Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

destination of the Japan were so notorious as to be the subject of newspaper comment. No time, therefore, was required for that investigation. It could have been very little trouble to ascertain the facts as to the Alar. The answer to a telegram could have been obtained in a few minutes. Men-of-war might have been dispatched on the 8th from Portsmouth and Plymouth, to seize both these violators of British sovereignty. In doing this Her Majesty's Government need only have exercised the same powers which were used against General Saldanha's expedition, arrested at Terceira in 1827, and whose use in that case was sustained by a vote of both Houses of Parliament. The island of Alderney and the other Channel islands were on the route to St. Malo and

Brest, and it is not at all probable, scarcely possible, that the [399] Alar and the Georgia *would not have been discovered.

The

purposes of the latter vessel, thus taken flagrante delicto, would then have been exposed.

This was not done. Instead of directing action to be taken by the Navy, Lord Russell caused inquiries to be made by the Home Office and the Treasury, and the Georgia escaped.

On the 1st of December, 1863, Mr. Adams called Lord Russell's attention to the fact of "the existence of a regular office in the port of Liverpool for the enlistment and payment of British subjects, for the purpose of carrying on war against the Government and people of the United States;" and he expressed the hope that "the extraordinary character of these proceedings, as well as the hazardous consequence to the future peace of all nations of permitting them to gain any authority under the international law, will not fail to fix the attention of Her Majesty's Government.' The depositions inclosed in this communication furnished conclusive proof that the members of the firm of Jones & Co. were still engaged at Liverpool in procuring and shipping men for the Georgia, and that the payments of the wages of the crew of that vessel

[ocr errors]

were regularly made through the same firm. It was also proved [400] that Jones had *superintended the shipping of the armament of

the Georgia off Brest; that he had been standing by the side of Maury when he assumed command, and that he had told the men, as an inducement to them to remain, that "of course they would get the prize money."'5

On the 11th of January, 1864, Mr. Adams inclosed to Lord Russell copies of papers which he maintained went "most clearly to establish the proof of the agency of Messrs. Jones & Co. in enlisting and paying British subjects in this Kingdom to carry on war against the United States." Proceedings were taked against Jones & Highatt, as has already been shown. They were convicted, and were fined but fifty pounds each-manifestly a punishment not calculated to deter them from a repetition of the offense."

1 Vol. II, page 668.

"Hansard, new series, Vols. XXIII and XXIV; Annual Register, History, &c., A. D. 1829, Vol. LXXII, page 187.

3 Vol. II, page 682; Vol. VI, page 519.

4 Vol, II, pages 683, 684, 686, 689, &c.

5 Stanley's affidavit, Vol. II, page 684; Vol. VI, page 522. See also Charles Thompson's affidavit, Vol. III, page 87.

6 Vol. II, page 698; Vol. VI, page 534.

"Five prosecutions were instituted at different times against persons charged with having enlisted or engaged men for the naval service of the Confederate States. Of these, three were successful. Five of the accused were convicted or pleaded guilty. No prosecution appears to have been instituted against Bullock himself." (Bernard's Neutrality, pages 361-2.) This is a terribly small record, considering the magnitude of the offenses committed, and considering the zeal shown in repressing en

*

*

*

After all this information was before Lord Russell, the Geor- [401] gia, on the 1st day of May, 1864, reappeared in the port of Liv erpool. During her absence she had been busy in destroying such of the commerce of the United States in the Atlantic as had escaped the depredations of the Florida and the Alabama. She had been to the Western Islands, and from thence to the Brazilian port of Bahia. From thence she went to the Cape of Good Hope. On the way she fell in with the Constitution, a merchant-vessel of the United States, laden with coal. "We filled our vessel with coal from her," says one of the witnesses. In a few days after that she entered Simon's Bay, Cape of Good Hope. There she staid a fortnight, having repairs done and getting more coal. She left Simon's Bay on the 29th of August. It is not probable that the supply from the Constitution was exhausted at that time. She then worked her way to Cherbourg, and in a short time after came again into the port of Liverpool. Her career and character were rapidly but forcibly sketched by Thomas Baring, Esq., in a speech in the House of Commons on the 13th of May, 1864. He said: “At the time of her departure the Georgia was registered as the property of a Liverpool merchant, a partner of the firm which shipped the crew. She remained the property of *this person until the 23d of June, when the register [402] was canceled, he notifying the Collector of her sale to foreign owners. During this period, namely, from the 1st of April to the 23d of June, the Georgia being still registered in the name of a Liverpool merchant, and thus his property, was carrying on war against the United States, with whom we were in alliance. It was while still a British vessel that she captured and burned the Dictator, and captured and released, under bond, the Griswold, the same vessel which had brought corn to the Lancashire sufferers. The crew of the Georgia were paid through the same Liverpool firm. A copy of an advance note used is to be found in the Diplomatic Correspondence. The same firm continued to act in this capacity throughout the cruise of the Georgia. After cruising in the Atlantic, and burning and bonding a number of vessels, the Georgia made for Cherbourg, where she arrived on the 28th of Octoter. There was, at the time, much discontent among the crew; many deserted, leave of absence was given to others, and their wages were paid all along by the same Liverpool firm. In order to get the Georgia to sea again, the Liverpool firm enlisted in Liverpool some twenty sea. men, and sent them to Brest. The Georgia left Cherbourg on a second cruise, but having no success she returned to that *port, [403] and thence to Liverpool, where her crew have been paid off without any concealment, and the vessel is now laid up. Here, then, is the case of a vessel, clandestinely built, fraudulently leaving the port of her construction, taking Englishmen on board as her crew, and waging war against the United States, an ally of ours, without once having entered a port of the power the commission of which she bears, but being, for some time, the property of an English subject. She has now returned to Liverpool-and has returned, I am told, with a British crew on board, who, having enlisted in war against an ally of ours, have committed a misdemeanor in the sight of the law.""

The Attorney General, Sir Roundell Palmer, replied on behalf of the

[ocr errors]

listments for the service of the United States. (See Vol. IV, page 547, and Vol. IV, page 540.) It is to be observed, too, that Mr. Adams furnished Lord Russell with evidence to sustain a prosecution against Bullock. (Mr. Adams to Earl Russell, March 30, 1863, Vol, III, page 130.)

1 See the affidavits in Vol. II, page 684, et seq.

2 Hansard, third series, Vol. 175, page 467; Vol. V, page 577.

Government to this speech. He did not seriously dispute the facts as stated by Mr. Baring. "The whole of the honorable gentleman's argument," he said, "assumes that the facts, and the law applicable to the facts, are substantiated, that we are in a position, as between ourselves and the Confederates, to treat the matter as beyond controversy, and to assume that the Georgia was, in fact, fitted out in violation of our neutrality. Now we may have very strong reason to suspect this, and [404] may even believe it to be true; but to say that we are to act upon strong suspicion or belief against another state, upon certain facts which have never been judicially established, and which it is not easy to bring to the test as between Government and Government, that is a proposition which is not without grave consideration to be accepted." He found a defense for the irresolution and inactivity of the Government, in the fact that the United States were unwilling to abandon their claims for compensation for the losses by the acts of the Alabama. "I have no hesitation," he said, "in saying that the United, States by advancing such demands, and by seeking to make our Government responsible for pecuniary compensation for prizes taken by the Alabama upon the high seas, and never brought within our ports or in any way whatever under our control, are making demands directly contrary to the principles of International Law laid down by their own jurists, and thereby they render it infinitely more difficult for us at their request to do anything resting on our own discretion." 2

1

When it was apparent that the Georgia was to be allowed to remain in Liverpool, and that she was not to be made subject to the rules of January 31, 1862, Mr. Adams addressed a note to Lord Russell [405] in which he said: "I learn that she is *about to remain for an

indefinite period, the men having been discharged. I scarcely need to suggest to your Lordship that it has become a matter of interest to my Government to learn whether this vessel assumes the right to remain in virtue of her former character, or, if received in a later one, why she is permitted to overstay the period of time specified by the terms of Her Majesty's Proclamation. * I cannot but infer, from the course previously adopted toward the armed vessels of the United States, that any such proceeding, if taken by one of them, would have been attended by an early request from your Lordship to myself for an explanation." 3

**

Having received no answer to these questions, Mr. Adams, on the 7th of June, 1864, informed Lord Russell that he had received from the Consul of the United States, at Liverpool, information that a transfer purporting to be a sale had been made of the Georgia by the insurgents or their agents at Liverpool, and on behalf of the Government of the United States he "declined to recognize the validity of the sale.” 4 While Mr. Adams was vainly endeavoring to ascertain from Lord Russell whether the Georgia entered the port of Liverpool as a [406] merchant-ship *or as a man-of-war, that vessel went into dock at Birkenhead and had her bottom cleaned and her engines overhauled. The insurgent agents went through the form of selling her to a person who was supposed to be in collusion with them. All this was communicated to Earl Russell by Mr. Adams. Lord Russell, in his

5

6

1 Hansard, 3d series, Vol. CLXXV, pages 484–5.

2 Same, page 488.

3 Vol. II, page 703; Vol. VI, page 538.

4 Vol. II, page 710; Vol. VI, page 543.

5 Wilding to Seward, Vol. II, page 711; Vol. VI, page 543.

6 Vol. II, page 713; Vol. VI, page 545.

S. Ex. 31—————11

[ocr errors]

reply to these notes, took no notice of Mr. Adams's protest against the validity of the sale, or of his inquiries as to the character the vessel enjoyed in the port of Liverpool. He said that the evidence failed to satisfy him that the steamer Georgia would be again used for belligerent purposes; and he added that, "with a view to prevent the recurrence of any question such as that which has arisen in the case of the Georgia, Her Majesty's Government have given directions that in future no ship of war, of either belligerent, shall be allowed to be brought into any of Her Majesty's ports for the purpose of being dismantled or sold."1

This terminated the discussion on the questions raised by Mr. Adams. A few days later, the career of the Georgia itself was terminated by its capture by the United States vessel of war Niagara.

The United States ask the Tribunal of Arbitration to also certify as to this vessel, that Great Brit*ain has, by its acts and [407] omissions, failed to fulfill the duties set forth in the three rules of the sixth article of the Treaty, or recognized by the principles of International Law not inconsistent with such rules. Should the Tribunal exercise the power conferred upon it by Article VII of the Treaty, to 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 and of individuals, and the expense to which the United States were put in the pursuit and capture of the Georgia, may be taken into account. They ask this, in addition to the general reasons already assigned, for the following reasons applicable to this particular vessel:

1. That, though nominally cruising under the insurgent flag, and under the direction of an insurgent officer, the Georgia was essentially a British vessel. The evidence on this point cannot be better stated than in the words to which Mr. Thomas Baring gave the great weight of his name in the House of Commons. When she returned to Liverpool, in May, 1864, she was received as a British vessel. Mr. Adams's inquiries of Earl Russell failed to elicit a response that she was not. No steps were taken against her or against the parties concerned in fitting her out, equipping and arming her, or against any one concerned in the destruction of the *commerce of the United States, with the [408] exception of the proceedings as to enlistments. The United States insist that by reason of the origin and history of the vessel, and by reason of this negligence of Her Majesty's Government, Great Britain became justly liable to the United States for the injuries done by this vessel.

2. Great Britain did not use due diligence to prevent the fitting out and equipping of the Georgia within its jurisdiction. It was notorious that she was being constructed for use under the insurgent flag. (See the extract from the News, and Underwood's dispatch.) Her fittings were of such a nature and character as to have afforded of themselves a reasonable ground to believe that she was intended to cruise or to carry on war; and her destination rendered it certain that that war was to be carried on against the United States. It was therefore the duty of Great Britain to prevent her departure from the Clyde.

3. It was the duty of Her Majesty's Government, on the receipt of Mr. Adams's note of the 8th of April, to take the most effectual measures which the law admitted of for defeating the attempt to fit out the Georgia from a British port. Lord Russell admitted this measure of duty in his reply to Mr. Adams's note. The most effectual, and in fact the only effectual remedy, was not *taken, so far as known to the United States. [409]

1 Earl Russell to Mr. Adams, Vol. II, page 719; Vol. VI, page 550.

Vessels of war dispatched from Plymouth and Portsmouth, immediately on the receipt of Mr. Adams's note, into the waters about Brest and the Channel Islands, would have afforded a complete remedy. This was a measure sanctioned by British precedent and by British law. [See the Terceira case, above cited.] The failure to adopt that "effectual measure," taken in connection with the original fitting out and equipping of the Georgia, in the Clyde, and with the arming her through the Alar, at Newhaven, constitute a violation of the duties of Great Britain as a neutral toward the United States, which entails upon it the obligation to make full compensation for the injuries caused by the acts of the Georgia.

4. When the Georgia arrived at Cape Town, Great Britain failed to detain her. This was a violation of the duties of a neutral as set forth in the second clause of the first rule of the Treaty of Washington.

THE TALLAHASSEE, OR THE OLUSTEE.

The Tallahassee was "a British steamer fitted out from London to play the part of a privateer out of Wilmington." She was [410] originally called the *Atlanta. Under that name she Olustee.

3

The Tallahassee or

arrived in Bermuda from England on the 18th day of April, 1864. She made two trips as a blockade-runner between there and Wilmington, and then went out for a cruise as a vessel of war. Her captures were principally made under the name of the Tallahassee. Some were made under the name of the Olustee. It is not quite clear whether she made two trips, one under each name, or whether the name was changed in one trip, in order to blind the pursuers. On the 19th of August, 1864, she arrived in Halifax, after destroying several vessels near Cape Sable. The Consul of the United States at Halifax reported her as "about six hundred tons burden," "an iron double-screw steamer," having “about one hundred and twenty men. He also said that the insurgents had established a coal depot there. On arrival, the officer in command called upon the Admiral and Lieutenant Governor. He gives the following account of what took place: "My reception by the first [the Admiral] was very cold and uncivil; that of the Governor less so. stated that I was in want of coal, and that as soon as I could fill up I

994

I

would go to sea; that it would take from two to three days. No [411] objection was made at the *time-if there had been I was pre

pared to demand forty-eight hours for repairs. The Governor asked me to call next day, and let him know how I was progressing, and when I would leave. I did so, and then was told that he was surprised that I was still in port; that we must leave at once; that we could leave the harbor with only one hundred tons of coal on board. I protested against this, as being utterly insufficient. He replied that the Admiral had reported that quantity sufficient (and in such matters he must be governed by his statement) to run the ship to Wilmington. The Admiral had obtained this information by sending on board three of his officers, ostensibly to look at our machinery and the twin-screw, a new system, but really to ascertain the quantity of coal on board, that burned daily, &c. * I am under many obligations to our agent, Mr.

*

1 Mr. Adams to Earl Russell, Vol. I, page 709: See Vol. VI, page 728.

2 Morse to Seward, Vol. VI, page 727.

3 Boreham's affidavit, Vol. VI, page 732.

4 Mr. Jackson to Mr. Seward, 19th August, 1864, Vol. VI, page 728.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »