2. On the day of her arrival, one of her officers (all of whom seem to have been in the naval service of the United States) called upon me, sending in his card, with the words written under his name, "Lieutenant, Confederate States Navy." Before receiving him, I directed my private secretary to inquire of him whether my doing so, after reading these words, would be construed into any sort of recognition of him or his ship in their assumed character. I did this in consequence of the injunction in your grace's dispatch "on no account to recognize" any ship "in any other capacity than that of a United States vessel." Mr. Evans, for such was this officer's name, replied that he was sent by his commanding officer, Captain Semmes, who was himself unwell, simply to pay his respects, and that to prevent any such construction he would withdraw his card and only send in his name verbally. I then received him, and had some conversation with him, taking occasion to refer expressly to the neutral position occupied by Great Britain in regard to the two belligerent parties in North America.1

It seems pretty plain that the presence of the Sumter was by no means agreeable, for Governor Keate adds:

The avowed and principal object, no doubt, with which the Sumter ran to this port was to obtain coals and provisions. A great deal of trade goes on between Trinidad and the northern ports of North America, and Captain Semmes, I imagine, has not failed to take this opportunity of obtaining information with regard to the vessels employed under the flag of the United States in this traffic. Fears are entertained with regard to one or two now expected. It is to be hoped that the presence of the Sumter in these waters will soon be made generally known, and that, while the civil war continues, the lumber and provision trade, any interruption of which would cause serious embarrassment to this community, will be carried on in British bottoms. I have communicated with Admiral Sir Alexander Milne, now, I believe, at Halifax, on the subject, and since the arrival of the Sumter, Her Majesty's ship Cadmus has come into the harbor, and her commander, Captain Hillyer, has verified the character of the Sumter, and the commissions of her officers, and recognized her as a man-of-war. 1

It appears from these letters that the governor, beyond recognizing the Sumter as a belligerent, as he was bound to do, acted with the utmost caution as to recognizing her nationality; that the production of Captain Semmes's commission was insisted on before any accommodation was afforded; that the supplies which the ship obtained, beyond provisions, were confined to a new main-yard and 80 tons of coal; that even this was not conceded before the advice of the attorney-general of the colony had been taken; that the ship came into port on the 30th of July, and left on the 5th of August; a period of about six days.

We are now able to estimate the correctness of Mr. Bernard's opinion as to the amicable terms on which the officers of the British war-vessel were with those of the Sumter. Their intercourse appears to have been purely of an official character.

It is important to observe that what thus took place at Trinidad occurred in August 1861, several months before the issuing of the regulations restricting the stay of belligerent vessels and the supplies to be obtained in British ports, and when the matter stood simply on the principles of international law.

The Sumter, in her short career of six months, put in and obtained supplies of coal, as has been stated, at ports of four different nations, Spain, Holland, the Brazils, and France.

It may be interesting to see how the governors of these ports understood and acted upon the principles of neutrality which they were bound to observe.

Before arriving at Trinidad the Sumter, as has been stated, put into. the port of Cienfuegos.

It appears from the remonstrance of the United States consul to the captain-general of the Havana that she arrived there on the 7th July and took in coal; from the journal of Captain Semmes we learn that the quantity was 100 tons.3

3 British Appendix, vol. vi, pp. 101, 105; Semmes's "Adventures Afloat," p. 145.

It appears from a dispatch of Mr. Secretary Seward to the United States minister at the Hague, of the 15th August, that the Sumter arrived at St. Ann's, Curaçoa, on the 17th July, and that she there received 120 tons of coal. It appears from Captain Semmes's journal and from a letter of the United States minister at the Hague of October 8, 1861, that she remained there six or seven days.1

After her stay at Trinidad we next find her at the Dutch port of Paramaribo. She arrived, as appears from a letter of the United States consul at that port to the United States minister at the Hague, on the 19th August, and left on the 31st, making a period of twelve days, having been allowed to coal and refit. The quantity of coal is stated, in a letter of the 15th October, from the Netherlands minister for foreign affairs to the United States minister, to have been, as he terms it, "the very restricted quantity of 125 tons-at the most, sufficient for four days progress.3

The vessel next arrived at the Brazilian port of Maranham. It ap pears from a letter from the United States consul at that port to Mr. Seward, of the 15th September, 1861, that she arrived at Maranham on the 6th and remained there nine days, and obtained 100 tons of coal, having already 150 tons on board, "which," he adds, "would make an ample supply for ten or fifteen days of constant running." Other supplies she was allowed to procure ad libitum, and when she left her commander stated that she had enough to last for three months.*

She appears to have arrived at Martinique on the 9th of November. She remained there fourteen days. Permission was given by the gov ernment to take on board as much coal as her commander required. He took sufficient to enable him to cross the Atlantic.5

The ship arrived at Cadiz on the 4th January, 1862, as appears from a dispatch of the United States minister to Mr. Seward of the 8th of that month. As she needed repairs, her commander requested the use of the government dock for that purpose. The request was granted, though with the limitation to such repairs as were strictly necessary. She remained at Cadiz thirteen days."

It thus appears that in every instance on which the Sumter had occasion to coal she was allowed to take in a considerably larger quantity than she took at Trinidad, and that on every one of such visits, with the exception of the one to Cienfuegos, she remained a greater number of days than in the British ports.

On the receipt of Governor Keate's dispatch, this being the first time such a thing as the arrival of a confederate ship of war at a British port had occurred, the secretary of state for the colonies required the opinion of the law-officers of the Crown "as to the propriety of the course pursued by the governor and the commander of Her Majesty's ship Cadmus ;" and also "as to whether vessels of war or privateers belong. ing either to the United States or to the so-styled Confederate States can properly be required to leave British ports in the West Indies and British North America, if the state of the weather permitted their doing so."

The law-officers, on the 16th September, a fortnight prior to the let ter of Mr. Adams to Lord Russell, reported as follows:

1 British Appendix, vol. vi, pp. 69, 81; Semmes's "Adventures Afloat," pp. 154–160. British Appendix, vol. vi, p. 81.

* Ibid., p. 84.

4 Ibid., p. 2.

5 British Case, p. 17.

British Appendix, vol. vi, p. 108.

Ibid., pp. 113, 116.

We do not precisely understand what was the course pursued toward the Sumter by the commander of Her Majesty's ship Cadmus; there is nothing from this officer; and Governor Keate's dispatch of August 7 only states that "Captain Hillyer has verified the character of the Sumter and the commissions of her officers, and recognized her as a man-of-war."

Governor Keate appears to have carefully avoided any such recognition whatever. We know not upon what instructions either of these officers may have acted; but as at present advised we see no reason to disapprove of the conduct of either. The Sumter certainly appears not to be a privateer, and is (we presume) a vessel of war commissioned by a de facto belligerent government.

Your lordship's second question must, in our opinion, be at present answered in the negative.

Although it is competent by the law and usages of nations to Her Majesty, in common with all neutrals, to place certain restrictions upon the access of the ships of war or privateers of belligerent governments to British ports; yet Her Majesty has not (as far as we are aware) done so during the present contest, excepting only in the case of their being accompanied by prizes in the (printed) instructions of June 1, herewith; at the present time, therefore, expressio unius est exclusio alterius; and Her Majesty's government should determine upon and make public some other general instructions on the point, if this should be considered expedient on grounds of imperial and international policy; unless or until this be done the ships of war or privateers of either party, unaccompanied by prizes, should not, in our opinion, be required to leave British ports by the local authorities.

This opinion having been given by the law officers, Earl Russell, on receiving the letter of Mr. Adams of the 4th October, replied as follows:

FOREIGN OFFICE, October 4, 1861.

The undersigned, Her Majesty's principal secretary of state for foreign affairs, has had the honor to receive a complaint from Mr. Adams, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States at this court, against the authorities of the island of Trinidad for a violation of her Majesty's proclamation of neutrality, by giving aid and encouragement to the insurgents of the United States.

It appears, from the accounts received at the colonial office and at the admiralty, that a vessel bearing a secession flag entered the port of Trinidad on the 30th of July last. Captain Hillyer, of Her Majesty's ship Cadmus, having sent a boat to ascertain her nationality, the commanding officer showed a commission signed by Mr. Jefferson Davis, calling himself the President of the so-styled Confederate States.

The Sumter, which was the vessel in question, was allowed to stay six days at Trinidad, and to supply herself with coals and provisions; and the attorney-general of the island perceived no illegality in these proceedings.

The law-officers of the Crown have reported that the conduct of the governor was in conformity to Her Majesty's proclamation.

No mention is made by the governor of his hoisting the British flag on the govern ment flag-staff'; and, if he did so, it was probably in order to show the national character of the island, and not in acknowledgment of the arrival of the Sumter.

There does not appear, therefore, any reason to believe that Her Majesty's proclamation of neutrality has been violated by the governor of Trinidad, or by the commanding officer of Her Majesty's ship Cadmus.

The Government of the United States instructed Mr. Adams to inform Her Majesty's government that "the President deeply regrets that I ord Russell is unable to give to our complaint a satisfactory solution."3 "The armament, the insurgent flag, and the spurious commission," says Mr. Seward, "told the governor, as they sufficiently prove to Her Majesty's government, that the Sumter is and can be nothing but a pirati cal vessel." Consequently her officers and crew ought not to be received in foreign ports. At another time she was said to be a privateer, and that Great Britain ought to adopt toward her, as such, the rule established by some European governments of not allowing privateers to stay in their ports longer than twenty-four hours at a time. Such was the language of Mr. Seward to Lord Lyons, as appears from a dispatch of the latter to Earl Russell of November 4, 1861. But the assumption

that the Sumter was a privateer was a mistake. She was a commissioned ship of war of the Confederate States.

Now, we have seen, when considering how far, according to international law, a neutral sovereign is bound to place any restraint on the stay in his ports of belligerent vessels, or on the supplies they are al lowed to procure, that by that law no such obligation exists. Indeed it is admitted in the case of the United States that there were "not any precedents which settled absolutely the quantity of coal that might be furnished to a belligerent man-of-war by a neutral," and I observe that it is nowhere asserted by the United States that the law of nations imposes any such restraint. There is, therefore, an end to the claim of the United States in respect of this vessel having been permitted to coal at Trinidad. For, I need hardly say that the Queen's regulations of January, 1862, cannot be applied ex post facto to create an obligation which did not previously exist. It would indeed be strange if regula tions, more stringent than the rules of international law, framed by a neutral sovereign for the very purpose of insuring the observance of neutrality, can be made to create an antecedent liability which never would have existed without them. Even if the hospitality afforded to the Sumter at Trinidad should be deemed too great with reference to the rules laid down in the regulations, the fact that it occurred some months before those regulations were issued deprives it of all impor tance.

It is true that in this case, as in others, the Government of the United States insists that partiality, inconsistent with neutrality, was exhibited toward confederate vessels by reason that these, as in the present instance, were permitted to coal, while liberty to form a depot of coal at Bermuda for the supply of their ships of war was denied to the United States. No one can be misled by such a contention. I have already pointed out that to allow one belligerent to have a supply always stored up and ready, and to leave the other to take his chance of the public market, are things essentially different, and that, far from the refusal of such an advantage to the United States being a violation of neutrality, the concession of it would have been so in the opposite direction. Moreover, such a contention involves a forgetfulness of one of the ele mentary principles of international law. A neutral is only justified in allowing to a belligerent vessel the use of his ports and access to his shores to obtain the things which the belligerent may lawfully procure. He has no right to allow the belligerent the use of his territory on shore for belligerent purposes, which the permission to form a depot would necessarily involve.

There is one other material fact connected with this vessel to which I desire to draw attention, the more particularly as it is stated in the American Case that the "excessive supply of coal (S0 tons) furnished to the Sumter at Trinidad enabled her to inflict the subsequent injuries on the commerce of the United States." The fact to which I refer is, that while using the coals furnished at Trinidad, the Sumter did not cap ture a single prize.

From the list of captures contained in the fourth volume of the American Documents, and from the two lists of claims successively put in by the United States Government, it appears that this ship captured in the whole eighteen vessels, of which, however, one was recaptured, and seven were afterward released by the Spanish government. Those captured should be thus distributed :

Page 324.

On her cruise back from New Orleans to Cienfuegos the Sumter captured eight vessels; on her cruise between Cienfuegos and Curaçoa, none; on her cruise between Curaçoa and Trinidad, two; between Trinidad and Paramaribo and Maranham, none; between Maranham and Martinique, one; between Martinique and Cadiz, five; between Cadiz and Gibraltar, two. It thus appears that, of the eighteen vessels taken by the Sumter, eight were taken before the vessel ever entered a neutral port at all; nine before she arrived at Trinidad; that after leaving Trinidad she made two cruises without taking a single vessel; and that it was not till she had obtained at Maranham the supply of 100 tons of coal, in addition to the 150 she already had on boad, that she again became successful in making a prize. Of the prizes for which Great Britain is now asked to make compensation, two were taken before the Sumter arrived at Trinidad, and the rest at intervals of two, three, and four months from the time she left a British port, and when she was cruising by means of coal furnished from a French port. The tribunal is now in a position to judge how far the supply, said to have been "excessive," furnished at Trinidad, "enabled this vessel to inflict the subsequent injuries sustained by the commerce of the United States."

It is impossible, with any regard to equity and justice, to hold Great Britain liable for injuries inflicted by the Sumter on United States commerce at a time when this vessel was deriving no benefit from coal supplied to her from a British port, but was availing herself of supplies obtained from other countries.

The facts connected with the Sumter during her stay at Gibraltar At Gibraltar. may be briefly stated.

She arrived at Gibraltar on the 18th January, 1862, in need of some repair, and wholly out of coal. According to the United States consul, she had but two days' supply in her bunkers. The merchants at Gibraltar, from what motive is immaterial, refused to supply her with any. The pecuniary resources of her commander ran short. Many of the crew having got on shore refused to return, and when force was attempted to be used to compel them, the local police interfered and protected the men against violence. Another crew could not be got, and, under these circumstances, the vessel was compelled to remain in the port. Mr. Sprague, the United States consul, had. from the first protested against her being allowed to enter or remain in the port, but received the very proper answer that strict neutrality should be observed. On the 21st of January he telegraphed Mr. Adams, "The Sumter is still here, evidently awaiting funds. The British government observes strict neutrality in conformity with the Queen's proclamation." On the 7th of February Mr. Sprague informs Mr. Seward that "the Sumter still remained in port, not having yet received a pound of coal.”

The helpless condition of the vessel further appears from a letter from Mr. Sprague to Mr. Adams of the 6th February:

The Sumter remains in port. She took in yesterday 3,000 gallons of water, paid for by a Mr. R. O. Joyce, of this city, who had previously provided her with an anchor and chain. To-day her commander made a second attempt to obtain coal from the coal merchants in this market, and I am informed they have declined supplying him out of deference to myself.

Since yesterday there are some ten or twelve seamen of the Sumter on shore, and to-day they have nearly all refused to return to their ship. One of them, in a drunken state, called upon me this day for protection. As the officers of the Sumter have attempted to forcibly ship them off from the quay, I to-day called upon the governor of this fortress to inform him of the circumstance; that I was ready to take under my charge any of these seamen who might wish to avail of my protection, and who would United States Documents, vol. ii, p. 500. 2 Ibid., p. 501.