*Twenty-four hours elapsed before any questions were put to [443] Captain Waddell by the local authorities. Then he was told to state what repairs he wanted, in order that the Governor might know how long he was to enjoy the hospitalities of the port. He delayed for two days to answer this question, going on, however, in the meanwhile with some of his repairs. He then reported the repairs already begun as "progressing rapidly," and added that Langland Brothers & Co. were to examine the propeller and bracings (probably a misprint for "bearings") under water; that a diver had that day examined them; and that " so soon as Messrs. Langland Brothers & Co. should hand in their report” he would inclose it.

Two days later, on the 30th, Langland Brothers & Co. made their report, "after inspection by the diver," saying that "the lining of the outer sternback" (probably a misprint for "sternbush") is entirely gone, and will have to be replaced; that "three days will elapse before she is slipped," and that they "will not be able to accomplish the repairs within ten days from date.”1

The Tribunal will observe that it was proposed that two kinds of repairs should be made.

*

The first class did not require the vessel to go into the slip. These included the calking referred to by the author of the Cruise of [444] the Shenandoah,2 and perhaps also repairs of a general character, which all steam machinery requires after having been run for any length of time, such as refitting of brasses, packing stuffing-boxes, examining and readjusting of working parts, &c., &c. All these repairs could have gone on simultaneously. Such coal as might be allowed within the construction of the instructions of January 31, 1862, as those instructions. were applied to the vessels of the United States, and such supplies as were legally permitted, could also be taken on, and the vessel could be ready to go to sea again in from two to four days after her arrival in port. Or, should it be necessary for the vessel to go into a slip for the purpose of repairing the propeller, this class of repairs might also be going on in the slip, at the same time with the others.

The other class of repairs were those which Langland Brothers & Co. were to report upon-repairs to the propeller. It appears from the report made by these mechanics on the 30th of January, that they founded their estimate upon the report of a diver. Mechanics ordinarily have to depend upon such a report, and to found their estimates upon it. The examination of the propeller of a screw-steamer, and of its bearings *below the water-line, is a simple matter, and takes but a [445] short time. It is confined to the stern of the vessel. A practical expert can go down, satisfy himself of the extent of the injury, and return and report in a few minutes. Had the Governor treated Captain Waddell as Captain Boggs was treated, the examination could easily have been made on the morning of the 26th, and the whole extent of the injury could have been reported to the Governor on the afternoon of the same day within twenty-four hours after the arrival of the vessel in port. Captain Waddell, however, was not required to move so rapidly. He.did not send his diver down until the 28th; he did not get the official report of his mechanics until the 30th. Thus he spent five days in doing what could have been done in five hours. There must have been a motive for that delay; the United States find that motive in his necessity to enlist a crew.

1 Waddell to Francis, Vol. V, page 600; Vol. VI, page 640.

* Cruise of the Shenandoah, page 77.

The Tribunal will also observe that his own report on the 28th of the extent of his injuries differs from that made by his mechanics on the 30th. He reported that "the composition castings of the propeller-shaft were entirely gone, and the bracings (probably a misprint for "bearings") under water were in the same condition." This was a more serious in

jury than the one reported by his mechanics two days later, [446] namely, the *necessity of giving the shaft a new outer sternbush. The latter would, it is true, require the docking of the ship to admit of the removal of the shaft. But when the ship was once in the slip, the propeller could be easily hoisted, being a movable one;1 and then the renewal of the lignum-vitæ lining, technically known as the sternbush, the only repairs which the experts reported to be necessary, could be completed two or three days after the ship should be on the slip. If the vessel was necessarily longer on the slip she must have received more repairs than are described in the official report of the Langlands, which embraced all for which the permission was granted.

It therefore appears that, on the supposition that the authorities at Melbourne could, under the circumstances, without violating the duty of Great Britain as a neutral, permit the repairs reported by Langland Brothers & Co. to be made, the Shenandoah should have gone to sea in ten days after her arrival. This estimate gives the extreme time for every requisite step, viz: one calendar day for the examination of the diver, excluding the day of arrival; three days (the estimate of the Langlands) for putting the vessel in the slip; three days for the repairs

by the Langlands; one day for getting her out of the slip; and [447] two days for *reloading and getting to sea, which was the time

actually taken; but as, during this time she unwarrantably took on board three hundred tons of coal, this is probably too large an estimate. Instead of requiring these repairs to be completed in ten days, the Melbourne authorities allowed the Shenandoah to stay there twentyfour days. The extra fourteen days were occupied in the recruitment of the forty-three men whom she carried away with her. It is difficult, under the circumstances, to resist the conclusion that the repairs were dawdled along for the purpose of securing the recruits, and that the authorities, to say the least, shut their eyes while this was going on;: especially if it be true, as said by Temple, that the Government engineer was on board three or four times a day while they were undergoing repairs, and assisted them with his opinion and advice. It is fair to say. that this fact is doubted by the Governor of the Colony,3 If the Government engineer was not there, however, he should have been, in order to see that Waddell was not violating British neutrality. Leaving Melbourne, the Shenandoah went through the Pacific Ocean

to the Arctic Seas, via Behring's Straits, under the instructions [448] issued by Bullock, in Liverpool, for the purpose of destroy*ing

the whalers of the United States. How successful she was in her attacks upon these intrepid and daring navigators is shown by the long list of captured vessels, for whose destruction the United States claim compensation.

On the cruise to those seas she used her sails only. After arrival there she commenced steaming on the 25th of June, and "from that time till she left the Arctic Seas she made comparatively little use of her sails.' Many of the most valuable vessels were destroyed after

1 Wilson's affidavit, Vol. III, page 325; Vol. VI, page 566.

2 Temple's affidavit, Vol. III, page 481; Vol. V, page 712.

Darling to Cardwell, Vol. III, page 506.

4 Cruise of the Shenandoah, page 187.

S. Ex. 31-12

that time. Temple names, in his affidavit, fifteen that were destroyed after Waddell knew of the suppression of the insurrection.1 Bullock wrote him a letter, instructing him "to desist from any further destruction of United States property," and Earl Russell undertook to send the letter "through the British Consuls at the ports where the ship may be expected." It was not until the 17th day of October, 1865, that she ceased to be officially registered as a British vessel. Waddell ar rived at Liverpool with the Shenandoah on the 6th of the following November, and wrote Earl Russell that the destructions committed on the 28th of June-when Temple said that he knew of the *surrender of Lee-were committed "in ignorance of the oblit- [449] eration of the Government." He said that he received his first intelligence on the 2d of August. The author of the Cruise of the Shenandoah says that they received, on the 28th of June, while burning the whalers, the news of the assassination of Mr. Lincoln.3 This event took place a week after the surrender of Lee. The affidavits of Temple and Nye in Vol. VII indicate still earlier knowledge. It would seem, therefore, that Waddell's statements to Earl Russell could not have been correct.

"The re-appearance of the Shenandoah in British waters" was regarded as “an untoward and unwelcome event." The Times reminded the public that "in a certain sense it was doubtless true that the Shenandoah was built and manned in fraud of British neutrality." Great Britain dealt with the "untoward" question as it had dealt with others during the contest-by evading it. The vessel was delivered to the United States. The men who had been preying upon the commerce of the United States for months without a semblance of authority behind them, most of whom were British subjects, with unmistakable British bearing and speech, were called before an officer of the British Navy *to be examined as to their nationality, they understand. [450] ing in advance that it was a crime for British subjects to have served on the Shenandoah. "Each one stated that he belonged to one or the other of the States of America," and they were discharged without further inquiry.

On the 28th of December, 1865, Mr. Adams, commenting upon these proceedings, wrote to Earl Clarendon as follows: "I trust it may be made to appear

"1. That the Sea King did depart from a British port armed with all the means she ever had occasion to use in the course of her cruise againts the commerce of the United States; and that no inconsiderable portion of her hostile career was passed while she was still registered as a British vessel, with a British owner, on the official records of the Kingdom.

"2. That the commander had been made fully aware of the suppres sion of the rebellion the very day before he committed a series of outrages on innocent, industrious, and unarmed citizens of the United States, in the Sea of Okhotsk.

"3. The list of the crew, with all the particulars attending the sources from which the persons were drawn, is believed to be so far sub

1 Vol. III, pages 482, 483; Vol. VI, page 709, et seq. confirmed by Hathaway's affidavit, Vol. VII, page 95. 2 Vol. III, page 458; Vol. VI, page 698.

3 Cruise of the Shenandoah, page 206.

4 London Times, November 8, 1865; Vol. III, page 449. 5 Cheek to Paynter, Vol. III, page 505.

Vol. III, page 475.

This statement by Temple is

[451] stantially *correct as to set at rest the pretense of the officer sent on board that there were no British subjects belonging to the vessel."

The United States confidently insist that they have incontestably established the points there claimed by Mr. Adams; and further,

"4. That the Shenandoah was fitted out and armed within British jurisdiction, namely, at London, for the purpose of cruising against the United States; that Great Britain had reasonable ground to believe that such was the case, and did not use due diligence to prevent it.

"5. That she came again within British jurisdiction, where all these facts were open and notorious, and the British authorities exercised no diligence to prevent her departure, but claimed the right to treat her as a commissioned man-of-war, and to permit her to depart as such.

"6. That twice within British jurisdiction she received large recruitments of men, without due diligence being used to prevent it: 1st. At Liverpool, from whence the men were forwarded by the Laurel; and, 2d, at Melbourne.

7. That she was allowed to make repairs and to receive coal and supplies which were denied to vessels of the United States in similar circumstances."

[452] The subsequent career of the steamer Laurel, *which, with the Shenandoah, formed the hostile expedition against the United States, throws additional light on the sincerity of the British neutrality in the case of the Shenandoah. On the 7th of March, 1865, Mr. Adams wrote as follows to Earl Russell:

"I am pained to be obliged once more to call your attention to the proceedings of the vessel called the steamer Laurel:

"This is the vessel concerning which I had the honor to make a representation, in a note dated the 10th November last, which appears to have proved, in substance, correct.

"Her departure from Liverpool on the 9th October, laden with men and arms destined to be placed on board of the steamer Sea King, her meeting with that vessel at Porto Santo, in the Madeira Islands, her subsequent transfer of her freight to that steamer, which thereupon assumed the name of the Shenandoah, and proceeded to capture and destroy vessels belonging to the people of the United States, are all facts now established by incontestable evidence.

"It now appears that this steamer Laurel, having accomplished her object under British colors, instead of immediately returning to this

Kingdom, made her way through the blockade to the port of [453] Charleston, where she changed her register and *her name, and

assumed to be a so-called Confederate vessel. In this shape she next made her appearance at the port of Nassau as the 'Confederate States.' From that place she cleared, not long since, to go, via Madeira, to the same port of Liverpool, from whence she had originally started.

"It further appears that, notwithstanding the assumption of this new character, this vessel carried out from Nassau a ship mail, made up at the post-office of that port, and transported the same to Liverpool. I have the honor to transmit a copy of a letter from the postmaster at that place establishing that fact.

"Under these circumstances, I have the honor to inform your Lordship that I am instructed by my Government to remonstrate against the receipt and clearance with mails of this vessel from Nassau, and to request that such measures may be adopted in regard to her as may prevent her from thus abusing the neutrality of Her Majesty's territory,

for the purpose of facilitating the operations of the enemies of the United States."

To this Earl Russell replied "that Her Majesty's Government are advised, that although the proceedings of the steamer Confederate States, formerly Laurel, may have rendered her liable to *capture [454] on the high seas by the cruisers of the United States, she has not, so far as is known, committed any offense punishable by British law."

From all these various facts, the United States ask the Tribunal of Arbitration to find and certify as to the Shenandoah, 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 the seventh article 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 in the destruction of vessels and their cargoes by the Shenandoah, and the expense to which the United States were put in the pursuit of it, may be taken into account.

Summary.

In the course of the long discussions between the two Governments, which followed the close of the insurrection, it became the duty of Mr. Adams to make a summary of the points which he maintained had been established by the United States. This he did in the following language, addressed to Earl Russell :3

*"It was my wish to maintain—

[455]

"1. That the act of recognition by Her Majesty's Government of insurgents as belligerents on the high seas before they had a single vessel afloat was precipitate and unprecedented.

"2. That it had the effect of creating these parties belligerents after the recognition, instead of merely acknowledging an existing fact.

"3. That this creation has been since effected exclusively from the ports of Her Majesty's Kingdom and its dependencies, with the aid and co-operation of Her Majesty's subjects.

"4. That during the whole course of the struggle in America, of nearly four years in duration, there has been no appearance of the insurgents as a belligerent on the ocean excepting in the shape of British vessels, constructed, equipped, supplied, manned, and armed in British ports.

"5. That during the same period it has been the constant and persistent endeavor of my Government to remonstrate in every possible form against this abuse of the neutrality of this Kingdom, and to call upon Her Majesty's Government to exercise the necessary powers to put an effective stop to it.

"6. That although the desire of Her Majesty's Ministers to exert themselves in the suppression of these abuses is freely acknowledged, the efforts *which they made proved in a great degree [456] powerless, from the inefficiency of the law on which they relied, and from their absolute refusal, when solicited, to procure additional powers to attain the objects.

"7. That, by reason of the failure to check this flagrant abuse of neutrality, the issue from British ports of a number of British vessels, with the aid of the recognition of their belligerent character in all the ports of Her Majesty's dependencies around the globe, has resulted in the

1 Vol. III, page 339. 2 Vol. III, page 341. 3 Vol. III, page 533.