X.—The Sumter, the Nashville, the Retribution, the Tallahassee, and the
Chickamauga.
The attention of the Arbitrators has thus far been directed, in the progress
of this investigation of facts, to vessels which left Great Britain to
receive their armament, and which were afterward, without having been
engaged in any other service, actually armed for war.
The United States claim, however, that Great Britain failed to fulfill its
duties toward them in respect to certain other vessels, to wit, the Sumter,
Nashville, Retribution, Chickamauga, and Tallahassee. The facts upon which a
claim is predicated for compensation on account of the acts committed by
these vessels have already been stated in the Case which the United States
have had the honor to present for the consideration of the Tribunal. Her
Majesty’s Government has, however, in its Case and Counter Case, submitted
some new evidence which makes it proper for the United States to present in
this argument, as briefly as is possible, a summary of the material facts in
respect to these vessels as they now appear from the evidence and
allegations submitted by both the parties.
[The Sumter.]
This vessel was originally in the merchant service of the United States,
and, at the outbreak of the rebellion, was employed as a packet between
New Orleans and Havana. Soon after the blockade of the port of New
Orleans, she was fitted and armed for a vessel of war, and, having
escaped on the 30th of June, 1861, through the blockade at the mouth of
the Mississippi River, appeared, on the 6th of July, at the port of
Cienfuegos, in the island of Cuba, with six prizes which she had
captured on her voyage thither.1 The prizes were detained in
port upon the order of the Captain-General of the island, and
subsequently, on the 28th of the same month, “unconditionally” released
“in consequence of investigations made by the authorities of Cienfuegos
concerning their capture.”2 The Sumter, during her stay, was permitted by the local
authorities at the port to take coal and water.3 No application was made to the
Governor-General for that purpose.4 She went to sea in the evening of the 7th of July,5 having remained in port
about twenty-four hours.The Sumter.
On the 17th of July she arrived at Curacao, in Hutch Guiana, where she
was permitted to supply herself with coal and provisions.6 She next appeared at Puerto
Cabello, in the republic of Venezuela, on the 26th of July, with a
prize, but being ordered to “take her departure within four and twenty
hours,” left, without coaling, at daylight on the 27th,7 and
arrived at a British port in the
[Page 136]
island of Trinidad, on the 30th. Here she was “supplied with a new
main yard, eighty tons of coal and provisions,” and sailed in the
evening of the 5th of August.1 She next appeared at Paramaribo, in Dutch
Guiana, on the 19th of August, and purchased and received coals without
objection on the part of the authorities. Remaining at this port until
the 31st,2 she appeared
at the Brazilian port of Maranham, on the 6th of September, “to coal and
procure supplies.”3At Curacoa.At
Trinidad.
From this port, she went to Martinique, where she also received coal and
supplies, and from there to Cadiz, at which place she arrived on the 4th
of January, 1862.4 Here
she was permitted to go into dock and make some slight repairs.5 “The captain of that
vessel [the Sumter] asked for reparations in her upper works and in her
decks, but after a scientific survey scrupulously executed, it was found
that such reparations were not necessary, and only those which were
justified by an imperious necessity have been authorized.”6 She was ordered
away from Cadiz on the 17th.7 The Minister of the United
States at Madrid, in reporting to Mr. Seward, said: “I ought to say,
perhaps, that if it had not been for the example of what had taken place
with the Nashville in an English port, I am confident that the Sumter
would have been forced to go to sea from Cadiz as she came.”8 From Cadiz she
went direct to Gibraltar, at which place she arrived on the 18th of
January, 1862.At Martinique.At Cadiz.At Gibraltar.
On the 28th of August, 1861, the United States complained to the
Government of the Netherlands of the treatment of the Sumter at
Curaçao,9 and on the
8th of October made similar complaint as to the conduct of the colonial
authorities on the occasion of her subsequent visit at Paramaribo.10
On the 15th of October the Minister of Foreign Affairs advised the
Minister of the United States at the Hague, “that the Government of the
Netherlands, wishing to give a fresh proof of its desire [to avoid] all
that could give the slightest subject for complaint to the United
States, has just sent instructions to the colonial authorities,
enjoining them not to admit, except in case of shelter from stress (relâche forcée,) the vessels of war and
privateers of the two belligerent parties, unless for twice twenty-four
hours, and not to permit them, when they are steamers, to provide
themselves with a quantity of coal more than sufficient for a run of
twenty-four hours.”11
On the 30th of September, 1861, Mr. Adams made complaint to Earl Russell
of the manner in which the Sumter had been received at Trinidad, but as
early as the 29th of August the Duke of Newcastle had transmitted to the
Foreign Office a report from the Governor of the island to the Colonial
Office, and which was, of course, in the possession of Earl Russell when
he received the communication from Mr. Adams. In that report of the
Governor this passage occurs:
A great deal of trade goes on between Trinidad and the northern ports of
North America, and Captain Semmes, I imagine, has not failed to take
this opportunity of obtaining information with regard to the vessels
employed under the flag of the United States in this traffic. Fears are
entertained with regard to one or two now expected. It is to be hoped
that the presence of the Sumter in these waters will soon be made
generally known, and that, while the civil war continues, the lumber and
provision trade, any interruption of which would cause serious
embarrassment to this community, will be carried on in British
bottoms.12
[Page 137]
On the 4th of October Earl Russell informed Mr. Adams, “the Law Officers
of the Crown have reported that the conduct of the Governor was in
conformity to Her Majesty’s proclamation.”1
On the 1st of November the Minister of the United States at Rio Janeiro
complained to the Government of His Majesty the Emperor of Brazil of the
conduct of the provincial authorities during the stay of the Sumter at
Maranham.2 A long correspondence ensued, connected with the visit of
this vessel and those of other insurgent cruisers subsequently, which
resulted in the promulgation of the instructions to the presidents of
the provinces of the Empire, under date of the 23d of June, 1863, to
which reference has already been made.3
It is sufficient for the purposes of this Argument for the United States
to say, that during the contest between them and the insurgents, abuse
of neutrality was never tolerated in the ports of the Netherlands or
Brazil, and these ports were never suffered to be used, by either of the
belligerents, “as the base of their operations against the commerce of
the adverse party.”
It is true that, on the 31st of January, 1862, certain “orders to be
observed in all the ports of the United Kingdom, and those of Her
Majesty’s transmarine territories and possessions,” were issued by Her
Britannic Majesty’s Government,4 and that, by the “first and second of the * * *
orders, belligerent vessels were absolutely excluded from the ports,
roadsteads, and waters of the Bahama Islands, except in case of stress
of weather, or of special leave granted by the lieutenant-governor.” It
is also true that, “to vessels of the Confederate States it [access to
these islands] was of great importance, the harbors of these States
being generally, though not always, effectively blockaded.”5 But the United States have not
yet been able to discover that the “special leave” required by the
orders was ever, during the entire contest, withheld by the
Lieutenant-Governor from any insurgent vessel of war, and that, too,
notwithstanding the long-continued and flagrant abuses of the
hospitalities of British ports, to which the attention of the
Arbitrators has already been directed.
The Sumter went to Gibraltar for coal. The Consul of the United States
was enabled to prevent her obtaining a supply from the merchants at that
port, until the arrival of certain vessels of war of the United States
in the adjoining waters of Spain, and, after that time, her movements
were so closely watched by these vessels, that she was never able to
escape in the character of a ship of war.
Her crew was discharged and paid off in April,6 and previous to the 8th
of December, while she was yet in port fully armed, a private contract
was made by the insurgents for her sale for £4,000. The purchasers were
ready with the money to pay for her, and receive the bill of sale, but
“all the papers required by them could not be produced by the officer in
charge, * * * who, it appears, holds a power of attorney from a certain
Bullock, who styles himself senior naval officer in the Confederate
service in Europe, and, I am told, is at present in England, giving his
attention to what relates to the marine service of the rebel
States.”7 In consequence of this informality, the sale
was not consummated, and on the same day, the 8th, she was advertised to
be sold at public auction.8 The Consul of the United States protested
[Page 138]
against such sale being
allowed in the port, stating, among other things, that it was being
“made for the purpose of avoiding a capture by the cruisers of the
United States.”1 It
seemed to the commander of the United States war-vessel Kearsarge that
“the sale of so-called Confederate war-vessels in British ports is an
act as unfriendly and hostile to our [his] Government, as the purchase
of war-vessels in their ports by the same party.”2 He therefore
advised the consul to enter his protest against the sale.
On the 19th, the form of a sale was gone through with, but the nominal
purchaser was M. G. Klingender, intimately connected with the firm of
Frazer, Trenholm & Co.3 She afterward received a British registry, and went to
Liverpool under British colors, and from that time was used as an
insurgent transport.At Liverpool.
On the 14th of October, 1863, the following significant letter was
written by Prioleau, of the firm of Frazer, Trenholm & Co., at
Liverpool, to Major Huse, which explains itself:
Touching the Gibraltar, formerly Sumter, did you not advise the
government that you had taken her for the war department? They do not
understand it out there, and you must come here and settle it somehow as
early as you conveniently can. I will adopt either of three courses
which you may prefer: To ignore our ownership altogether, and consider
her always the property of the government. 2d. To sell her to the
government at a fair valuation on her leaving here. 3d. To keep her as
our own from the time of purchase in Gibraltar, and charge you the
regular rate of freight for the voyage to Wilmington, say £60 per ton.
The first is the best plan, I think. Certainly for the government it is.
Of course you know that it was not she that was
sunk in this harbor. She was at Wilmington lately, and before she is lost or returns here, the matter ought to be
arranged.4
As has been seen, the sale of the Georgia was afterward permitted in the
port of Liverpool. After that, but not until the 9th of September, 1864,
an order was promulgated by Her Majesty’s Government, that “for the
future no ship of war belonging to either of the belligerent powers of
North America shall be allowed to enter, or to remain, or be in any of
Her Majesty’s ports, for the purpose of being dismantled or sold.”5
When this order was made the insurgents had no armed ship of war to be
dismantled or sold.
[The Nashville.]
This vessel, like her predecessor, the Sumter, had, previous to the
outbreak of the rebellion, been employed in the merchant service of the
United States as a packet running between New York and Charleston. She
passed the blockade at the latter port, on the night of the 26th of
August, having been lightened for that purpose,6 and arrived at
the port of St. George, in the island of Bermuda, on the 30th, a little
more than three days after leaving her home port.7The
Nashville.
She presented herself at Bermuda as a vessel of war. Governor Ord, in his
report to the Duke of Newcastle, says: “I have
[Page 139]
the honor to acquaint your excellency that these
islands were visited, on the 30th ultimo, by the Confederate States
paddle-wheel steamer Nashville, commanded by Lieutenant Peagram.”1 The Duke
of Newcastle, in sending this report to the Foreign Office, describes
her as the “Confederate States steam-vessel Nashville.”2 In point of fact her character as a
ship of war is conceded in the British Case, as on page 20 it is stated
“that she was commissioned as a ship of war,” and that “her commander
applied for leave to draw a supply of coals,” &c. And in the letter
of Earl Russell to Mr. Adams, replying to the claim by Mr. Adams, that
she was not a vessel of war, found on page 21, it is said, “The
undersigned has to state that the Nashville appears to be a Confederate
vessel of war; her commander and officers have commissions in the
so-styled Confederate Navy.”At Bermuda.
She was allowed to coal at Bermuda, and it was known to Governor Ord,
when he saw her taking on coal, as he did, that, when she left
Charleston, “it was intended to coal at Bermuda.”3 He also knew that she was a
vessel of war, and that she was on her way to England, for he says, “She
has every chance of reaching England unmolested by the United States
vessels of war.”4
She could not run the blockade with a full supply of coal, as she had
been compelled to diminish her draught for that purpose; therefore, she
was short of effective power as a vessel of war when she left her home
port. An increase of her supply of coal, beyond what she had originally
on leaving Charleston, would augment her naval force, and if she left
her home port with the intention of thus augmenting her power when she
arrived at Bermuda, and the Governor, with a knowledge of that
intention, allowed it to be done, he did suffer the insurgents to make
use of that port of Her Majesty’s dominions as a base of naval
operations against the United States.
The run from Charleston to Bermuda, as has been seen, occupied but little
more than three days. On arrival, her supply of coal was exhausted. Her
voyage from Bermuda to Southampton lasted from the 4th to the 21st of
November, or between seventeen and eighteen days. To enable her to make
that voyage, she had permission to take on board six hundred tons of
coal.5 It now appears she only took four
hundred and forty-two and a half, or four hundred and seventy-two and a
half tons;6 but it matters little whether this was the true
amount, or that which was originally supposed and reported by the
Governor. Either was sufficient to enable her to reach and destroy the
Harvey Birch on the 19th, within two days’ run of Southampton. Without
this supply that capture could not have been made.
In the British Counter Case it is said, “No act appears to have been done
by the Governor, and no permission asked or granted.”7 Therefore, it is claimed there was
no permission given to coal. At the same time it is admitted the
Governor suffered the taking on of an unlimited supply.
After leaving Nassau, and after the destruction of the Harvey Birch, she
arrived at Southampton, and was permitted to repair and coal. On her way
from Southampton to a port of the insurgents, she stopped again at
Bermuda from the 20th to the 24th of February, and took on coal from the
British ship Mohawk.8At Southampton.
[Page 140]
This was only a few days after the Governor had informed the Consul of
the United States that it had been “decided not to allow the formation,
in any British colony, of a coal depot for the use of” the vessels of
war of the insurgents or the United States.1 After leaving Bermuda, and before
attempting to enter any port of the insurgents, she destroyed one
vessel.
From this it will be seen that the Nashville received her entire
supplies, during her career as a vessel of war, from the ports of Great
Britain.
[The Retribution.]
This was a sailing vessel of about one hundred tons measurement,2 with one small gun on deck,3 which, early in the year 1863, cruised for a
short time about the Bahama Banks. Her first officer was Vernon Locke,
who either had been, or afterwards became, a clerk for Adderley &
Co., at Nassau.4The Retribution.
It does not appear, from the evidence furnished by either of the
Governments, when or where she was armed or commissioned. She was
originally a steam-tug, and employed at Buffalo, in the State of New
York, upon Lake Erie. Just before the outbreak of the rebellion, she was
taken into the service of the United States and brought to the Atlantic
coast. Being driven by stress of weather into Cape Fear River, she was,
just previous to the attack on Fort Sumter, seized by the
insurgents.5 The United States have no knowledge of the use made of
her after that time, until she appeared upon her cruise.
About the 28th of January, 1863, she captured the schooner Hanover, which
was taken by Locke, the first officer of the Retribution (as is
supposed) to Long Cay, a small island of the Bahamas. She was
accompanied to that island by the schooner Brothers, owned by the
Messrs. Farrington, doing business at that place. Locke, on his arrival,
assumed the name of the master of the Hanover, consigned, as it appeared
upon her papers, to Mr. Bichard Farrington.”6 His object was to
sell the cargo, and he made a statement of the reasons which induced him
to come into port, which Farrington said he “doubted,” but “did not see
any impropriety in his acting as the captain’s agent,” “inasmuch as the
captain came to him properly documented.”7 A part of the cargo was sold at Long Cay, and
a part was shipped on the schooner Brothers to Nassau, and there placed
in charge of James T. Farrington, esq., sen., one of the magistrates of
Fortune Island, (Long Cay.)8 The Hanover was at the same time loaded with salt and
sailed for one of the ports of the insurgents.9
Complaint as to these transactions was made to the Governor of the
Bahamas on the 11th of March, and he requested the advice of the
Attorney-General as to “what steps ought to be taken.”10 The Attorney-General replied, on the
16th, “that the collector of the revenue, if he had any cause to suspect
the character of the vessel and cargo, should at once have arrested
both.”11 On the
20th of April, a Mr. Burnside, a magistrate of Inagua, made a statement
of facts, as he had ascertained them upon an inquiry instituted for that
purpose.12 This
statement was
[Page 141]
laid before Mr.
Seward by Lord Lyons, and, on the 24th of Jane, Mr. Seward took occasion
to say to his lordship, that “the information thus communicated is
acceptable, so far as it goes, but is not deemed altogether conclusive,
There still remains a painful doubt on the mind of this Government
whether the authorities and others at Long Gay were, as Mr. Burnside
thinks, ignorant that the Hanover was a prize to the Retribution. I
shall be happy if the inquiry shall be prosecuted so far as may be
necessary to show that the undoubted just intentions of Her Majesty’s
Government have been obeyed.”1 Lord Lyons, on the 30th of
June, informed Mr. Seward that he should “lose no time in communicating
this request to Her Majesty’s Government and to the governor of the
Bahamas.”2 The inquiry does
not, however, seem to have been prosecuted, or, if it was, the United
States have not been advised of the result.
In May the Attorney-General caused Locke to be arrested for the offense
committed by his personation of the master of the Hanover, and, upon a
preliminary examination of the charge before a police magistrate, about
the 26th of July, it appeared that the business at the customs at Long
Cay was transacted principally by Mr. Richard Farrington, who was the
agent or consignee, and who, when examined and confronted by the
defendant, “could not swear to his being the person who represented
himself as * * * the master of the schooner * * * but believed him to be
the person.”3 The
police justice, in reporting upon the case, at the request of the
colonial secretary, on the 10th of March 1864, says Farrington “would”
not swear to the identity.4 After this the accused was let to bail, in the sum of
£100, for his appearance at court for trial.5 He was tried in the following May at Nassau, but
acquitted, as the evidence was not sufficient to satisfy a jury,
selected from that locality, of his identity.6 An examination of the
testimony, however, as it is found reported in the British Appendix,
Counter Case, vol. v, pp. 188 et seq., will, we
think, hardly satisfy the minds of the Arbitrators that “the authorities
and others at Long Cay were ignorant that the Hanover was a prize to the
Retribution.” It may, however show why it was that the inquiry suggested
by Mr. Seward had not ben prosecuted.
On the 19th of February the American brig Emily Fisher, on a voyage from
Guantonomo, Cuba, to New York, while near Castle Island, one of the
Bahamas, and in British waters, was boarded by the British
wrecking-schooner Emily Adderley. What then occurred is told in the
affidavit of the master of the brig, as follows:
That having questioned the captain of the said vessel [Emily Adderley]
closely he was told that there were no privateers, or steamers, in the
passage; that soon afterward the schooner hauled down the British flag
and then hoisted it again; that at the same time he saw a schooner
coming out from under the land, hut was told that she was a
wrecking-schooner; that soon after this said schooner came under the lee
of the brig and sent a shot across her bows, at the same time running up
the rebel flag; that she then sent a boat with eight men well armed on
board, and ordered him on board the schooner with all his papers; that
on arriving on board, the captain, after examining his papers, told him
that he was a prize to the confederate schooner Retribution, and ordered
him and his crew to be put into irons, which was done; that at noon the
irons were removed from himself and the first officer, and they were
allowed the privilege of the cabin; that all this time the brig was
working up under the land, where five British wrecking-schooners were
anchored; that the privateer anchored about one and one-half miles from
the shore, when, at about 3 p. m., a wrecker’s boat came alongside; that
attar some conversation with the crew in a loud voice, the captain of
the privateer told them in an undertone to have two vessels alongside
the brig that night;
[Page 142]
that at
about 5 p. m. they ran the brig on shore, and ten or twelve wreckers’
boats went alongside of her; that at 6 p. m. Mr. Grey, the officer in
charge of the brig, came on board the privateer, and the deponent was
then told he could have his boat to go on board the brig and take what
personal property Mr. Price might see fit to give him; that he found two
wrecking-schooners alongside and about one hundred men on board the
brig; that having taken the personal effects into the boat he landed on
Acklin’s Island, made a tent, and passed the night; that the next day
the wreckers were still alongside; that he went on board the brig, she
being then afloat, and made a claim on the wreckers for the brig and
cargo. He was told he could not have her, and that if the anchor was
lifted the privateer would sink her; that he then protested against
removing any more of the cargo, as the brig was afloat and was in
British waters, but the protest was disregarded; that the next day the
wreckers had an interview with the captain of the privateer, and at 1 p.
m. sent him word that they were going to a port of entry and that the
deponent and his crew could go with them; that at 2 p. m. the privateer,
the brig, and all the wreckers started for Long Cay, and arrived there
about 8 p. m. the same day; that the wrecker, on board which were
deponent and his crews, was anchored under the guns of the privateer,
which kept a guard all night, while Mr. Grey and Mr. Price, two
officers, went over to town; that on Monday, 23d, the deponent went also
to town, and after making inquiry, found that the captain of the
privateer would not allow him to go on board the brig; and that the
deponent was told by the authorities that though the law would not allow
the privateer to touch the brig, if he wished to do so they had no means
of preventing him; that the deponent was not able to obtain possession
of the brig until after he had bargained with the wreckers to pay them
50 per cent, on the cargo, and 331/3 per cent, on the vessel when, after
making affidavit of his being the master, he was placed in possession by
the collector and went on board; that he found the hull, spars, and
rigging in good order but everything movable, on and under deck, stolen;
that on the next day, 24th, he commenced receiving sugar from the
wreckers, and on the 25th found on board eighty-three hogsheads, five
tierces, and four barrels, the balance of cargo having been taken ashore
by the wreckers; that the wreckers stove hogsheads and barrels, and
passed the sugar into their boats, and landed it on the beach; that the
captain of the privateer told him, the deponent, that he had given the
cargo to the wreckers, as he wanted the brig; that he was going to put
his guns on board of her, and destroy his schooner; that he further told
the deponent that the wreckers were to pay him something handsome, and
that the deponent believes they did so; that deponent was obliged to
accept the wreckers’ terms at the port of entry, because the brig lay
under the guns of the privateer, and the authorities declared their
inability to protect him. And the deponent further says, that the
capture of his vessel and the destruction of her cargo were brought
about by and with the connivance and assistance of the captains and
crews of the British wrecking-schooners, and within the jurisdiction of
the British government, where he was entitled to protection, but could
not obtain it until he had Submitted to the terms of the wreckers, all
of whom were British subjects, through whose connivance the vessel had
been stranded and the cargo destroyed.1
After this, (the 19th of February,) and before the 8th of March, the
Retribution entered the port of Nassau as an insurgent vessel of
war.2 The “special leave” called for by the regulations of
the British Government, under date of January 31st, 1862,3 seems never to have been
asked for or granted. Her commander was not-even called upon for his
commission. All that occurred upon her arrival is thus stated by the
pilot:
She had a small gun on deck. The captain told me he was from Long Cay. I
asked the captain where he was from. He answered, “Long Cay.” I saw from
the look of the vessel and the appearance of the crew, their clothing,
that she was likely to be an armed vessel. I then asked him if she was a
vessel of war. I begged him to excuse my being so particular, as I was
instructed to do so, to put such questions. He told me she was an armed
vessel.”4
On the 3d of March, which was eight days before the complaint was made to
the Governor on account of the capture of the Hanover, and two weeks
after the transactions with the Emily Fisher, in which the
“wrecking-schooner Emily Adderley” took so prominent a part, Henry
Adderley & Co. sold, or pretended to sell, the Retribution, in the
port of Nassau, at public sale, to C. R. Perpall & Co., for £250. On
the 26th
[Page 143]
of the same month,
Perpall & Co. sold her for the same amount to Thomas Stead, and he,
on the 10th of April, obtained for her a register as a British
ship.1 Previous to her sale she was condemned by a board of
survey,2 Perpall,
the ostensible purchaser, being one of the board.3
[The Tallahassee.]
It will be remembered by the Arbitrators that, when presenting for their
consideration the facts connected with the claim of the United States
for acts committed by the Shenandoah, we had occasion to call their
attention to a letter written by the insurgent Secretary of the Navy to
a Mr. Charles Green, bearing date as early as the 1st of July, 1861, in
which, referring to the purchase of vessels to be used as transports,
and the shipment of arms, &c., from England for the use of the
insurgents, it was said: “It is probable that, being a British subject,
you might secure the shipment under British colors.”4 Less than fifty days
after the date of that letter, Mr. Adams, in addressing Earl Russell
upon the subject of the “transport Bermuda, and the information he had
obtained as the ground for an application for a prompt and effective
investigation of the truth of the allegations whilst there is time,”
called his lordship’s attention to the fact that “she is stated to carry
English colors.”5 From that time until the
end of the rebellion, the fact that the blockade-running, and the
transportation of articles contraband of war, for the use of the
insurgents, was carried on, almost exclusively, under the protection of
the English flag, became very frequently the subject of direct complaint
by Mr. Adams to Earl Russell.The
Tallahassee.
The correspondence upon this subject will be found collected in volume I
of the American Appendix, pages 719 to 785, and it shows conclusively
that the insurgent Government was in the constant practice of procuring
a British registry, and of using the British flag, for all or nearly all
transports. We also claim that it shows that this practice was tolerated
by Great Britain.
As late as the 20th of January, 1865, the Lieutenant-Governor of Bermuda,
in communicating with the home government, took occasion to say: “I
would further state that the Chameleon’s register is Confederate States.
Hence there is another legal question to which I should be glad to have
an answer, viz, is a merchant-ship, sailing under the flag of, and
registered by, an unrecognized nation, to be received in our ports on
the same terms as a trader under a recognized flag? I find that this is
not the first instance of a ship trading hither with a confederate
register, though most of the blockade-runners are British.”6
On the 31st of March, 1864, the Consul of the United States at London
informed Mr. Seward that “on the Thames their activity in forwarding all
enterprises in aid of the Confederacy is kept up with nearly as much
vigor as on the Clyde. Another double screw, called the Atlanta, similar
in most respects to those which have preceded her, has her sails bent,
coals and supplies in, appears quite ready to leave.”7
[Page 144]
Again, on the 1st of April, he says: “The double screw is called the
Atlanta. Her sails are bent, and she appears quite ready for sea. I
consider the Edith and her the finest ships of the whole batch of double
screws.”1
On the 8th of April, it was reported to the Consul that “this double
screw [the Atlanta] left the docks on Sunday last, adjusted compasses
same day, and sailed on the 4th of April from Greenhithe, and arrived,
at Falmouth on the next day. She cleared for Bermuda in ballast,
(coal.)”2
On the 20th she arrived in Bermuda, making the passage in eleven days.
The Consul at Bermuda says, in his report to Mr. Seward: “This vessel is
undoubtedly faster than any heretofore here. She is to be under the
command of Captain Horner, formerly of the Flora, and recently in the
Index. He is an Englishman by birth.”3
Again, on the 30th of May, he says: “The following steamers [six in all]
have left here to run the blockade, probably for Wilmington. * * * May
24, Atlanta, Horner, master.”
On the 6th of August the Atlanta, with her name changed to the
Tallahassee, left Wilmington, North Carolina, armed as a vessel of war,
and ran the blockade of that port. On the 18th of the same month she
arrived at Halifax, Nova Scotia, for coal, having, in the mean time,
destroyed a large number of vessels.4 She remained in port about
forty hours, and, having supplied herself with coal for her return,
sailed on the 19th, and again reached Wilmington through the blockade on
the 26th.5
The United States, having had reason to believe she had been armed at
Bermuda, complained to the Government of Great Britain. The matter was
referred to the authorities at Bermuda, and on the 14th of November,
1864, the Lieutenant-Governor reported:
The Atlanta was reported here from Wilmington, with cargo, on the 6th of
last July, and she was cleared on the 11th of July for Nassau, with a
cargo of seven hundred cases of preserved meats, and fifty casks of
bacon; she left under British certificate of registry, and carrying
British merchandise. All the requisites to a regular clearance were
fulfilled. If she went to Wilmington, as is probably the case,
notwithstanding her having cleared for Nassau, she would have reached
that port about the 15th or 16th of July, between which dates and the
1st of August she probably took in her armament. Everything, except
direct testimony, is against the belief that the Tallahassee was armed
at Bermuda.6
The Tallahassee remained in commission until the 15th of December,
1864,7
and cruised for a short time off the coast, in the early part of
November, under the name of the Olustee. On this cruise she made a few
captures, and returned to Wilmington.8
After her armament was removed she was loaded with cotton, and, on the
27th of December, under the name of the Chameleon, left Wilmington, for
Bermuda. At that port she was loaded with a return cargo for Wilmington,
but, being unable to run the blockade, proceeded to Nassau. From there
she attempted to get into Charleston, but, being prevented in this,
returned to Bermuda; and from there went to Liverpool, consigned to
Frazer, Trenholm & Co.9
[Page 145]
The Chickamauga.
This vessel was formerly the blockade-runner Edith. The consul of the
United States at London, in writing Mr. Seward on the 11th of March,
1864, said: “The steamer Edith, the last double screw completed, left on
Wednesday last for Bermuda. The Edith makes the ninth double-screw
steamer which has been built for the rebel service in this port,”1 She was
employed as a blockade-runner, and as such was once or twice at Bermuda.
Having been armed at Wilmington she ran through the blockade on the 28th
of October, 1864, as a cruiser, and reached Bermuda in that capacity on
the 6th of November. Here she was supplied with coal from the bark
Pleiades, and, after remaining nine days, got under way, and returned to
Wilmington, where she arrived on the 19th of November. Her armament was
then taken out of her, and she was reduced to her original condition as
a transport.The Chickamauga.
