File No. 763.72111V76/10
The British Ambassador ( Spring Rice ) to the Secretary of State
[Received March 28.]
Sir: I did not fail to communicate to my Government copies of your notes of December 16 and December 22,1 in which exception was taken to certain proceedings of His Majesty’s ships off the United States coast. Referring particularly to the case of the Vinland, you reminded me that the United States Government had always regarded the practice of belligerent cruisers patrolling American coasts in close proximity to the territorial waters of the United States and making the neighbourhood a station for their observations as inconsistent with the treatment to be expected from the naval vessels of a friendly power in time of war, and has maintained that the consequent menace of such proceedings to the freedom of American commerce is vexatious and uncourteous to the United States.
My Government has carefully studied the contents of your notes. They are impressed by the fact that no suggestion seems to be made in either of them that British cruisers enter at all within the territorial waters of the United States, and they note that, on the contrary, the effect of the notes is to take exception to proceedings of these vessels when navigating admittedly on the high seas. The objection appears, indeed, to rest upon a claim to distinguish between different parts of the high seas, a claim which causes surprise to His Majesty’s Government, who are unaware of the existence of any rules or principles of international law which render belligerent operations which are legitimate in one part of the high seas, illegitimate in another. Under these circumstances it appears desirable that the position taken up by the United States Government should be more clearly defined. I am therefore instructed to have recourse to your courtesy in order to obtain fuller information as to the precise nature and grounds of the claims which are made by your Government, as well as their extent, since my Government are most anxious to recognise [Page 760] to the full any claims of this nature which are well founded in law, but are naturally unable to make a concession of what they regard as their belligerent rights.
The rights asserted in this respect by the United States Government in previous wars will no doubt be conceded by the United States Government as well founded when exercised by others. It will be in your recollection that my predecessor, Lord Lyons, complained that Rear Admiral Wilkes had ordered the vessels under his command to anchor in such a position as to control the movements of ships desiring to enter or to depart from the port of Bermuda, and that he maintained a system of cruising in the neutral waters of Bermuda in excess of his rights as a belligerent. The charge was thus of a far more serious nature than that which the United States Government now make against His Majesty’s ships. Admiral Wilkes in his reply, which was communicated officially by Mr. Secretary of State Seward to His Majesty’s Legation on January 15, 1863, asserted that his vessels “but maintained a system of cruising outside of the neutral waters of Bermuda in and under our rights as a belligerent.” It is clear, therefore, that this officer of the United States Navy, whose view was evidently endorsed by the United States Government, considered that his proceedings were fully justified so long as he could maintain that they had been restricted to the very practice of which the United States Government now complain, though resorted to in a far less aggravated form by His Majesty’s ships, and of which they appear actually to desire to impugn the legality.
I venture to enclose herewith extracts from the official records of the United States Navy in the War of the Rebellion which will illustrate the practice followed in that war by United States ships when conducting belligerent operations in the neighbourhood of neutral territory.
In this connection I may be permitted to point out that the number of enemy merchant ships now sheltering in harbours of the United States makes it necessary for His Majesty’s Government to maintain their cruisers in a position where they can have the best chance of capturing these ships if they should attempt to escape. Another urgent reason for a close and constant watch, which no doubt will be appreciated by the naval authorities, is the fact which I have brought to the notice of your Department and which has since formed the subject of judicial proceedings—that enemy ships received supplies of coal and provisions from neutral vessels leaving American ports. You stated in your reply to my representations that the United States Government could not go further, in any suspicious case brought to its notice, than conduct an investigation in order to determine in every possible way whether the transaction appeared to be bona fide. And in the cases of this nature which were brought before the courts the charge was not a breach of neutrality, but merely of making false manifests. Under these circumstances, as enemy cruisers were at sea and preying on the commerce of the Allies while they drew their supplies from American ports, it was incumbent on His Majesty’s cruisers to adopt such measures as were possible in order to cut off such supplies; and for this reason it is necessary that British cruisers should maintain such a position on the high seas [Page 761] as to enable them to intercept such supply ships before they have accomplished their purpose.
I have the honour to add in conclusion that in communicating the foregoing considerations I am instructed by Sir Edward Grey to state that while His Majesty’s Government can not abandon any of their rights, so far as they are in accordance with international law and the practice of the United States Government themselves, they will use their best endeavours in order that the exercise of such belligerent rights should be attended with as little inconvenience to neutrals as possible.
I have [etc.]