File No. 763.72111Ap4/173
The Secretary of State to the British Ambassador (Spring Rice)
My Dear Mr. Ambassador: I have received your notes of August 3d and 5th last in regard to the disposition of the S. S. Appam, which, as you state, was “brought into Hampton Roads in violation of the neutrality of the United States, as your Department and the District Court of the United States have both held.”
In the first place, I wish to point out that this Department has not, so far as I am aware, stated that the Appam was brought into an American port in violation of the neutrality of the United States. What my Government has stated is “that it does not, in the opinion of this Government, comport with the obligations of a neutral power to allow its ports to be used either as a place of indefinite refuge for belligerent prizes or as a place for their sequestration during the proceedings of prize courts.” That the Appam is undergoing a prolonged detention in American waters is, as you know, due to her being libeled by British subjects rather than to any action by my Government.
I am pleased to note that “In Lord Grey’s opinion, the question whether the ship is to be handed over to the owners pending appeal is of course one for the court to decide, and His Majesty’s Government has no right or desire to intervene.” This relieves me from replying to the unusual request in your note of the 3d instant, that the Appam be released to her British owners as originally requested by your Government. This, of course, I could not do, as the vessel is in jurisdiction of the court as the result of a suit which the British owners themselves instituted, probably with the full knowledge of His Majesty’s Government, and doubtless after due consideration of the nature of the legal proceedings to which the owners were submitting their vessel. Your note of the 5th instant also relieves me from replying to the general statement in your earlier note, that your Government “considers itself entitled, under the law of nations, to all damages necessarily incurred by the withholding of the vessel from her rightful owners.”
As to your Government’s protest against the prize crews remaining on board, “especially after the decision of the court already given” and your Government’s view that “she should be placed in the effective custody of the United States authorities,” I beg to state that it is, I presume, competent for the owners to bring these matters to the attention of the court to which they have chosen to confide the case for its consideration and action. I may add, however, that this Government has been repeatedly assured by the German Government that the prize commander and crew will preserve and protect the property of the vessel, that no explosives capable of doing injury to the vessel or the public peace are or will be allowed on board the vessel, and that the vessel will remain at an anchorage satisfactory to the officials of the United States.
In view of all the circumstances of the case, therefore, I am of the opinion that there is no need for apprehension in regard to the safety of the ship, without admitting, however, on the part of my Government, that it is responsible for the effective custody of a vessel within [Page 743] the jurisdiction of the court pending an appeal in a case where private individuals of foreign nationality have declined to await the results of executive action and chosen to take advantage of such judicial proceedings as are open to them in this country. Consequently, I must decline to accept the responsibility which your Government desires to cast upon the Government of the United States for any damages which may result to the vessel “if the prize crew remains on board and if in consequence the ship were to be ultimately damaged or sunk.”
I am [etc.]