File No. 763.72111Z1/28
The British Ambassador (Spring Rice) to the Secretary of State
[Received July 5.]
Sir: In my note No. 154 of the 6th ultimo,2 I had the honour to communicate to you the observations of His Majesty’s Government on the discrepancy between the calculations of the British and Mexican officers in regard to the distance at which the S. S. Zealandia was lying from the shore at the time when she was visited by a party from the British cruiser Isis, and I added that a further reply would be returned dealing with the additional points raised in your note No. 1134 of the 10th April last.3
The question of the measurement of the distance of the vessel from the shore having been dealt with in my note already referred [Page 687] to, I need only add that His Majesty’s Government do not at present see any reason to modify the view already expressed that the Zealandia, was, at the time of the search, lying outside the three-mile limit from the Mexican shore. As regards the question of the hesitation of the boarding officer to make an entry in the ship’s log, I have already, in my unofficial letter of the 9th ultimo, referred to the military necessities which sometimes render it difficult to make such entries, and to the directions which have been given that such entries should be made whenever possible. In the present instance, it is admitted that the boarding officer subsequently offered to make the entry which the captain of the Zealandia had desired, and His Majesty’s Government are therefore not disposed to consider that blame can be attached to the boarding officer on the ground that the entry was not made.
As regards the number of officers and men constituting the boarding party, which is described as unnecessarily large, His Majesty’s Government are disposed to think that the actual facts hardly appear to justify any strong exception being taken to the number of men employed on this duty. It is true that the visiting officer and the one other officer whose presence was necessary as a witness in case of prize proceedings were accompanied by a third officer to act as interpreter, and also by a boatswain and a signalman, but the total number only amounted to five persons (one being an interpreter); the crew remained in their boat alongside throughout the proceedings, and the officer who accompanied the party merely to act as an interpreter can, in the opinion of His Majesty’s Government, scarcely be considered as a member of the visiting party.
In reply to the observations made as to the length of time for which the party remained on board, I am instructed to state that one officer of the Isis returned to that vessel while the other members of the party remained on board the Zealandia, and that as soon as his report had been received and it had been decided that no immediate proceedings against the Zealandia were necessary, the rest of the party were forthwith recalled to the Isis.
An additional point in regard to the visit, which is referred to in your note, is that the boarding officer requested the captain to send ashore for papers which, it is held, were properly on shore at the time. The report of the boarding officer on this matter is that he asked the master of the Zealandia whether there was any objection to one of his officers going ashore with one of the officers of the Isis for the purpose of inspecting these papers, and that the offer was declined. In this connection, it may be observed that if, as His Majesty’s Government are convinced, the Zealandia was in fact outside neutral waters, the absence of papers on board would in itself have afforded legitimate ground for the detention of the vessel on suspicion, and the course adopted would seem to have been the most reasonable and considerate one which could have been taken in order to avoid detaining the vessel.
In conclusion, I have the honour to refer to the observations made in your note to the effect that the procedure for obtaining information with regard to the nationality and cargo of the Zealandia should [Page 688] properly have been to apply to the authorities of the port or the captain of the vessel. It has already been stated that His Majesty’s Government adhere to their view that the Zealandia was, at the time of the visit, outside Mexican territorial waters, and, consequently, that she was not within the jurisdiction of the port authorities. In these circumstances, it would not appear feasible for the British officers concerned to have adopted the method of procedure suggested.
In communicating the above facts with regard to this incident for the consideration of the United States authorities, I have the honour to express the hope that, in view of the reports now received as to the facts of the visit of the Zealandia by His Majesty’s officers, the United States Government will find themselves able to modify the view which they have previously entertained as to the irregular nature of the action taken in this case.
I have [etc.]