evident character of the vessel with the captured cargo on board; of the honest indignation of Rear-Admiral Sir Baldwin Walker at the flimsy attempt to convert the prize into a cruiser; of the partiality of the Governor and the Attorney General; of the decision of Her Majesty's Government that she must be regarded as a prize and not as a cruiser; of the reluctant enforcement of the decision of the Government by the Colonial Authorities; or of the reversal of that decision by Her Majesty's Government, when they found that it had been enforced. These facts have all been sufficiently set forth. It only remains to add, that, when Her Majesty's Government had determined to send the instructions to disregard in similar cases such attempts to change the character of a prize, Earl Russell informed Mr. Adams of the fact, and added, "Her Majesty's Government hope that under these instructions nothing will for the future happen to admit of a question being raised as to Her Majesty's orders having been strictly carried out."1 Earl Russell could *not have anticipated that the first [386] and only attempt of the authorities at Cape Town to carry out those instructions would be disavowed by Her Majesty's Government, and that restoration would be ordered to the insurgents of the only vessel ever seized under them. From Cape Town the Alabama pushed into the Indian Ocean, and, "within a day or two of six months," returned again to Cape Town on the 20th of March, 1864. During her absence she had coaled at Singapore, with the consent of the authorities, at the wharf of the Peninsular and Oriental Steamship Company. 3 4 On the 21st of March the Alabaina began taking on board fresh supplies of coal in Cape Town. The last coal from a British port (and, in fact, the last supply) had been taken on board at Singapore on the 23d day of the previous December.5 The new supply was allowed to be put on board within three months from the time when the last supply was received in a British port. This was a fresh violation of the duties of Great Britain as a neutral. On the 25th of March the Alabama "got up steam and moved out of Table Bay for the last *time, amidst lusty cheers and the [387] waving of handkerchiefs from the boats by which they were surrounded." "Military and naval officers, governors, judges, superintendents of boards of trade, attorneys-general, all on their way to their missions in the far East, came to see her."" She now made her way to northern waters, and on the 11th of June, 1864, cast anchor in the harbor of Cherbourg. Her career was now finished. The United States war-steamer Kearsarge was in those waters, and on the 19th of the same June, within sight of Cherbourg, this British-built, British-armed, and British-manned cruiser went down under the fire of American guns. During her career the Alabama fitted out one tender, the Tuscaloosa. The "Conrad of Philadelphia, from Buenos Ayres to New York, with part of a cargo of wool," was captured on the 20th of June, 1863, in latitude 25° 48' south. It has already been seen that this prize was 1 Vol. III, page 203. 2 Semmes's Adventures Afloat, page 737. 3 Semmes's Adventures Afloat, page 715. 4 Semmes's Adventures Afloat, page 744. 5 This is evident from Semmes's account of his voyage on leaving Singapore, page 715, et seq. 6 Semmes's Adventures Afloat, page 744. 7 Semmes's Adventures Afloat, page 745. 8 Semmes's Adventures Afloat, page 627. taken into the port of Cape Town, under the name of the Tuscaloosa, and under pretense of a commission; and that the pretense was recognized as valid. When the Alabama left to cruise in the Indian Ocean, Semmes "dispatched this vessel from Angra Pequeña back to [388] the coast of Brazil, to *make a cruise on that coast." It has also been seen how, on her return to Cape Town, she was seized by the Governor of Cape Town, and held until the close of the struggle. The United States ask the Tribunal of Arbitration, as to the Alabama and as to her tender, to determine and to certify that Great Britain has, by its acts and by its omissions, failed to fulfill its duties set forth in the three rules of the Treaty of Washington, or recognized by the principles of law not inconsistent with such rules. Should the Tribunal exercise the power conferred upon it by Article VII of the Treaty, award a sum in gross to be paid to the United States, they ask that, in considering the amount to be awarded, the losses of the United States, or of individuals, in the destruction of their vessels or their cargoes by the Alabama, or by its tender, and also the expense to which the United States were put in the pursuit of either of those vessels, or in the capture and destruction of the Alabama, may be taken into account. In addition to the general reasons already stated, they ask this for the following reasons: 1. That the Alabama was constructed, was fitted out, and was equipped within the jurisdiction of Great Britain, with intent to [389] cruise and carry *on war against the United States, with whom Great Britain was then at peace; that Great Britain had reasonable ground to believe that such was the intent of that vessel, and did not use due diligence to prevent such construction, fitting out, or equipping. 2. That the Alabama was constructed and armed within British jurisdiction. The construction of the vessel and the construction of the arms; the dispatch of the vessel and the dispatch of the arms-all took place at one British port; and the British authorities had such ample notice that they must be assumed to have known all these facts, The whole should be regarded, therefore, as one armed hostile expedition, from a British port, against the United States. 3. That the Alabama, having been specially adapted to warlike use at Liverpool, and being thus intended to cruise and carry on war against the United States, Great Britain did not use due diligence to prevent her departure from its jurisdiction at Liverpool; nor, subsequently, from its jurisdiction at Kingston; nor, subsequently, from its jurisdiction at the Cape of Good Hope; nor, subsequently, from its jurisdiction at Singapore; nor, lastly, from its jurisdiction again at the Cape of Good Hope, as required by the rules of the Treaty of Washington. [390] *4. That Great Britain did not, as Earl Russell had promised, send out orders for her detention. 5. That the Alabama received excessive hospitalities at Cape Town on her last visit, in being allowed to coal before three months had ex pired after her coaling at Singapore, a British port. 6. That the responsibility for the acts of the Alabama carries with it responsibility for the acts of her tender. 1 Semmes's Adventures Afloat, page 738. The Retribution. THE RETRIBUTION. The steam-propeller Uncle Ben, built at Buffalo, in New York, in 1856, was sent to the southern coast of the United States just prior to the attack on Fort Sumter. Entering Cape Fear River in stress of weather, she was seized by the insurgents. Her machinery was taken out, and she was converted into a schooner, and cruised, under the name of the Retribution, about the Bahama Banks. On the 19th day of December, 1862, she captured, near the island of San Domingo, the United States schooner Hanover, and took the prize to Long Cay, (Fortune Island,) Bahamas, and there sold the cargo, "without previous judicial process." Representations being made of these facts, an answer was made by the Colonial Authorities, *claiming that they were deceived, and that they supposed that [391] the person making the sale was the master of the vessel.2 Mr. Seward replied that this answer was not "deemed altogether conclusive." Subsequently one Vernon Locke was represented as the person who had, "by fraudulent personations and representations, procured the admission of that vessel the Hanover] to entry at the Revenue Office and effected the sale of her cargo there." Locke was indicted, and bail accepted in the sum of £200. The United States are not aware that he was ever brought to trial. Mr. Seward thought the bail" prisingly small and insignificant." On the 19th of February, 1863, when off Castle Island, one of the Bahamas, she captured the American brig Emily Fisher, freighted with sugar and molasses. This prize also" was taken to Long Cay, one of the Bahama Islands, and notwithstanding the protest of Captain Staples, [the master,] and in the pres ence of a British magistrate, was despoiled of her cargo; a portion of which was landed, and the balance willfully destroyed." The Retribution then went to the harbor of Nassau, where she was sold, assuming the name of the Etta.4 sur *The United States, with confidence, ask the Tribunal to find [392] and certify as to this vessel, that Great Britain failed to fulfill the duties set forth in the three rules of Article VI of the Treaty, or recognized by the principles of International Law not inconsistent with such rules. They ask this, not only for the general reasons heretofore mentioned as to this class of vessels, but because, in the case of each of the captured vessels above named, the acts complained of were done within Her Majesty's jurisdiction. The Georgia. THE GEORGIA. The Georgia was built for the insurgents at Dumbarton, below Clyde, on the Glasgow. She was launched on the 10th day of January, 1863, at which time, as has already been said, "a Miss North, daughter of a Captain North, of one of the Confederate States, officiated as priestess, and christened the craft Virginia." It was no 1 Mr. Seward to Lord Lyons, Vol. I, page 701. 2 Burnside to Nesbitt, Vol. 1, page 702. 3 Governor Bayley to Duke of Newcastle, Vol. I, page 706. 4 Affidavit of Thomas Sampson, Vol. VI, page 736. 5 Underwood to Seward, January 16, 1863, Vol. VI, page 593. 1 torious that she was being constructed for this service. When finished she was a "screw-steamer of about five hundred tons register, clipper-built; figure-head, fiddle-bow; short thick funnel; with [393] *a number of compartments forward on both sides, from eight to ten feet square, and stronger than a jail, strong doors to them, with hinges about three inches thick, and brass padlocks accordingly, and a strong magazine forward in the bow." On Friday, the 27th of March, she left for Greenock.2 By this time she had parted with her name Virginia, and had the name Japan, "written in small letters on her bow ;" and it was pretended that her voyage was to be to China. ووه On the evening of Monday, the 30th of March, some seventy or eighty men who had been shipped at Liverpool for this vessel were sent to Greenock. The agreements with this crew were made by the house of Jones & Co., of Liverpool,3 who advanced money to them."4 The vessel was registered in the name of Thomas Bold, of Liverpool, a member of the house of Jones & Co., and a near connection of Maury, who afterward commanded her. It remained registered in his name until the 23d day of the following June.5 When the men arrived in the Clyde from Liverpool, the Japan was "lying in the river opposite Greenock, and they were taken on board in a tug. On [394] the morning of the 2d of April they ran out toward the sea, but returned in the afternoon, and remained near the light-house down the Clyde, taking on board more men and provision from Greenock. They started again, and next morning they were off Castleton, Isle of Man. Here they changed their course, and went into the Atlantic, through the northern passage, between Ireland, and Scotland. On the 6th of April they reached the coast of France. Ushant light was the first place they sighted. Here they turned their steps toward St. Malo, proceeding under slow steam, and in the morning they sighted, off Morleaux, the steamer Alar, with arms, ammunition, and supplies for the Georgia, under charge of Jones, a partner in the Liverpool house of Jones & Co.3 It happened that these proceedings were afterward made the subject of judicial investigation before Sir Alexander Cockburn, Lord Chief Justice of England. Highatt and Jones, two of the members of the firm of Jones & Co., were indicted at Liverpool, for a violation of the Foreign Enlistment Act of 1819, in causing these men to be enlisted to serve in a war against the United States. The case came on for trial [395] at the Liverpool Assizes, in *August, 1864. In his address to the jury, after the evidence was in, the Lord Chief Justice said: There was no doubt that Matthews, Stanley, and Glassbrook did enter themselves and enlist on board the steamer, which was immediately afterward employed as a war-steamer in the Confederate service, for the purpose of waging war against the Northern States of America; and there seemed to be very little doubt that both the defendants had to do with the men's leaving the port of Liverpool, for the purpose of joining the Japan, afterward called the Georgia. Now came the question, whether the defendants had procured the men to be engaged * * * 1 Extracts from London Daily News, February 12 and 17, 1863, Vol. VI, page 503, et seq. 2 Dudley to Seward, Vol. II, page 665; Vol. VI, page 509. 3 Vol. II, page 681; Vol. VI, page 516; Vol. VII, page 88. 4 Vol. II, page 672; Vol VI, page 512; Vol. VII, page 88. 5 Mr. Adams to Earl Russell, Vol. II, pages 677, 678; Vol. VII, page 88. 6 Mahon's affidavit, Vol. II, page 672; Vol. VI, page 513. 7 Thompson's affidavit, Vol. II, page 671; Vol. VI, page 511. 8 Speech of Thomas Baring, Esq., M. P., Hansard, 3d series, Vol. 175, page 467. in war against a country toward which this country was bound to maintain a strict neutrality. No doubt it was possible that the defendants might have been under a delusion that the ship was engaged for a voyage to China. It was for the jury to say whether they believed that to have been the case. If they believed the witnesses Conolly and Glassbrook, the defendant Jones could not have been of that opinion, because he was on board the small steamer which was an important agent in the transaction; and when he found out what the vessel really was, he manifested no surprise or horror. It was true that the jury had to rely on the evidence of men who had turned *traitors [396] to the people they had sworn to serve, and who had since played the spy upon the persons who, as they alleged, had engaged them. But, on the other hand, there was no attempt to show them that, on the day when these men signed articles at Brest, Mr. Jones was not on board, and if he was on board it was difficult to suppose he could have got there with the innocent intention described by the defense. It seems strange that if they were acting as agents for Mr. Bold, they did not now call upon him to come into court, and state that they were innocently employed, and perfectly unconscious. that the vessel was intended. to go on a warlike expedition. Although sometimes it was an inconvenience and a hardship that a man, charged as the defendants were, could not be called to give his own evidence, sometimes it was a vast convenience to persons accused that they could not be called, because if they were, they would be constrained to admit, unless they committed perjury, that the truth was on the other side."1 The Alar, with her cargo, had cleared at Newhaven for St. Malo. When the two vessels met, the Georgia took the Alar in tow, and they floated about on those waters during the whole day. At night they came to anchor, probably off the island *of Ushant, and the [397] Georgia commenced taking in arms and ammunition and supplies. Three days passed in this way. There were nine breech-loading guns to be mounted on decks, and "guns, shot, shells, rockets, ammunition, rifles, cutlasses, and all sorts of implements of war."" All were put on board before Friday, the 10th of April; the insurgents' flag was then hoisted; Maury, the insurgent officer destined for the command, produced his commission; the Japan was changed into the Georgia; fifteen sailors who refused to cruise in her were transferred to the Alar, and the Georgia continued her cruise. On the 8th of April Mr. Adams called Earl Russell's attention to the departure from the Clyde and Newhaven of this hostile expedition, “with intent to depredate on the commerce of the United States," and he stated his belief that the destination of the vessel was the island of Alderney. Earl Russell replied, on the same day, that copies of his letter "were sent, without loss of time, to the Home Department and to the Board of Treasury, with a request that an immediate iuquiry might be made into the circumstances stated in it, and that if the result should prove the suspicions to be well founded, the most effective measures [398] might be *taken which the law admits of for defeating any such attempts to fit out a belligerent vessel from a British port." Had Her Majesty's Government taken the measures which Earl Russell suggested, it is probable that the complaints of the United States, as to this vessel, might not have been necessary. The sailing and the 1 Vol. VI, page 567. 2 Vol. II, page 671; Vol. VI, page 511. |