Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

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

[ocr errors]

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.5 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

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.

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

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

S. Ex. 31—11

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 Britain 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.

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

[409]

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 équipping 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.2 Under that name she Olustee,

The Tallahassee or

arrived in Bermuda from England on the 18th day of April, 1861. 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.3 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."4 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

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 wê 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.

Weir, for transacting our business, and through his management about one hundred and twenty tons of coal were put aboard instead of half that quantity. * * Had I procured the coal needed I intended to have struck the coast at the capes of the Delaware, and followed it down to Cape Fear, but I had only coal enough to reach Wilmington on the night of the 25th."

*

Had the British authorities at Nassau, Bermuda, Barbadoes, [412] Cape Town, Melbourne, and other colonial ports, pursued the same course that the. Lieutenant Governor at Halifax. did, under the wise advice of the Admiral, the grievances of the United States would have been much less, and this case would have been shorter by many pages. The first time that the rule of January 31st, 1862, as to the supply of coal, was fairly carried out, the operations of the insurgent cruiser, to which it was applied, were arrested on the spot, and the vessel was obliged to run for a home port.

The Tallahassee apparently remained in Wilmington for some months. On the 13th of January, 1865, she arrived in Bermuda again, under the name of the Chameleon. On the 19th she sailed again, taking a cargo to Liverpool, where at the close of the war she was claimed by the United States.

From the fact that she was fitted out in London to be used as a privateer from Wilmington, and that she did go out from Wilmington with what purported to be a commission from the insurgent authorities, and did prey upon the commerce of the United States, and for the reasons already given, the United States ask the Tribunal to find and certify as to this vessel as they have been asked to find and certify as to the Sumter and the Nashville, the Florida and the Alabama, and the Georgia.

*THE CHICKAMAUGA.

[413]

Among the new British-built blockade-runners reported by the United States Consul at Liverpool on the 5th of March, 1864, was The Chickamauja. "the Edith, new double-screw; two pole-masts; forecastle raised one foot higher than bulwark; two funnels; marked to draw nine feet forward and ten aft; no figure-head." She arrived at Bermuda from England, on the 7th day of April, 1864. On the 23d of the following June she sailed for Wilmington, and on the 7th of the next July arrived from there with cotton. On the 23d of July she again went to Wilmington.

The Edith was one of that class of blockade-runners, like the Tallahassee, which was owned by the insurgent authorities. In the year 1864 other parties as well as the insurgent authorities were largely engaged. in the business of running cotton out of the blockaded ports. Thus, in the quarter in which the Edith left Liverpool, 34,754 bales of cotton were imported into Liverpool from the Southern States, via Bermuda, Nassau, Havana, and Matamoras, of which only 7,874 were consigned to Fraser, Trenholm & Co." The Edith, however, was a vessel belonging to the *so-called government at Richmond, and, being [414] found to be fast, and adapted for the sort of war that was carried

1 Wood to Mallory, 31st August, 1864, Vol. VI, page 729.

2 Manuscripts in Department of State; see Vol. VI, pages. 723-4-5.

3 Dudley to Seward, 1st April, 1864. Only 697 bales came by way of Havana.

on against the commerce of the United States, it was determined to put her in commission as a man-of-war.

The attention of the Tribunal of Arbitration is invited to the facile manner in which these vessels were permitted to adapt themselves to circumstances. The Sumter cruised as a man-of-war, and received hospitalities as such. She was allowed to change her character in a British port, and then to sail under the British flag as a blockade-runner, owned and operated by the insurgents. The same thing would undoubtedly have been done with the Georgia had she not been captured by the Niagara. The Atlanta started her career as a blockade-runner, owned by the insurgents; she was converted into a man-of-war under the name of the Tallahassee. When unable to pursue further her work of destruction, she became again a carrier for the benefit of the insurgents, and was accepted by Great Britain in her new character. The Edith was now to go through similar transformations.

On the 17th of September she was in commission as a man-of-war. Between that date and the 28th of October she took on board large [415] supplies of coal from blockade-runners. On the 28th of October,

having waited for a month for a night dark enough to run the blockade, she put to sea from Wilmington, and ran northward toward Long Island. On the 30th she destroyed the bark Mark L. Potter, of Bangor, Maine; on the 31st, the Emily L. Hall, the Shooting Star, the Goodspeed, and the Otter Roch, all vessels under the flag of the United States; on the 2d of November, the bark Speedwell, also a vessel of the United States; and on the 7th of November she reached Bermuda. On the 8th of November she was allowed to come into the harbor, and permission was given for a stay of five days for repairs, and also to take on board twenty-five tons of coal, although she had at that time one hundred tons in her bunkers. She actually staid seven days, and took on board eighty-two tons.1 On the 15th of November she sailed from Bermuda, and on the 19th arrived at Wilmington.

For the reason already given the United States ask the Tribunal, as to this vessel, to find and certify as they have been asked to find and certify as to the Sumter, the Nashville, the Florida, the Alabama, the Georgia, and the Tallahassee.

[416]

*THE SHENANDOAH.

The Shenandoah.

The British steamer Sea King, a merchant-vessel which had belonged to a Bombay Company, and had been employed in the East India trade,2 was "a long rakish vessel of seven hundred and ninety tons register, with an auxiliary engine of two hundred and twenty nominal horse-power, with which she was capable of steaming ten knots an hour. She was the handiwork of celebrated builders on the river Clyde, in Scotland, and had made one voyage to New Zealand as a transport for British troops, when she proved herself one of the fastest vessels afloat, her log showing at times over three hundred and twenty miles in twenty-four hours."3

In the year 1863, before the voyage to New Zealand, Mr. Dudley had seen her at Glasgow, and had reported her as a most likely steamer for the purposes of a privateer.4

1 Manuscript dairy in the Department of State.

2 Bernard's British Neutralty, page 359.

3 Cruise of the Shenandoah, page 9.

4 Dudley to Seward and Morse to Seward, Vol. VI, page 555.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »