Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

British officers, who afterwards surveyed the Florida at Bermuda in June, 1864, and which will be set out hereafter, her capacity for carrying coal was limited to 130 tons. Demeritt, it is true, says, 66 we placed some on deck, and in every place that would hold it; " but a vessel of war would not be likely to incumber her decks with very much coal; nor in such a vessel would there be many places in which coal could be stowed, except those expressly appropriated to the purpose. RearAdmiral Wilkes, writing to Governor Walker at Barbados on the 6th of March following, says that the Florida had "obtained a full supply (160 tons) at Nassau;" but gives no other authority than the public prints. But even if Demeritt's statement as to the quantity having been 180 tons could be taken as true, it would fail to bear out the assertion of a three months' supply. For it is stated in the United States case that the Florida "generally sailed under canvas, and that, when using steam in the pursuit and capture of vessels, her consumption of coal, as shown by her log-book, did not average 4 tons a day." Now, at the rate of 4 tons a day, a supply for three months, or ninety days, would have amounted to 360 tons, i. e., just double the amount which, according to Demeritt's statement, she actually took in.

But the best proof of the incorrectness of the assertion is to be found in what follows in the American Case :3

The Florida left the port of Nassau on the afternoon of the 27th of January, 1863. By the middle of the following month her coal was getting low. On the 26th day of February, Admiral Wilkes, in command of the United States squadron in the West Indies, wrote to his Government thus: "The fact of the Florida having but a few days' coal makes me anxious to have our vessels off Martinique, which is the only island at which they can hope to get any coal or supplies, the English islands being cut off, under the rules of Her Majesty's government, for some sixty days yet, which precludes the possibility, unless by chicanery or fraud, of the hope of any coal or comfort there." Admiral Wilkes's hopes were destined to disappointment. On the 24th of February, two days before the date of his dispatch, the Florida had been in the harbor of Barbados, and had taken on board about 100 tons of coal in violation of the instructions of January 31, 1862.

How, if the Florida took with her from Nassau a provision of coal sufficient for three months, or even 180 tons, as stated by Demeritt, her coal could have been getting low in a fortnight's time, even though she had been obliged to consume a greater quantity than usual, owing to bad weather-or how far, having taken in such a quantity, she could by the 24th of February have been able to take in 100 tons more—her capacity being limited to 130 tons-it is for those who make these apparently inconsistent statements to explain. For my part, I must decline to give credit to them.

We may then, I think, safely assume that the Florida took away with her from Nassau little more coal, if any, than what her capacity enabled her ordinarily to carry. At the same time, it must be admitted that, reference being had to the regulations of the 31st of January, this quantity was in excess of what would have sufficed to take her to the nearest port of the Southern States. But up to this time, there being, owing to the blockade of the southern ports, no port of their own country to which the confederate cruisers could resort, and these vessels being consequently compelled to remain at sea, the colonial gov ernors appear to have relaxed somewhat of the rigor of the rule; a line of conduct, however, which was soon after changed by reason of what occurred on the occasion of the visit of this same vessel to Barbados in the ensuing month, to the facts of which I am about to refer.

[blocks in formation]

The Florida arrived at Barbados on the 24th of February. Her commander stated to the governor that, unless he was alAt Barbados. lowed to have some lumber to repair damages which he had suffered in a recent gale of wind to the northward, and some coal, as every bit he had had before had been exhausted in the same bad weather, he could not go to sea, and should be obliged to land the men and strip the ship. He received permission to ship 90 tons of coal. No complaint is made as to the quantity thus allowed; but it is alleged that a supply of coal having been granted within a month previous, the further allowance thus accorded was in contravention of the regulations of January 31, 1862. And this, no doubt, strictly speaking, is true; and it is admitted by Governor Walker that, though he had not received official information that the Florida had received the supply at Nassau, yet the fact had transpired and was not unknown to him. But it appears that the view he took was that the rule laid down was not applicable to a case of distress, and the case was dealt with by him as the earlier case of the Federal ship San Jacinto had been; both vessels having been, to use Governor Walker's own expression, "dealt with specially as being in distress," and therefore, "without reference to the circumstance of having been in British ports within the previous three months."

I trust we are not called upon to doubt the word of Governor Walker that, in granting liberty to the Florida to take in a fresh supply of coal, he believed himself to be following a precedent set by himself in the case of the San Jacinto. It has, however, since been discovered, though only as lately as last year, by reference to the papers of the Navy De partment of the United States, that it was a mistake to suppose that the San Jacinto when, on the 13th of November, 1862, (the occasion to which Sir James Walker had referred,) she took in a supply of 75 tons of coal at Barbados, had had a supply from a British port within three months before. That the governor believed she had done so must be taken as undoubted. He referred to the fact at the time, in his conversation with Admiral Wilkes, as the precedent which he had followed with reference to the Florida. How the mistake arose admits of easy The Florida at Solution. It appears from a letter of Mr. Robeson to Mr. Barbadoes. Secretary Fish, that on the 1st of November, 1862, the San Jacinto "came to anchor in Grassy Bay, off Bermuda, and there remained till the morning of the 4th, having been in port sixty-three hours twenty-seven minutes." It appears from return of the United States men-of-war that visited Bermuda during the civil war (set out at page 226 of volume V of the Appendix to the British Case,) that the Sau Jacinto and another United States ship of war, the Mohican, entered Grassy Bay together on the 1st November, and that the latter was allowed to repair damages, and, as not being on a belligerent errand, to take in 100 tons of coal.3 The fact of the two vessels having put into Bermuda together, and of the one having coaled during their stay, a fact which must have come to the governor's knowledge, would easily account for any confusion which might have arisen as to which of them it was that had coaled on that occasion.

The coaling of the Florida at Barbados gave rise to a more rigorous application of the rules contained in the regulations of January, 1862. The American admiral, Wilkes, who, as we know from his letter of the 26th of February, had been lying in wait for the Florida off Marti

British Appendix, vol. i, p. 92.

2 United States Documents, vol. vi, p. 345.
3 British Appendix, vol. v, p. 266.

nique, no sooner heard of her having put into and coaled at Barbados, than he sought a personal explanation from Governor Walker. The governor explained the principle on which he had acted, and referred to the coaling of the San Jacinto as a precedent directly in point. He failed, however to appease the anger of the admiral, who, having returned to his ship, addressed to the governor an offensive letter of remonstrance, or rather of reproach, with a demand of explanation, a proceeding wholly unprecedented and irregular, it being altogether beyond the authority of an officer of the United States Navy to address a letter of remonstrance to the Queen's representative in the person of the governor of one of her colonies, in respect of acts done in the execution of his duty, such representative being responsible to Her Majesty alone, and any alleged misconduct on his part being matter for discussion between the two governments.

Governor Walker, of course, declined to furnish any explanation in answer to such a demand, and transmitted Admiral Wilkes's letter to the Duke of Newcastle, then secretary of state for the colonies, with a simple statement of the facts.

Both these letters were submitted to the law-officers of the Crown, to report whether there had been any breach of Her Majesty's regulations. The law-officers reported as follows:

We are of opinion that his excellency the governor of the Windward Islands does not appear to have been guilty of showing any undue partiality to the Oreto, or to have committed any literal breach of Her Majesty's regulations. We would take the liberty of observing further, that his excellency owes no account to Admiral Wilkes of his conduct in the matter of his discharge of his duties toward Her Majesty; and that the very offensive tone and language of that officer's letter ought to apprise his excellency of the inexpediency of long personal interviews and explanations with him. It is manifest that upon this, as upon other occasions, these interviews and explanations are made the pretext for writing subsequent letters of this description, intended to be used hereafter very disingenuously, as proof of charges made at the time of the favor shown by Her Majesty's officers to the Confederate States.

We feel ourselves called upon, while giving to Governor Walker full credit for honest and impartial conduct, to add that, in our opinion, the letter and spirit of Her Majesty's regulations (quoted in Rear-Admiral Wilkes's dispatch of the 6th March, 1863) have not been adhered to with sufficient strictness in either of the cases mentioned, that of the San Jacinto or that of the Oreto. The limits of the supply of coal, in particular, prescribed by that regulation, ought to be observed, both as to the quantity of coal to be supplied in the first instance, and as to the interval of time which, in the absence of special permission," (a permission not contemplated except under "special" circumstances of a kind different, in our opinion, from those which occurred in the two cases in question,) ought to elapse between two successive supplies of coal from British ports.

(Signed)

WM. ATHERTON.

ROUNDELL PALMER.
ROBERT PHILLIMORE.1

It will be observed that this opinion bears the signature of Sir Robert Phillimore, who, as we know, is held up to us, and deservedly so, in the argument of the United States for our guidance, as a great authority. From this time forward to the end of the war Sir Robert Phillimore filled the high office of Queen's advocate, and must share the responsibility of many things which are made matter of complaint on the part of the United States.

In the mean time Mr. Secretary Seward having transmitted to Lord Lyons Admiral Wilkes's letter to Governor Walker, Lord Lyons, in forwarding it to Earl Russell, accompanied it with the following very pertinent and sound advice:

I have always been myself of opinion, that the course best calenlated to avoid unpleasant disenssions with this Government, is to adhere as closely as possible to the

1 British Appendix, Ibid., vol. i, p. 96.

regulations. A departure from them, even in favor of the United States cruisers, is likely (as indeed happened at Bermuda) to lead to misunderstandings respecting the nature and extent of the concession intended, and to demands for similar concessions ou other occasions; while the displeasure occasioned here by any favor granted to a confederate ship is in no degree diminished by proof that a similar favor had been previously granted to a United States ship.1

The colonial secretary appears to have deemed the report of the lawofficers too general and too deficient in precision to afford a sufficient guide to the governors of colonies in the great difficulty of their position between the belligerent parties-a difficulty which will be the better appreciated from his grace's observations and the questions put to the law-officers to enable him to give instructions to the governors for their future guidance. His under-secretary, Mr. Elliot, writes:

With regard to the law-officers' opinion that the governor did not adhere to Her Majesty's regulations with sufficient strictness, either in the case of the Oreto or in that of the San Jacinto, his grace observes that the law-officers have not afforded any such specification of the governor's errors as might be a guide to him in future. They say that the limits of the supply of coal prescribed by the regulation should be adhered to. But they do not say on what grounds they come to the conclusion that it has been exceeded. The supply is to be limited to such as will enable the ship to reach the nearest of its own ports, or any nearer destination. The supply to the Oreto was 90 tons. The papers do not show (though possibly the law-officers may be aware from other sources) what was the supply to the San Jacinto. The question, therefore, arising upon these papers is, whether 90 tons is more than would be required by such a vessel as the Oreto to reach the nearest confederate port, or any nearer destination. It would be very desirable to explain to Governor Walker for what destination (supposing all confederate ports to be under blockade) the Oreto or any other confederate ship under similar circumstances should be allowed to take in coal.

On the next point of alleged insufficient strictness, his grace is disposed, to a certain extent, to agree with the law-officers. The regulation requires that "no coal shall be again supplied to any such ship of war, or privateer, in the same or any other port, roadstead, or waters, subject to the territorial jurisdiction of Her Majesty, without special permission, until after the expiration of three months from the time when such coal may have been last supplied to her within British waters, as aforesaid.”

The Oreto appears to have coaled at Nassau within three months, and, indeed, within thirty days of her arrival at Barbados; and though the American consul's vehement remonstrance of the 24th February against her being allowed to coal did not touch the point, and the governor had no official information of the fact, he does not deny that the fact had transpired and was known to him; but states that the supply of coal was allowed on the ground of the ship having suffered at sea in a gale of wind, had been obliged to exhaust her coal, the whole of which was gone; so that, if supplies were refused, the captain said he would be obliged to land his men, and strip the ship. The statement of the captain of the San Jacinto was of a like tenor. The first question seems to be, whether the governor ought to have instituted an inquiry into the truth of the statements made to him by the captains of the Oreto and San Jacinto. It appears to his grace that he ought. It is, no doubt, very desirable to avoid resting decisions, of which the impartiality is sure to be questioned, upon the results of inquiries in which more or less doubiful and conflicting testimony has to be weighed. But, in the case of an allegation that a vessel is destitute of coal, all that seems neces sary is to send an officer on board to see whether there is coal there or not. Perhaps, if the governor were to refuse to take the word of an American admiral for such a fact, and were to send an officer on board to verify it, the admiral would regard the proceeding as offensive; but, nevertheless, his grace thinks that he should be required to submit to it before he should be allowed to coal out of time, unless he be prepared to consent to the word of a confederate officer being taken in like manner withont inquiry.

But, supposing the governor to have erred in these cases, it is not explained in the report of the law-officers whether it is of this, or of what other errors, he has been guilty, so as to help him to avoid a repetition of error. For example, supposing it had been the fact duly ascertained, that the Oreto or San Jacinto had suffered severely in a gale of wind, had exhausted all her coal, and was disabled from proceeding to sea muless supplied, was the governor to have forbidden her to coal on the ground that she had coiled at some British port within thirty days?

On the other hand, did his only error consist in his having allowed her to coal without verifying the fact of her distress?

Again, assuming the fact to be that there is, or may be hereafter, no confederate port unblockaded, and that the real destination of a confederate vessel asking for supphes

1 British Appendix, vol. i, p. 97.

is a cruising destination, so that she is not bound for any particular port, is this to deprive her of the supplies which would be granted to a Federal cruiser in all respects similarly circumstanced, except that in her case a port can be designated which is in the possession of her government, by the distance of which from the British colony a standard is afforded for measuring the quantity of coal to be supplied?

His grace would be glad to be enabled to send out in structions to Governor Walker, founded upon the opinions of the law-offieers, so far as they shall appear to have fully and correctly understood the course taken by the governor, together with any further instructions which would serve for the governor's guidance on the points adverted to, and on the nature of the cases (if not those alleged by the Nassau. Oreto and San Jacininto) which "special permission" is to be given to take in coals.

The Florida at

His grace desires me to observe that Governor Walker, by adopting the course of sending immediate notice to all the other governors in the West Indies of a belligerent vessel having obtained coals and supplies at Barbados, appears to have taken a very useful precaution against the violation of the regulations, and that it would apparently be expedient to instruct the other governors to do likewise.

To these questions the law-officers answered:

That with respect to the observance of Her Majesty's regulations, in answer to the questions of the Duke of Newcastle, it is most desirable that the terms of Her Majesty's proclamation should be strictly adhered to; that coal ought not to be supplied to either belligerent, except in such quantity as may be necessary to "carry such vessel to the nearest port of her own country, or to some nearer destination ;" and that by these latter words it is not intended to include a mere cruising destination, but some definite port or place. That, therefore, coal granted at any of Her Majesty's ports, and consumed in cruising, ought not to be replenished under the terms of the proclamation; but that a vessel whose coal has, owing to real necessities arising from stress of weather, been prematurely exhausted, before she could (if time and weather were the only obstacles) reach her port of destination, ought not to be forbidden by the governor to coal, although within the time specified in the regulations.

It would appear to us that the suggestion of sending an officer on board to verify in each case the necessity of coaling, would be likely to give great offense to belligerent men-of-war; but of course it would be competent to Her Majesty's government, if they thought fit, to make such a verification the condition of liberty to coal in Her Majesty's ports.

(Signed)

WM. ATHERTON.

ROUNDELL PALMER.
ROBERT PHILLIMORE.

Hereupon the following dispatch of the 16th July, 1863, was addressed to Governor Walker:

DOWNING STREET, July 16, 1863.

SIR: I have received and had under my consideration your dispatch of the 7th March, giving an account of certain communications which have passed between yourself and Rear-Admiral Wilkes, of the United States Navy.

You were quite right in refusing to enter into correspondence with that officer upon the matter adverted to in his dispatch of the 5th March. On this and other occasions it has become evident that interviews and explanations such as you accorded to RearAdmiral Wilkes were made the pretext for placing on record charges more or less direct against officers of Her Majesty. And I think that, as the governor of one of Her Majesty's colonies owes no explanation of his conduct to an officer of the United States Navy, it will be prudent hereafter to avoid such explanations as far as the rules of courtesy will allow. It is the wish of Her Majesty's government that matters of complaint should in general be discussed between the two governments concerned rather than between any subordinate officers.

With regard to the issue of coal to the war-vessels of the belligerents, you have, I think, allowed yourself too much liberty in giving the " special permission" to take in fuel contemplated in Her Majesty's proclamation. Coal, in the opinion of Her Majesty's government, ought not to be supplied to a vessel of war of either belligerent except in such quantity as may be necessary to carry such vessel to the nearest port of her own country, (or, of course, any nearer port,) and this, I will add, without reference to the question whether the ports of that country are or are not under blockade. In case of such blockade it will rest with the officer in command to seek some more convenient destination. If, within the period prescribed by the proclamation, a vessel thus furnished with coal in one of Her Majesty's possessions should apply for a second

1 British Appendix, vol. i, p. 98.
Ibid., p. 100.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »