between China, Japan, and San Francisco.

[291] *I could not, upon such a declaration, and knowing, besides, that the vessels of commerce which navigate the parts in question ought always to be furnished with certain armament, in view of the numerous pirates which infest them, I could not, I say, answer negatively to the request of Mr. Arman, nor refuse Mr. Yoruz the permission to manufacture the cannon intended to form this armament. This last authorization was the consequence of that given to the constructor to provide his vessels with artillery.

[292] In granting to Mr. Yoruz the permission to procure at Reuil the elucidations necessary to the manufacture of his cannon, I followed that which has always beefi done by my department in analogous circumstances, commerce only exceptionally giving itself to a manufacture which, in France, is seldom carried on, save by the government. As to the regrets expressed by your excellency that the department of foreign affairs has not previously been consulted, I will cause you to remark that it was a question of arms to be caused to be manufactured by private industry, and not of material of war appertaining to the state and delivered by the magazines of the state. This difference will not escape your excellency, and I would not have failed to come to an understanding *with you if there had been asked of my department arms of the marine. Upon the whole, my department has only conformed in this circumstance to its precedents. It could only trust to the declaration of Messrs. Arman and Voruz, and it could not be responsible for the unlawful operations which might be undertaken. I am going, however, to call forth from Messrs. Arman and Voruz explanations upon the facts of which you have spoken to me, and you may rest assured, M. and dear colleague, that the department of the marine will continue, as it has done up to the present day, to do everything which shall be necessary according to the wish of the Emperor, and conformably to the declaration of his government, in order that the most strict neutrality be observed in that which concerns the war which desolates America at this moment,&c.

CHASSELOUP LAUBAT.

Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys, minister of foreign affairs, to Mr. Dayton, United States minister.

[Translation.]

Paris, October 22, 1863.

[293] Sir: I have the honor to announce to you, as a sequence to my letter of the *15th of this month, that M. the minister of marine has just notified Mr. Voruz of the withdrawal of the authorization which he had obtained for the armament of four vessels in course of construction at Nantes and Bordeaux. Notice has also been given to Mr. Arman, whose attention has been at the same time called to the responsibility which he might incur by acts in opposition to our declaration of the 18th of June, 1861. These measures testify, sir, to the scrupulous care which the government of the Emperor brings to the observance of the rules of a strict neutrality. It is in order to give to your Government a new proof of our disposition in this respect that we have not hesitated to take into consideration the information, the authenticity of which you have affirmed to me.

Accept the assurances of the high consideration with which I have the honor to be, sir, your” very humble and very obedient servant,

DROUYN DE LHUYS.

Mr. Dayton,
Minister of the United States at Paris.

Mr. Dayton, United States minister, to Mr. Seward, Secretary of State.

[Extract.]

[294] *Paris, November 27, 1863.

Sir: I yesterday saw Mr, Drouyn de Lhuys for the first time within the last fortnight. His absence from Paris, and pressing engagements the week before, have prevented his receiving the diplomatic corps for business. * * * He said, furthermore, that he had himself personally informed Messrs. Arman and Voruz, (the constructors and iron-founders,) engaged on the vessels now being built at Bordeaux and Nantes, that the work thereon must cease unless they could satisfy him that they were honestly intended for another government, and he added to me that he would at once refer their proceeding to the minister of marine. * * * * * *

I am, sir, your obedient servant,

WILLIAM L. DAYTON.

Hon. William H. Seward,
Secretary of State, &c., &c.

Mr. Dayton, United States minister, to Mr. Seward, Secretary of State.

[Extract.]

Paris, December 31, 1863.

[295] Sir: * * * In my last conversation with Mr. Drouyn de [295] Lhuys, he informed me that *Mr. Arman, the builder of these vessels, was seeking purchasers for them other than the confederates, and that the minister of marine did not think himself authorized, therefore, to prevent their completion, although he would prevent their being armed or delivered by Arman to the confederates.

* * * * * * *

I am, &c.,

WM. L. DAYTON.

Hon. William H. Seward,
Secretary of State.

Mr. Dayton, United States minister, to Mr. Seward, Secretary of State.

Paris, February 5, 1864.

Sir: * * * M. Drouyn de Lhuys told me yesterday that Arman (the builder of the iron-clad rams for the confederates, at Bordeaux) had just informed him that he had sold them to the Danish government, but before he (M. Drouyn de Lhuys) acted upon that assumption this government would have the best and most satisfactory evidence of the correctness of this statement. At present he does not consider the state-merit of the fact to me as official, but says he will make it so as soon as he shall receive the necessary proof. * * * *

I am, sir, &c.,

WM. L. DAYTON.

Hon. William H. Seward,
Secretary of State, &c., &c., &c.

[296] *Mr. Dayton, United States minister, to Mr. Seward, Secretary of State.

[Extract.]

Paris, February 19, 1864.

Sir. * * * * * * *

M. Drouyn de Lhuys says that he believes the iron-clads at Bordeaux are sold to a neutral, but I received information from Mr. Wood, our minister at Copenhagen, that the minister of foreign affairs of Denmark says he does not know, nor has he ever heard, of any negotiation for the purchase or building for that country of any ships in France, M. Drouyn de Lhuys tells me, and I do not doubt but that he has given notice to Mr. Arman (the builder of the ironclads, and the contractor for the four other ships building for the confederates) that France must be relieved from all trouble in reference to any of them, and Arman has promised him that France shall be. He says that the four other vessels are building for commerce, and that he can and will sell them to neutral parties. In the mean time, I can and will keep a sharp eye to the entire proceeding.

I am, sir, your obedient servant,

WM. L. DAYTON.

Hon. William H. Seward,
Secretary of State.

[297] * Mr. Dayton, United States minister, to Mr. Seivard, Secretary of State.

Paris, March 11, 1864.

Sir: M. Drouyn de Lhuys informs me thatin a recent interview with Arman, the ship-builder at Bordeaux, he (Arman) assured him that not only the iron-clad vessels he was building at Bordeaux, but the other four vessels (two at Nantes and two at Bordeaux) would certainly be disposed to neutral governments in such manner as to relieve France from any trouble or responsibility on the subject. These vessels, I may add, are in the steady course of construction, the work being constantly advanced upon them.

I am, sir,

WM. L. DAYTON.

Hon, William H. Seward,
Secretary of State.

[298] *Discours de M. Rouher, ministre d’état.

Corps Législatif, (Séance du 12 mai 1864.)

[Du Moniteur Universel, page 670.—Vendredi, 13 mai 1864.]

M. Rouhr, Ministre d’Êtat: . . . . Si j’examine le discours de Phonorable M. Jules Favre, en prenant ses objections dans un ordre inverse à celui qu’il a adopté, le premier point que je rencontre est cette prétendue violation des régles de la neutralité commise par la France vis-à-vis des états du nord de l’Amérique.

Messieurs, les questions de neutralité, l’étendue des devoirs des neutres, ont donné, dans tous les temps, matière à des difficultés, à des conflits nombreux. Je ne veux pas retracer ici les phases diverses que le droit des neutres a subies dans le code international , mais ce que je peux dire à l’honneur de la politique de notre pays, c’est que tout ce qu’il y a eu d’idées libérates, progressives, généreuses, introduces dans la législation des neutres, est parti du gouvernement français. [C’est vrai! c’est vrai!]

[299] Aussi, lors de la déclaration de la guerre en Amérique entre les états du nord et les états du sud, nous n’avons pas failli à ces précédents, et nous avons posé, dès les premiers jours, les *principes de neutralité qui devaient régir toute notre conduite.

Dans la déclaration du 10 juin 1861, insérée au Moniteur, acte officiel émané du souverain, il est dit par à l’article 3:

Il est interdit à tout Français de prendre commission de l’une des deux parties pour armer des vaisseaux en guerre, ou d’accepter des lettres de marque pour faire la course maritime, ou de concourir d’une manière quelconque à l’équipement ou à l’armement d’un navire de guerre ou corsairede l’une des deux parties belligérantes.

Au mois de juin 1863, une demande a été adresseé par deux constructeurs français pour l’exécution de deux steamers, avec l’indication que ces navires étaient destinés à naviguer dans les mers de Chine.

M. le ministre des États-Unis, au mois de décembre 1863, a invoqué des lettres, des documents, que, des circonstances dont nous n’avons pasvoulu approfondir le caractère, avaient mis en la possession de M. Dayton, il a soutenu que ces navires étaient destinés aux confédérés. Une enquête s’est ouverte immédiatement.

[300] Les armateurs ont été interroges; leurs *explications ont été appréciées, et l’autorisation, un instant donnée, a été retirée par le gouvernement.

Plus tard, quelques doutes se sont élevés; ces steamers, qui ne sont pas en partance, ont été indiqués comme destinés à la Suède. De nouvelles informations ont été prises. Cette indication n’a pas paru suffisamment démontrée, et, à la date du 1er mai 1864, il y a dix jours, le ministre de la marine écrivait au ministre des affaires étrangères:

Les navires de guerre que vous nons avez signalés ne sortiront des ports français que le jour où il sera démontré d’une manière positive que leur destination n’affecte point les principes de neutralité que le gouvernement français veut rigoureusement observer à l’égard des belligérants.

Voilà la conduite qui a été tenue sans équivoque, de la manière la plus nette et la plus précise, par le gouvernement de l’Empereur.

[301] *Speech of M. Bouher, minister of state.

[Translation.]

Corps Législatif, (Session of the 12th May, 1864.)

[From the Monitenr Universel, of Friday, May 13, 1864, p. 670.]

Mr. Rouher, Minister of State: If I examine the speech of the Hon. Mr. Jules Eavre, taking his objections in an order the reverse of that adopted by him, the first point I meet is the pretended violation of the laws of neutrality committed by France against the States of the North of America.

[302] Gentlemen, questions of neutrality, as regarding the duties of neutrals, have been always the causes of difficulties and of numerous conflicts. I will not here trace the different phases through which the law of neutrals has passed in the international code; but what I may say to the honor of the policy of our country is that all liberal, progressive, and generous ideas introduced into the law of neutrals originated with the French government. [True, true.] Accordingly, after the declaration of war in America between the States of the North and the States of the South, we have followed these precedents, and we announced at an early day the principles of neutrality *which were to regulate our conduct.

In the declaration of the 10th of June, 1861, an official act emanating from the sovereign, inserted in the Moniteur, it is stated in Article 3:

All Frenchmen are forbidden to take a commission from either of the two parties to arm vessels of war, or to accept letters of marque for a cruise, or to assist in any manner in the equipment or armament of a war-vessel or privateer of either of the belligerents.

In the month of June, 1863, a formal request was made by two French builders for the right to construct two steamers, with the information that these vessels were intended to navigate the Chinese seas. Mr. Dayton, the minister of the United States, in the month of December, 1863, called our attention to certain letters and documents, which circumstances, into the character of which we have not wished to inquire, had put into his hands; he maintained that these vessels were for the confederates. An inquiry was immediately instituted; the owners were questioned; their explanations were weighed, and the authorization formerly given was withdrawn by the government.

[303] Later, doubts arose; it was intimated that these steamers, which had not yet sailed, were intended for Sweden. New testimony was taken, and this intimation not appearing to be sufficiently proved, the minister of the *marine wrote to the minister of foreign affairs, under the date of May 1, 1864, ten. days ago, as follows:

The vessels of war to which you have called our attention shall not leave the ports of France until it shall have been positively demonstrated that their destination does not affect the principles of neutrality which the French government wishes to rigidly observe toward both belligerents.

Such is the conduct which has been maintained without equivocation, and in the clearest and most precise manner, by the government of the Emperor.

* * * * * * *

Mr. Dayton, United States minister, to Mr. Seward, Secretary of State.

Paris, May 16, 1864.

[304] Sir: At a special interview accorded to me on Saturday last, M. Drouyn de Lhuys informed me not only that the two iron-clads, now being constructed by Arman, at Bordeaux, under contract with the confederates, have been positively sold to a neutral power, but he assured me distinctly that the four clipper-ships in the course of construction at Bordeaux and Nantes, under a like contract, should not be delivered to the confederates. As two of these vessels are approaching completion, I confess I was much gratified by receiving this distinct assurance. His language was most explicit, and I thanked *him accordingly.

I am, sir, &c.,

WM. L. DAYTON.

Hon. William H. Seward,
Secretary of State.

Mr. Sevoard, Secretary of State, to Mr. Dayton, United States minister.

Department of State,
Washington, June 28, 1864.

Sir: Mr. Geofroy has to-day submitted to me a dispatch which has been received from M. Drouyn de Lhuys, in which he states the fact of the sale of two ships, the Yeddo and the Osacca, which Arman built for the insurgents, to alleged neutrals, to be delivered in Holland, substantially on the same terms as those which M. Drouyn de Lhuys made in communicating that transaction to yourself, as you have related them to us in your dispatches. In the absence of full and definite information about the names, condition, or character of the alleged purchaser, the terms of his contract or the other circumstances of the alleged sale, this Government is not prepared to pronounce its acquiescence in the disposition of the subject which has been made by the French government.

[305] We are to be understood, therefore, as maintaining in regard to France all the protests we have heretofore made concerning those vessels, and reserving all the rights and remedies in respect to the vessels themselves which belong to the United States under the law of nations.

At the same time we willingly believe that the French government has taken proper care to guard against the vessels being used for making war upon the United States.

I am, sir, &c.,

WILLIAM H. SEWARD.

William L. Dayton, Esq.

Mr. Dayton, United States minister, to Mr. Seivard, Secretary of State.

[Extract.]

Paris, September 30, 1864.

Sir: I saw M. Drouyn de Lhuys on yesterday. He received me in a very cordial manner, but said, smilingly, that I wrote him a sharp dispatch; in allusion to that I had sent him the day before, inclosed to you in No. 542.

[306] I said no, but I had answered temperately a sharp dispatch he had sent to me from the minister of marine; and I added that that dispatch had surprised me very much, as there was certainly nothing in my letter, to which this dispatch from the minister of marine purports to be an answer, to justify it. M. Drouyn de Lhuys then said they certainly intended to watch those vessels at Bordeaux and Nantes as *closely as possible; and he thought that this letter from the minister of marine, stating that these vessels should not be delivered to the confederates, put the matter in the best possible shape for me.

I told him I thought so too, and was satisfied, and had so informed the commanders of the Niagara and Sacramento. * * *

I am, sir, &c.,

WM. L. DAYTON.

Hon. William H. Seward,
Secretary of State.