Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, Transmitted to Congress, with the Annual Message of the President, December 6, 1875, Volume I
No. 264.
General Schenck to Mr. Fish.
London, April 10, 1875. (Received April 21.)
Sir: I understand that our consul at Liverpool has already reported for your information all the facts attending the case of the American vessel “G. C. Trufant,” which arrived at that port on the 7th of February last, and which, in violation of the law and shipping regulations of the United States, and with defiant refusal on the part of the master and owner to recognize the consul’s authority, has been transferred to the British flag, and been cleared, and sailed on another voyage as a British vessel.
This matter was brought to my attention through the consul-general of the United States at London, and has been the subject of a somewhat voluminous correspondence between Lord Derby and me.
[Page 606]I append hereto copies of all the notes and their inclosures which have passed between us. I do not recapitulate the statement of the affair, nor the points which I presented, because those are fully and specifically set forth in one of my communications to his lordship, under date of the 11th of March, (inclosure No. 9,) and to that I refer you without repetition.
The request which I urged on Her Majesty’s government, was, that inasmuch as the wrong done to the United States Government and to our consular authority appeared to be remediless, under the provisions of British law, the vessel in question should be denied registration in Great Britain until there was a compliance with the consul’s just demands. I represented that a failure to afford this aid would result in allowing the British flag to be used as a protection for outrage and acknowledged fraud on the part of the master and owner of the vessel. But the decision of Her Majesty’s government that, with an anxious disposition to help the Government of the United States in the matter, it was yet not in their power to intervene, or give any aid, will be found finally conveyed to me in Lord Derby’s note of the 19th of March, (inclosure No. 13.) I ask your attention to my answer, sent yesterday, to that last note of his lordship. You will observe that, in replying to his suggestion that Her Majesty’s government would be pleased to have the concurrence of the United States in such legislation by the two countries as would prevent evasion and wrong, such as I have complained of, I have referred him to the act of Congress of March 3, 1817, (Revised Statutes, sections 4209 and 4210,) to show that in the United States protection, in this particular, has been amply provided for foreign consuls in our ports for at least sixty years. I have at the same time taken the occasion to inform his lordship that I must attract the notice of my Government to the fact that under the existing law in Great Britain it seems a like protection is not extended to our consuls in her ports. This may require an application of the rules of reciprocity, on the observance of which depends the enjoyment of the benefit and aid which our law intends to extend to other governments.
Before leaving this matter, I would call your attention especially to an admission which appears to have been made by the owner of the “G. C. Trufant” that she was falsely represented to belong to an American owner in order to enable her builders to obtain a drawback of about six hundred dollars on foreign materials used in her construction. Perhaps if Mr. Trufant is out of judicial reach the builders of the vessel at New-buryport may be found, and subjected to punishment for that fraud.
I have, &c.,
General Schenck to Lord Derby.
London, February 11, 1875.
My Lord: I have the honor to communicate to you, herewith, copies of certain papers, received at this legation, which go to show that an American vessel, the “G. C. Trufant,” of Newbury port, Massachusetts, in the United States, arrived on the 7th instant at the port of Liverpool, and that on that same day the master raised the British flag, changed the marks on the stern, and claimed that the vessel was transferred to British ownership. It appears that the crew were shipped at New Orleans December 31, 1874, for a voyage to Liverpool and back to the United States, for a term of eighteen calendar months, ending in the United States. The engagement of service of this ship’s company would not expire, therefore, until the 30th of June, 1876.
[Page 607]It is admitted by the master that the vessel was under and arrived with an American register, and was entered at the custom-house in Liverpool as an American vessel. Among other things incident to the arrival of a vessel of the United States at a foreign port, it is provided by the laws and consular regulations of my Government, that she shall deposit her papers with the consul of the United States, shall pay certain hospital dues, and in case of a sale and transfer the crew are entitled to claim to be discharged, and to be paid their wages, and extra wages with a view to their protection and return to their country, and the papers ought to be surrendered to the consul. But in the case of the “G. C. Trufant,” the master and agent of the owner, as I am informed, have refused to deposit or even show the vessel’s papers to the consul—have refused to recognize his authority—and have altogether set at defiance the laws and consular regulations of the United States applicable to such cases—leaving that officer and the crew without remedy, and the crew without protection or provision for their sustenance in case of their being thrown adrift in this country and destitute. To this may be added a consideration of the possibilities of fraud and danger in permitting a vessel to retain papers of her former nationality after she may have obtained protection and license under another flag. The owner of the vessel in question, by whose orders it is understood such irregular proceedings have been authorized, is reported to be Mr. Gilbert Carr Trufant, a native-born citizen of the United States, residing in London, and who has been in business for many years in this city, as a member of the firm of Randall & Trufant, 144 Minories. Under the circumstances of the case, which I have thus detailed, I have now, my lord, to protest against this outrage and disregard of the obligations by an American master and an American ship-owner, being permitted to proceed within British jurisdiction; and I confidently appeal to Her Majesty’s government, with a request that an investigation may be made of the case, and that a British registration of this vessel may be refused by the proper authority, or if the same has been made, that it be canceled or suspended, until the master and owner of the “G. C. Trufant” shall have complied in good faith with, rules and regulations which are for the benefit of the shipping and seamen, and for the protection of the commercial intetest of both countries.
I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, my lord, your lordship’s most obedient servant,
Mr. Badeau to General Schenck.
London, February 11, 1875.
Sir: I have the honor to forward herewith a copy of a communication addressed to me by the United States consul at Liverpool, in reference to the illegal change of nationality attempted in regard to the American vessel “G. C. Trufant,” the importance of which will be at once apparent. I beg to suggest whether a representation of the facts made by yourself to the British government would not insure a refusal of the registry by British authorities. The case is so clear that such a refusal seems to me almost a matter of course.
I hope to be pardoned for suggesting, but prompt action may prevent the consummation of this illegality.
I am, very respectfully, &c.,
Consul General.
His Excellency Major-General Schenck.
&c., &c.,
&c.
Mr. Fair child to Mr. Badeau.
Liverpool, February 9, 1875.
General: On the 7th instant the American vessel “G. C. Trufant,” G. Thomas, master, of Newburyport, arrived in this port. On the afternoon of that day the master raised the British flag on said vessel. On the 8th instant the master caused the word “Newburyport” to be erased from off the stern of said vessel, and caused the word “London “to be painted thereon. I was informed of this by a portion of the crew, who came to me to protest against being transferred to a British vessel. They further informed me that the master had told them that the vessel was now under the British flag. I [Page 608] yesterday sent a written request to the master to deposit in this consulate his ship’s papers, as required by the laws of the United States. He has this day called at the consulate and, verbally, declined to deposit his papers. He also declined to comply with my request that the crew should be discharged according to law, and all hospital dues paid upon the transfer of the vessel to another flag. He declines to recognize the authority of the consul at this port over him, as master, or over the vessel, and asserts that he is acting under instructions from the owner of the vessel, a Mr. Trufant, who, I am informed, now resides in London, and I am informed by a gentleman who called here with the master, and who appears to be an agent of the owner, that the owner especially instructed that no papers should be deposited at this consulate. The crew were shipped in New Orleans December 31, 1874, for a voyage to Liverpool and back to the United States for the term of eighteen calendar months, ending in the United States. The master declines to let me even look at his register, but admits that she came here with an American register, and that she had entered as an American vessel on her arrival here in the Liverpool custom-house. I make this report to you, because this is a most unusual case of defiance of the laws, and in hopes that there may be some way, by proper representations to the British authorities, to prevent such a wrong. If this ship becomes or has become a British vessel, can the consul sue for and recover the penalty named in par. 118, Consular Regulations? I do not know of any way to compel the payment of extra wages to the crew after the vessel has been transferred to another flag. If a vessel can be transferred without reference to the obligations to the United States law, and such transfer will be received by the British authorities, you see how helpless the United States authorities are to enforce the United States laws. I am informed that this same owner once, several years ago, transferred a vessel to the British flag in this same manner; with or without the knowledge of the consul at this port, I did not learn. There ought to be some protection for the United States in such a case as this, and I hope it may prove that the transfer will not be allowed by the British authorities until the just laws of the United States have been complied with. If anything is to be done in that direction, it is my excuse for troubling you with this long dispatch, as such representations as may be proper, if any, must be made by some officer higher in authority than myself.
I am, &c.,
- LUCIUS FAIRCHILD,
United States Consul. - General Badeau,
Consul-General London.
Mr. Nunn to General Schenck.
London, February 12, 1875.
Sir: I have the honor to inform you in reference to the consul-general’s letter of yesterday’s date respecting the ship “G. C. Trufant,” of Newburyport, that the owner, or supposed owner, Mr. Gilbert Carr Trufant, is a native-born citizen of the United States, and has been in business in London for many years, the firm being Messrs. Randall & Trufant, 144 Minories. I am not aware that Mr. Trufant has become a subject of Great Britain.
I have the honor to be, &c.,
Vice and Deputy Consul-General.
His Excellency Gen. Robert C.
Schenck,
United States Minister,
London.
Lord Derby to General Schenck
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note, with its inclosure, of the 11th instant, relative to the circumstances under which the American vessel “G. C. Trufant” has been irregulary transferred to British ownership at Liverpool; and I beg, in reply, to inform you that I have caused this matter to be referred to the board of trade.
I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obedient humble servant.
Gen. Schenck, &c., &c.
General Schenck to Lord Derby.
London, February 15, 1875.
My Lord: With reference to my note of the 11th instant, in the matter of the “G. C. Trufant,” I have the honor to forward to your lordship, herewith, a copy of an additional communication from the United States consul at Liverpool upon this subject.
I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, my lord, your lordship’s most obedient servant,
To the Right Hon. the Earl of
Derby,
&c., &c.,
&c.
Mr. Fairchild to Mr. Badeau.
Liverpool, February 12, 1875.
General: Referring to my former letter regarding the refusal of the master of the American vessel “G. C. Trufant” to deposit the ship’s papers at this consulate, &c., I have now the honor to inform you that I sent to the said master a letter yesterday, a copy of which I herewith inclose. In response to that letter, the master called this day at this consulate, and verbally declined to comply with my demands. The master was accompanied by the owner of the said vessel, Mr. G. C. Trufant, of London, England, and the said owner, for himself, verbally declined to in any way recognize the authority of the consul at this port over the vessel or the master, and declared that he would take all the responsibility, and protect the master. He also informed me that he had once before transferred a vessel to the English flag in the same manner, in spite of the United States consul.
Chapter 40, act of March 3, 1817, volume 3 United States Statutes, page 362, assumes certain control over foreign vessels entering a port in the United States. I do not know of any English law of like nature. If there is no remedy in such a case as this for the Government of the United States, I shall be surprised. The ship is hot yet transferred,, but the necessary steps are being taken.
I have seen the record of her entry at the custom-house here. She entered as an American vessel.
I am, &c.,
- LUCIUS FAIRCHILD,
United States Consuls. - General Adam Badeau,
United States Consul-General, London.
Mr. Fairchild to Captain Thomas.
Liverpool, February 11, 1875.
Dear Sir: It becomes my official duty to request that you immediately deposit with me at this consulate the register, shipping and crew list, of the vessel under your charge as master, and though you have heretofore verbally declined to comply with this lawful request, I respectfully ask for a reply to this. I deem it my duty, in view of the fact that you acknowledged to me verbally that you had caused the word “Newburyport” to be erased from the stern of your vessel and had painted the word “London,” to inform you that the owners of said vessel are, by the laws of the United States, subject to a penalty of fifty dollars for not having printed on the stern thereof the name of the port to which she belongs. The said vessel belongs to the port of “Newburyport,” I am informed. I also deem it my duty to inform you that upon refusal by you to produce before me, as consul, your articles and crew-list, you render [Page 610] yourself liable to a penalty of one hundred dollars. Also, that you render yourself liable to a penalty of five hundred dollars by your refusal, or neglect, to immediately deposit the register of said vessel with me as consul.
I am, &c.,
- LUCIUS FAIRCHILD,
United States Consul at Liverpool. - Capt. G. Thomas,
Master of the American Vessel “G. C. Trufant,” Liverpool.
General Schenck to Lord Derby.
London, February 16, 1875.
My Lord: Referring to my two notes addressed to you on the 11th and 15th instant, with inclosures, in relation to the case of the American vessel “G. C. Trufant,” I have now to lay before you in that connection further communications received to-day from the consul-general of the United States at London and the consul of the United States at Liverpool on the same subject.
I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, my lord, &c.,
To the Right Hon. the Earl of
Derby,
&c., &c.,
&c.
Mr. Badeau to General Schenck.
London, February 15, 1875.
Sir: Referring to the previous correspondence on the subject of the attempted transfer of nationality of the American vessel “G. C. Trufant,” I have the honor now to forward a communication from the American consul at Liverpool, of the 13th instant, on the same subject, establishing the fact, by his own admission, that the owner of the vessel is a British subject.
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
Consul-General.
His Excellency General Schenck,
United States Minister.
Mr. Fairchild to General Badeau.
Liverpool, February 12, 1875.
General: I regret troubling you with another letter regarding the case of the “G. C. Trufant,” but it seems best that I should tell you that the Mr. G. C. Trufant who says he is the owner of said vessel, yesterday, while conferring with me on this subject, told me that the vessel was built for him (whether for him alone or not I did not understand, but he called himself the owner) in the United States; that he himself desired her to be put under a British register when launched, for which he says the United States laws provide when a vessel is built for a foreigner; that the builders of the vessel begged permission to have her put under an American register, so that they (the builders) could take advantage of the United States revenue laws providing for the refunding of certain United States customs duties paid by him or them on foreign material entering into the construction of the said vessel; that such refunded duties, or drawbacks, amounted to about $600; that the American register was only [Page 611] taken out for the purpose of taking advantage of the said law, and thereby evading finally the payment of said (about) $600; that the vessel could lawfully have been put under a British register, and that if she had been put under a British register the said sum of money could not have been received from the United States by the builder as a drawback.
(If the vessel was entitled to a British register, was she at the same time entitled to an American one? And if not entitled to the latter, was it not obtained fraudulently for a fraudulent purpose, to wit, to obtain the $600 aforesaid?)
If the foregoing statement of the case is true, and I give it, in substance, just as Mr. Trufant stated it to me, did not the foreign owner or owners who consented to have the vessel receive an American register, for the sole purpose of allowing the builders to receive a drawback, collude with such builders to defraud the United to the British flag without complying with the laws of the United States by the pay-States, the American register having been used for the admitted purpose of evading the payment of United States customs duties, and as long as the owners deemed it to their advantage, and the vessel having arrived, here, they now seek to transfer her ment of the United States consular fees and the lawful payments to the crew? On one side of the Atlantic they take advantage of the United States law to evade payment of customs dues; on the other side (this) they defy the laws of the United States to evade the lawful payments due on transfer of a vessel to a foreign flag.
This case presents to my mind features which warrant rigorous action by the United States authorities, and it is to be hoped that there is some way of preventing this wrong being done.
Mr. G. C. Trufant tells me that he is now a subject of Great Britain.
I am, general, respectfully, your obedient servant,
- LUCIUS FAIRCHILD,
United States Consul. - General Adam Badeau,
United States Consul-General, London.
Lord Derby to General Schenck.
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your further notes, with their inclosures, of the 15th instant and 16th instant, relative to the case of the vessel “G. C. Trufant,” and I beg to inform you that I have referred the same to the proper department of Her Majesty’s government.
I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obedient humble servant,
General Schenck, &c., &c., &c.
Lord Derby to General Schenck.
Sir: With reference to my note of the 18th ultimo I have the honor to acquaint you that Her Majesty’s government have carefully considered the case of the alleged transfer from American to British nationality of the steamer “G. C. Trufant,” to which their attention was directed in your notes of the 11th, 15th, and 16th ultimo.
I now beg to inform you that as at present advised it does not appear to Her Majesty’s government that this case is one in which legal proceedings could be successfully instituted in this country against the owner or master of the vessel in question. It is provided by part I, of section 103, of the merchant shipping act of 1854, that where any person uses the British flag, and assumes the British national character on board any ship owned in whole or in part by any persons not entitled by law to own British ships, such ships shall be forfeited, &c.
In order, however, to convict under this section, the master must have used the British flag, and himself assumed the British national character, which he does not appear in this case to have done; and even if he had used such flag, and assumed such national character, it was on board a ship owned (although not registered in this country) by a naturalized Englishman, who was, therefore, by British law, entitled to be its owner.
Her Majesty’s government are, nevertheless, of opinion that the vessel is still as [Page 612] much a foreign vessel as when she entered the port of Liverpool as such, and that she is not entitled to the privileges of a British vessel.
It seems, moreover, to Her Majesty’s government that the letter from the United States consul, which you have had the goodness to communicate to them, discloses the real motive for the suspicious character of the proceedings of the master and owner of this vessel; and it would appear to be a question for the consideration of the United States Government whether any steps should be taken to detect and punish or prevent similar evasions of the United States customs law.
I would beg, in conclusion, to observe that the main point raised by this correspondence, namely, the liability of vessels transferred from one flag to another, is receiving the attention of Her Majesty’s government.
I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obedient humble servant,
General Schenck, &c., &c., &c.
General Schenck to Lord Derby.
London, March 5, 1875.
My Lord: Referring to my several communications made to you on the 11th, 15th, and 16th of February last, in relation to the case of the American vessel “G. C. Trufant” and the paper exhibits inclosed therewith, I have now to call your attention to another letter on the subject from the consul of the United States at Liverpool, received to-day through the consul-general at London, and of which I send herewith a copy. I am surprised to learn from this that the vessel in question is being treated, it seems, at the surveyor’s office of the custom-house at Liverpool, as a British vessel, and that it is understood she is being loaded and prepared for sea, and is about to sail for Calcutta, and all this without answer to my question whether she is to be allowed a British registration, notwithstanding the irregularity of procedure on the part of the master and owner, and their defiance of the laws and the shipping regulations of the United States.
In this connection I beg leave to invite the attention of Her Majesty’s government not only again to the statement in the case of the vessel, which was submitted in my note of the 11th February, but particularly also to the document which accompanied my letter of the 16th of February, from which it appears that the owner of the vessel has confessed that in obtaining for the ship an American register, he was combining with the builders to defraud the revenue of the United States. But on this I have, at the same time, to remark, that if that shameless statement made by way of excuse be true, then, also, a further fraud was committed against both Great Britain and the United States by the clearance of the vessel under the American flag and with American papers, and not through the British consul at the port of the United States from which she sailed. I am unwilling for a moment to believe that any of the authorities of Her Majesty will allow the forms of law of this realm to be used to sanction or permit such wrong as is thus attempted, not only against the laws and official authorities of a friendly power, but against a crew of seamen manifestly enlisted into service under false pretenses, and who are entitled to be discharged with such payments as the law of the United States provides.
I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, my lord, your lordship’s most obedient servant,
To the Right Hon. the Earl of
Derby,
&c., &c.,
&c.
Mr. Fairchild to General Badeau.
Liverpool, March 3, 1875.
General: I have just learned at the surveyor’s office of the custom-house here that the ship “G. C. Trufant” has been entered for measurement, resurvey, &c. She is entered in the book of British vessels, and after the entry are written remarks to the effect that she was previously American, built at Newburyport. Can I be immediately informed of the official reception of this ship as a British vessel, provided a register is granted to her? The crew which came here in her will have the right then to discharge, [Page 613] and lawful payments which may possibly be enforced in the courts here. To make the effort, proceedings must be commenced before the vessel sails, hence my desire, in the interest of justice, for information as to transfer, if it is made at all, which I very much doubt.
Respectfully, your obedient servant,
United States Consul.
General Badeau,
United States Consul-General, London.
Mr. Fairchild to General Badeau.
Liverpool, March 3, 1875.
General: I am informed by members of the crew of the “G. C. Trufant” that the ship is nearly ready for sea, being partly loaded now, and is to sail to Culcutta. The master refuses to grant their discharge, but will take them as seamen if they will go. They decline to sail in her under the British flag, and demand their discharge, with lawful payments.
I am, general, respectfully, your obedient servant,
United States Consul.
General Badeau,
United States Consul-General, London.
Lord Derby to General Schenck.
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note, with its inclosure, of the 5th instant, containing further particulars with respect to the vessel “G. C. Trufant,” and I beg in reply to inform you that I have referred the same to the proper department of Her Majesty’s government.
I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obedient humble servant,
General Schenck, &c., &c., &c.
General Schenck to Lord Derby.
My Lord: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 8th instant, informing me that you had received and referred to the proper department of Her Majesty’s government mine of the 5th instant, with an inclosure, communicating particulars with respect to the vessel “G. C. Trufant.”
I have to acknowledge also your lordship’s note to me of the 5th instant, relating to the case of that vessel, which had not reached me when I sent to you mine of the same date. Referring now to your lordship’s note of the 5th, and in view of our former correspondence on this subject and the papers submitted, I have to express my satisfaction with the assurance you give that Her Majesty’s government are of opinion that the “G. C. Trufaut” is still as much a foreign vessel as when she entered the port of Liverpool, and that she is not entitled to the privileges of a British vessel. I learn also from your lordship that the question of the liability of vessels transferred from one flag to another is receiving the attention of Her Majesty’s government.
On this point I beg to call attention to the fact, brought to your lordship’s notice by my communication made on the 5th instant, that the owner of the “G. C. Trufant,” notwithstanding this opinion of Her Majesty’s government, and notwithstanding any inquiry or investigation that may be going on as to her national character, is assuming that the vessel has already been transferred from the American to the British flag, and I may add that since my then writing I have ascertained through private advices from Liverpool that she is still being made ready to sail from that port as a British vessel, and is expected to get to sea within a day or two from this time. I notice that your lordship writes as to Her Majesty’s government being at present advised that it does not appear that this case is one in which legal proceedings could be successfully instituted [Page 614] in this country against the owner or master of the vessel in question. But I beg to recall to your lordship’s mind that it is because the Government of the United States, and the United States consul, and the American crew of the vessel may be remediless under the circumstances, under British law, and in British courts of justice, I have been constrained to make the representation I have to Her Majesty’s government. It is not a complaint made on account of “an alleged transfer from American to British nationality,” but it is a protest I make against any change of registration or flag being permitted in furtherance of an outrage against, and defiance of, the laws and authority of the country from which the “G. C. Trufant” comes.
I beg now to recapitulate some of the leading points presented in the history of this affair.
- 1.
- This vessel, with an American register and shipping papers, and under the American flag, came into the British port of Liverpool.
- 2.
- The master, on his arrival, was bound, under the laws of the United States, to deposit the ship’s papers with the United States consul at that port, and to pay certain fees and assessments of hospital-money.
- 3.
- If the vessel were sold or in any way regularly transferred from her American to a foreign nationality, that act entitled the crew to their discharge and to payment of wages and extra wages under the order and direction of the United States consul.
- 4.
- But the master has defied the consul of the United States and refused to comply with any of the regulations to which he was bound, and is upheld in this by the owner.
- 5.
- The excuse the owner gives for such act is that he was sailing falsely under the American flag, had represented his vessel of that nationality for a dishonest purpose, and obtained her papers therefore by fraud.
- 6.
- The owner claims, moreover, now to be a naturalized British subject, although a native-born citizen of the United States, but has exhibited, as far as is known, no evidence of British naturalization except his own unsupported assertion, and of his character for truthfulness we know nothing except a shameless admission that he falsely and dishonestly conspired with the builders of his vessel to defraud the United States of about six hundred dollars.
- 7.
- If the owner be in fact a British subject and a British owner, he has not only been guilty of a fraudulent violation of the law of the United States, but it is submitted must have also violated British law by having the master of his vessel evade the consul of Great Britain at the American port from which she sailed, and by not having his clearance taken as a British vessel.
- 8.
- It is not claimed that there is any present and immediate remedy for the United States and her citizens in English courts for the wrong thus committed, but, on the contrary, the very complaint is that the Government of the United States is ignored, her official agent defied, and the seamen of the vessel denied their just claims, and all left remediless within this jurisdiction unless Her Majesty’s government shall intervene.
- 9.
- It is for these reasons and in these circumstances that I have protested against the owner of the “G. C. Trufant” being permitted to register her as a British vessel, and I feel confident that, until she be purged of her wrong, Her Majesty’s government will not allow her to sail under the British flag from a British port, using that flag for a protection in the commission of fraud.
- 10.
- By what judicial processes the owner, the master, the vessel, or the builders, may be pursued and punished hereafter, either in this country or in the United States, will be, if necessary, for the future consideration of my Government and of the parties wronged.
I have, &c.,
- ROBT. C. SCHENCK.
- Earl of Derby.
General Schenck to Lord Derby.
My Lord: Referring to our correspondence in relation to the American vessel “G. C. Trufant,” I beg leave to state to your lordship that I have this moment received a telegram sent by the United States consul at Liverpool to-day to the consul-general of the United States at London in these words: “I have positive information that the “G. C. Trufant” has been granted a British register previous to the 10th of this month. She will probably sail to-morrow.”
I have the honor to be, &c.,
- ROBT. C. SCHENCK.
- Earl of Derby.
General Schenck to Lord Derby.
London, March 15, 1875.
My Lord: With reference again to the case of the “G. C. Trufant,” I think it proper to inform you that I have just received a dispatch, by telegraph, from the United States consul at Liverpool, dated to-day and in the following terms:
“Trufant did not sail Saturday; am informed that her crew could not he obtained in time. Her crew is to go on board this morning, and she is to sail this day.”
I have, &c.,
- ROBT C. SCHENCK.
- Earl of Derby.
Lord Derby to General Schenck.
March 15, 1875. (Received March 16.)
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your notes of the 11th and 13th instant, as well as that of to-day’s date, relative to the case of the “G. C. Trufant,” and I beg in reply to assure you that this matter continues to receive the attention of Her Majesty’s government.
I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obedient humble servant,
General Schenck, &c., &c., &c.
Lord Derby to General Schenck.
Sir: With reference to my note of the 15th instant, I have the honor to state to you that Her Majesty’s government have not failed to give their careful attention to the further representations which were contained in your notes of the 6th and 11th instant, relative to the case of the “G. C. Trufant,” and I beg to acquaint you that orders were issued by the commissioners of customs to the effect that all lawful means should be employed for the detention of the vessel in question. With this object, instructions were addressed to the collector at Liverpool that, in case the ship had not sailed, care should be taken to enforce rigidly every requirement of the law, the observance of which might legitimately retard the departure of the ship, so as to afford as much time as possible for the consideration of the questions which had arisen in connection with this case. A telegram has, however, been received from the collector in reply, informing the board of customs that, all the provisions of British law having been duly complied with, the ship cleared out from Liverpool for Calcutta on the 13th instant.
It remains for me to assure you of the anxiety which has been experienced by Her Majesty’s government to help the United States government in this case. I need not, however, point out to you that Her Majesty’s government could only act in the matter within the limits of British law. The question, therefore, to be considered was whether the master or owner of the ship had committed any breach of that law.
Her Majesty’s government are advised that what was done in America and on the high seas did not amount to a breach of that law much less a breach which would have justified them in stopping the ship.
If Mr. Trufant had not been a British subject, and had made a false declaration to that effect, he would have been liable to punishment, and his ship to seizure, under section 103 of the merchant-shipping act of 1854. This, however, has not been proved; on the contrary, Her Majesty’s government have ascertained that Mr. Trufant obtained a certificate of naturalization on the 10th of August, 1867. I beg, in conclusion, to assure you that so far from being in any way disposed to aid Mr. Trufant in his successful attempt to evade the liabilities of the United States law, Her Majesty’s government are themselves suffering under similar evasions practiced by owners of British vessels, who transfer them to foreign flags for the purpose of escaping the obligations [Page 616] of British law, and Her Majesty’s government are consequently considering the propriety of so altering the law in this country as to prevent such evasions, and they will be glad to have the assistance of the United States government in the matter.
I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obedient, humble servant,
General Schenck, &c., &c.
General Schenck to Lord Derby.
London, April 9, 1875.
My Lord: I received and have duly considered your note of the 19th ultimo, conveying a final answer in the matter of the vessel “G. C. Trufant.”
I regret exceedingly that Her Majesty’s government have felt constrained to decide that, under the law of Great Britain, they had no power to intervene in the case of an American ship which has, in such extraordinary manner, in violation of the shipping-regulations of a friendly power, and in defiance of our consul, been transferred to the British flag. But I appreciate your lordship’s cordial assurance of the desire of Her Majesty’s government to help protect the interests of the United States had it been legally possible. I have prepared all the documents and our correspondence, presenting the full history of the affair, to be submitted to my Government, and shall transmit the papers to Mr. Fish by the next mail.
Your lordship, in connection with the explanation given of the reasons why they have been unable to lend any aid to prevent such an evasion of duties and obligations on the part of a master or owner of a vessel transferred to another flag, informs me that Her Majesty’s government are now considering the propriety of so altering the law in this country as to prevent such evasions; and your lordship is pleased to suggest that they will be glad to have the assistance of the United States in the matter. This friendly suggestion of co-operation between our two governments by similar statutory provisions for the protection of mutual interests induces me to call your attention to the existing law of the United States concerning the point which has been in question. For your lordship’s convenience of reference, I inclose a copy of sections* 4209, 4210 of our Revised Statutes, and these clauses are but a re-enactment of an act of Congress passed in the year 1817, which has been in force since that date. It will by this be seen that such evasion and defiance as were practiced by the master of the “G. C. Truf aut” towards the consul of the country to which that vessel belonged, on her arrival at Liverpool, would not have been permitted to pass without remedy or punishment in the United States, but would have subjected the offender to a fine of from five hundred dollars to two thousand dollars. Such is the protection which has been extended, by special statute, in the United States, for nearly sixty years, to the vessels and consuls of those foreign nations which have been understood as reciprocating in this particular. I shall now have to attract the notice of the Government at Washington to the fact that, unfortunately, under the existing provisions of law in Great Britain, a like protection is not extended to the consuls of the United States in her ports.
In conclusion, my lord, I cannot refrain from suggesting that this case of the “G. C. Trufant” affords—as I am sure your lordship will agree with me—another proof of the grave importance of concluding, at as early a day as possible, a judicious and fair adjustment, by means of a consular convention, of questions and difficulties which ought not to continue to disturb the commercial relations of our two countries.
I have the honor, &c.,
Earl of Derby, &c., &c.
- Copy of sections 4209 and 4210, United States Revised Statutes.↩