because the period for which they had shipped had expired. He said, furthermore, that it was reported to him that the Kearsarge had likewise applied for some sailors and a pilot in that port, as well as for coal, and leave to make repairs, all of which had been,. and would be, if more were needed, cheerfully granted. I told him I was quite confident the Kearsarge had made no attempt to ship a crew there, and that, as respects a pilot, that stood on ground peculiar to itself, and had no reference to the general principle. The determination which has been reached by the French authorities to allow the shipment of a crew, or so large a portion of one, on board of the Florida while lying in their port is, I think, wrong, even supposing that vessel a regularly commissioned ship of war. I told M. Drouyn de Lhuys, that, looking at it as a mere lawyer, and clear of prejudices which my official position might create, I thought this determination an error. He said, however, that in the conference they had reached The Florida at that unanimously, although a majority of the ministry considering the question were lawyers.1 Brest. From a report by the British consul at Brest, on the subject of the reception and stay of the Florida at that port, it appears that * * * * * * * Captain Maffitt, the commander of the Florida, was informed by the admiral of the port, (préfet maritime,) Vice-Admiral Count de Gueyton, that he was at liberty to effect the repairs of the ship and provide her with coal and provisions, the same as any merchant-ship. The commercial resources of Brest proving insufficient to effect the repairs of the Florida, application was made to the port-admiral to allow her to enter the government dock-yard, and permission for her to do so was granted, it being stipulated that all expenses should be re-imbursed by the agent, M. Aumaître, and that her powdermagazine should be cleared before entering the dock. To effect the latter operation, a government barge was furnished for the purpose of removing the ammunition; and this barge was, later, moored in the bay. On the 9th of September, 1863, the Florida entered the government dock, and remained there for general repairs for a period of about five weeks. The Florida completed her repairs in the dock-yard, and afterward took moorings in the merchant harbor of Brest, where she was slowly refitted. On the 27th of December she was moved to the roadstead. It appears that some of the mechanism of the more heavy guns of the Florida had never been regulated, and her commander desiring to have this done, an application was made to the port-admiral for permission to land the guns for that purpose; but this was at once and positively refused, on the ground that such an act might be interpreted as equivalent to allowing a re-inforcement of arms. But, it appears, her small-arms were allowed to be landed, in order to be repaired by a gun-maker of Brest, named Kock; this permission was granted, on the agent, M. Aumaître, giving a guarantee to the authorities of the custom-house that they should be reshipped on board the Florida. No arms or ammunition were furnished to the Florida while at Brest. Through M. Aumaître, the agent, M. Rainals ascertained that thirty-five seamen claimed and obtained their discharge from the Florida here; that they were, in part, replaced by others, chiefly natives of Belgium, Germany, Italy, and Southern Austria, brought to Brest by railway direct from Paris, in numbers never exceeding four at a time, and that they were quietly sent on board in similar numbers. The Federal corvette Kearsarge re-appeared in Brest waters on the 3d of January, 1864; and, after steaming about the bay to within a mile of the town, again proceeded to sea. The Florida, being ready for sea, left Brest between 9 and 10 o'clock on the evening of the 9th of February, 1864, in charge of a pilot; and at a distance of about thirty miles from that port, passed through the dangerous passage Du Raz, inside the Saints, landing the pilot at Audierne. I cannot help surmising that, if all this had happened in one of Her Majesty's ports; if a government dock-yard had been placed at the disposal of a confederate cruiser; if such cruiser had been allowed to remain six months; to have her small-arms repaired on shore; and to take in as much coal as she wanted, "like any merchant-vessel," and largely to recruit her crew, this tribunal would not have failed to find a very eloquent and indignant denunciation of such a violation of neutrality in the papers which have been presented to us. 1 British Appendix, vol. vi, p. 136. 2 Ibid., vol. i, pp. 126, 127. At Martinique. Again at Bermuda. After leaving Brest on the 12th of February, 1861, the Florida visited the French colony of Martinique, where she remained from the 26th of April to the 7th of May repairing her machinery and taking in a full supply of coal. On the 12th of May she touched at Bermuda, but only to land a sick officer, and left again at once.2 On the 18th of June, 1864, she again put into Bermuda, being then under the command of Lieutenant C. M. Morris.3 Lieutenant Morris immediately wrote to Colonel Munro, the acting governor, stating that his vessel was in want of coals, provisions, and repairs, and requesting permission to have the necessary repairs to the propeller and blow-valve done at Her Majesty's dock-yard, as they could not otherwise be effected; and Governor Munro having referred the application to Sir James Hope, the admiral on the station, Sir James Hope directed a survey of the vessel to be made by competent. officers, who, on the 20th, reported as follows: We have the honor to report that, having, in obedience to your directions, been ou board the Florida, and with the assistance of Messrs. Thompson and Leitch, assistant engineers, examined her machinery, we beg to make the following report: The Florida. 1. She can proceed to sea with such repairs as can be made good here, which, as far as we are able to judge, will require five days for one man, viz, a diver for two days and a fitter for three days, or three complete days in all. 2. She can proceed to sea with safety in her present state under steam, but under sail is unmanageable with her screw up in bad weather, and her defects aloft (crosstrees) render main topmast unsafe. This could be made good in two days. 4. We are of opinion that the Florida should be able to fetch the following places in the time and with the coal stated against each, viz: P. S.-The Florida can stow 130 tons of coal. Upon this a stay of five working days was accorded for the completion of the necessary repairs. Permission was given to ship 80 tons of coal. 6 Three heads of complaint are put forward by the United States Government as to what was done on this occasion. Twice over it is stated that, a stay of five days having been granted, that stay was extended to nine. We have here another of those inaccurate statements of fact, the effect of which may be to mislead the tribunal. The stay of the Florida at Bermuda on this occasion was only nine days in the whole. But the earlier portion of that time was occupied in the preliminary communications and in the survey. The stay of five days was granted by the governor on the 21st of June. The Florida left on the 27th. The total stay of nine days has thus been confounded with the stay after the granting of the five days. I should be ashamed to suggest that this misrepresentation was intentionally made; but I must repeat that those who accuse persons in authority of misconduct should take more care to be accurate as to their facts. It is next stated that, instead of 20 tons, the Florida was allowed to take 135.1 But on reference to the report of the surveying officers, it will be seen that they estimate 46 tons as the amount necessary for the vessel, if seeking the nearest port, namely, Wilmington; 100 tons if seeking the furthest, namely, Mobile; with varying amounts if making for intermediate ports. 2 Lieutenant Morris assured the governor that the port he expected to make was Mobile. The governor compromised the matter by giving permission to load 80 tons. Lieutenant Morris reported officially in writing to the governor that he had loaded 80 tons, as appears by the letter of Governor Munro to Mr. Secretary Cardwell of the 7th of July, 1864.3 But the United States produce a voucher for 135 tons of coal shipped on this occasion.4 If it be true that Lieutenant Morris abused the confidence of Colonel Munro, and took in 135 tons instead of 80, all that this proves is that Lieutenant Morris acted in a manner unworthy of an officer and a gentleman. Is it to be said that it was the duty of the governor to send officers to watch the shipment of the coal, and see that Lieutenant Morris did not play a dishonorable part and abuse the trust reposed in him, and that the quantity was not exceeded? Such a proceeding would have implied a disbelief in the word of the officer commanding a ship of war, and therefore would more or less have amounted to an affront. I cannot think it was necessary. 5 6 The next complaint is, that whereas five days' work was reported by the surveyors to be all that was necessary to be done to the vessel, twenty days of carpenters' work was done to her. The voucher produced shows that four carpenters were employed for four days. Looking to the small quantity of materials charged for, it is probable that, if an undue amount of time was occupied in carpenters' work, it arose from the unskillfulness of the workmen. The number of men required for the repairs of the maintop-mast is not stated in the report of the officers. The work of four men for four days may have proved absolutely necessary. But even if a small and microscopic criticism could here discover anything to find fault with, here again the fault was that of the officer commanding the Florida, not of the authorities. Or, is it to be said that here also a watch should have been set to measure the precise amount of work to which the carpenters should have been limited ? But complaint is made that, besides coal, the Florida was allowed to take in large supplies of provisions, clothing, and other stores, even of medicines! T For what purpose this is stated I cannot conceive. If it is meant to be said that herein there was any breach of neutrality, such a proposition implies ignorance of the first principles of international law. All the articles enumerated are things which a belligerent has a perfect right to procure in a neutral port, and which the governor could neither prevent the commander of such a vessel from buying, or the Queen's subjects from selling to him. There is one other complaint, which I confess occasions me both sur prise and pain. It is that, although the surveyors had reported that "the vessel was unmanageable with her screw up in bad weather," and that "her defects aloft (cross-trees) rendered the maintop-mast unsafe,' yet, as they had reported that "she could proceed to sea with safety in her then state under steam," the governor ought not to have allowed the repairs necessary to render her safe when under sail. We have here the converse of Mr. Dayton's contention with the French government, but in a more objectionable form. When it is borne in mind that in a screw-steamer steam is but an auxiliary power, and that no such vessel is ever committed to the ocean without everything necessary to her safety under sail being in a seaworthy condition; when it is remembered that all machinery is liable to accident, especially such as is exposed to the action of the elements, and that if anything had happened to the machinery of this vessel in her then condition, she would have been exposed, with her living freight, crippled and helpless, to danger and disaster, I think the proposition which the tribunal is asked to adopt ought not to find much favor in its sight. For myself I can only say, that I trust and believe no British governor, placed in similar circumstances, would let our decision be what it may, let the political consequences be what they will-be so wanting in a sense of what is due to humanity and to the honor of his country as to act otherwise than I am glad to think the governor of Bermuda acted on this occasion. I have only further to observe that when much is made in the case of the United States of the fact that the Florida, instead of proceeding to the nearest port, was kept cruising off the islands, looking out for United States vessels, which no doubt appears to have been the case, 2 the same observation occurs as before. Such a course of conduct may have been dishonorable in Lieutenant Morris, as being in breach of the good faith he ought to have kept with the governor, but it certainly cannot be ascribed as a fault to the latter. 3 No doubt the conduct of Lieutenant Morris is open to observation. He came back afterwards to the island, on the pretext of delivering up two deserters, but in fact to try and get more coal, which, however, was peremptorily refused. 3 But the answer lies in a word: Lieutenant Morris was an officer bearing a commission and wearing a sword in the service of an American government; as such, he was entitled to the presumption which attaches to such a position, and which presupposes the impossibility of acts inconsistent with the highest sense of honor and the most scrupulous good faith. To have acted on such a presumption ought not to be ascribed, by a tribunal of honorable men, to those who did so, as a want of due diligence in the discharge of any duty they were called on to fulfill on the part of a neutral government. On the 5th of October, 1864, the Florida entered the port of Bahia, whereupon Mr. Wilson, the United States consul, forthwith addressed a letter to the president of the province in the accustomed terms: 1 Case of the United States, p. 362. 2 See British Appendix, vol. i, p. 133. CONSULATE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SIR: This morning a steamer anchored in this port bearing the flag adopted by those who are involved in the rebellion against the Government of the United States of America, and I am informed that the said vessel is the Florida, which is engaged in capturing vessels navigating under the flag of the United States of America, and in destroying them by making bonfires of them and their cargoes. The vessel in question is not commissioned by any recognized government whatever, and her officers and crew are composed of persons of various nationalities, who are not subject to any international or civilized law, and are consequently not entitled to the privileges and immunities conceded to vessels navigating under the flag of a civilized nation. I therefore protest, in the name of the United States of America, against the admission of this vessel to free practice, by which she might be enabled to supply herself with coal, provisions, tackle, or utensils of any kind whatever, or receive on board any persons whatever; finally, against any assistance, aid, or protection which might be conceded to her in this port, or in any other belonging to this province. I likewise claim that the piratical cruiser which, in combination with the pirate Alabama, violated the sovereignty of the imperial government of Brazil by capturing and destroying vessels belonging to citizens of the United States of America, within the territorial waters of Brazil, near the island of Fernando de Noronha, in April, 1863, be detained, with all her officers and crew, in order to answer for so flagrant a violation of the sovereignty of the government of Brazil and of the rights of citizens of the United States within the jurisdiction of the Brazilian government. I avail, &c., His Excellency ANTONIO JOAQUIM DA SILVA GOMEZ, The president replies: THOMAS F. WILSON, Consul of the United States. President of the Province of Bahia. In reply to the consul, I have to inform him that, as the said vessel belongs to the Confederate States, in whom the imperial government recognized the character of belligerents, all the assistance required by humanity may be furnished her which does in no wise constitute assistanee for warlike purposes, as laid down by international law, and does not conflict with that neutrality which this government studiously seeks to preserve, and has always preserved, in the contest between the States of North America. The undersigned cannot, therefore, admit the first portion of the claim of the consul, in the general manner in which it was presented, and particularly in relation to those articles considered as contraband of war in conformity with instructions issued on that subject by the imperial government, and according to which the said vessel will only be permitted to remain in this port for the length of time absolutely indispensable. In regard to the second part of his note, it is my duty to observe to the consul that, even if it were fully established that the Florida had previously violated neutrality, such a proceeding would scarcely authorize us to refuse her permission to enter the ports of the empire, and would never warrant us to commit the acts required by the consul, which would be equivalent to a hostile rupture, without the intervention of the supreme government of the State, which is one competent to authorize such a rup ture.2 Before daybreak on the morning of the 7th the Florida was surprised in the port of Bahia and taken by the United States war-steamer Wachusett and carried off as a prize. She sank shortly after her arrival in Chesapeake Bay, in consequence, as was asserted, of her having sprung a leak during her voyage, and of her having been injured while at anchor by a United States transport. Mr. Seward appears at first to have been disposed to think that the Brazilian government, in "furnishing of shelter and a haven to pirates," was as much to blame as the captain of the Wachusett, as we find him, on hearing what had occurred, writing thus to Mr. Webb: DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, November 11, 1864. SIR: In the years 1862 and 1863 remonstrances were addressed by us to the government of Brazil against the policy, different as it was from that of all other American |