Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

by delivery and receipt of the purchase-money; and afterward, in an English port, her captain "permitted" a few picked fellows to come on board for "shipment " outside of the jurisdiction.

All these facts, save perhaps the last, were made known to Her Majesty's Government as soon as they occurred, yet no "disrespect to the sovereignty" of Her Majesty was discovered; such practices were "tolerated;" the vessel, with her officers, was at all times and on all occasions admitted without hesitation to the hospitalities of all British ports, and "treated exactly as any United States man-of-war would have been." In short, she was permitted at all times to do, in the ports of Great Britain, what, in the opinion of His Majesty the Emperor of Brazil, was "equivalent" to their use as the bases of belligerent operations. During all this time no instructions were ever issued from the home Government which could, in any manner whatever, embarrass the operations of a vessel whose Government had so persistently abused and insulted the power and sovereignty of Her Majesty.

As to the vessel, therefore, the United States believe the Arbitrators will find that she was not only constructed and specially adapted to warlike use within Her Majesty's jurisdiction, and that due diligence was not used to prevent her departure therefrom, but that after her departure she was permitted to use the ports and waters of Her Majesty as a base of naval operations against the United States.

As has been seen, the Tuscaloosa was commissioned as her tender. Before her arrival within the jurisdiction of Her Majesty's Government at the Cape of Good Hope, she had captured and released upon ransombond one vessel. After her visit and supplies there, on the 13th of September, 1863, she captured and destroyed one more. As to her, Great Britain permitted her ports to be used as a base of belligerent operations. In addition to this, having been commissioned by the Alabama, her acts are to be treated as the acts of her principal.

VIII. THE GEORGIA.

The Georgia at Glasgow.

This vessel was built at Dumbarton, on the Clyde, a few miles below Glasgow, by William Denny and Brothers. She was launched on the 10th of January, 1863, and was then called the Virginia. A Miss North, daughter of Captain North, of the insurgent States, was prominent at the launch and gave the ship her name. All this was reported by the consul at Glasgow to Mr. Seward on the 16th of January. On the 9th of October, 1862, Mr. Adams communicated to Earl Russell a copy of an intercepted letter from the insurgent secretary of the navy to Captain North, which fully explained the posi tion that gentleman occupied toward the insurgents.4

Notoriety of the

On the 12th of February an article in the form of a communication appeared in the London Daily News addressed to Lord Palconstruction and pur merston, then at the head of Her Majesty's Government, in poses of the Georgia. which the attention of his lordship was particularly called to the great activity in the ship-building yards for the construction of a fleet of war-steamers alleged to be for the Emperor of China." Among others, mention was specially made of the two "iron-clads" in the yard of the Messrs. Laird, and also of a steam ram, afterward the Pampero, (or Canton,) being built by Thompson Brothers, at Glasgow, where they were subsequently, when they were approaching completion, seized and detained by the Government. In this article it is expressly stated that, "the term 'Chinese' is in general use in the building-yards of the Clyde and the Mersey, to designate the Confederates, and the Emperor of China' has no other signification, in this connection, than to personify Jefferson Davis." 5

The Virginia is also specially mentioned as one of this class of ves sels, and it is then stated that "the Government, indeed, professes a policy of non-interference; but such a profession is neutralized by the moral support which the noble lord, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, lends to the rebellion, when, in his place in Parliament, he expresses the view that the subjugation of the South by the North would be a great calamity." On the 17th of February, another article appeared as a communication in the same paper, addressed in the same form, in which this language is used: "It is simply incredible that it (the Government) alone is not cognizant of facts notorious in commercial circles, and the evidence of which is more easily accessible to its agents than to lookers on."6

It is quite true that these were anonymous communications in a newspaper, but the newspaper was one of a large circulation and important political influence in London, and the articles professed to state facts. One of these facts was that many vessels were being built in Great Britain, intended for vessels of war; and another, that it was pretended they were for the Emperor of China.

The Oreto and the Alabama had, before that time, escaped from Eng

Brit. App., vol. i, p. 423.

2 Am. App., vol. vi, p. 503.

3 Ibid.

4 Brit. App., vol. i, p. 216.
Am. App., vol. vi, p. 505.
Ibid., p. 509.

lish ports under pretense of being intended for foreign governments. They were then under the flag of the insurgents, engaged in the destruction of the commerce of the United States.

It now appears that Her Majesty's Government had ample means within its own control of determining which of the vessels referred to in these articles was and which was not intended for "the Emperor of China." The real Chinese Government had an "agency" at "6 Little George street, Westminster, London." As early as the 10th of September, 1862, Earl Russell caused a letter to be addressed to Mr. Lay, "inspector-general of Chinese customs, then on leave in England," in which it was said:

It appears to Her Majesty's Government that, unless you are already provided with a written authority from the Chinese Government for the steps which you are taking to provide that Government with naval assistance, you should procure such authority; and I am accordingly to request that you will take steps for obtaining such authority as soon as possible, although, in the meanwhile, Her Majesty's Government are prepared to act on the assurances of Mr. Bruce, and not interpose any delay in your proceedings.

The Mr. Bruce referred to in this letter, the United States infer from the correspondence which afterward occurred, to have been Sir Frederick Bruce, who was at that time the representative of Her Majesty's Government at Pekin, and who subsequently succeeded Lord Lyons at Washington.

6

On the 9th of October, Mr. Lay addressed a letter to the Foreign Office from the Chinese government agency, 6 Little George street, Westminister," a copy of which is as follows:

My absence from England has prevented my receiving before yesterday your letter of the 10th September. With reference to Earl Russell's desire that I should obtain a written authority from the Chinese government for the steps I am taking to provide it with Daval assistance, I have the honor to state that I hold such written authority, dated the 15th March, 1862, from my locum tenens, Mr. Hart, to purchase and equip a steam fleet, in accordance with instructions from the imperial government. I have since received regular remittances from the foreign customs for that purpose, by direction of Prince Kung. I may add for his lordship's information, that on the 28th of June last I received, through Mr. Hart, a dispatch from the Chinese Foreign Office relative to the proposed fleet. This dispatch prays the inspector-general of customs in earnest terms to use the utmost dispatch in procuring the vessels. It repeats the instructions issued to the governors of various provinces as to the amounts to be contributed by them toward the cost of the fleet; refers to the Emperor's anxiety that no time be lost; and closes with a second earnest appeal to the inspector-general for these reasons "not to lose a day." With respect to the flag for the fleet, I have written for precise authority. As soon as I receive it, I will not fail to apprise Earl Russell of the fact.3

The subsequent correspondence preceding the 17th February, 1863, is not given by Her Majesty's Government in the documents and evidence presented for the consideration of the arbitrators; but it is stated in the British Case, on page 47, that "in March, 1862, the Chinese Government gave authority to Mr. Lay, inspector-general of Chinese customs, then on leave in England, to purchase and equip a steam fleet for the Emperor's service, and a sum of money was placed at his disposal for the purpose. Mr. Lay accordingly entered into an agreement with Captain Sherard Osborn, an officer in Her Majesty's navy, according to which the latter was to take command-in-chief of the fleet, receiving orders from the Chinese Government through Mr. Lay. Her Majesty's Government, by orders in council, gave permission to enlist officers and men for this service."

1 Brit. Case, p. 47.

2 Brit. App., vol. ii, p. 681. 3 Ibid., p. 681.

The United States cannot state with certainty that such was the fact, but they have reason to believe that some of the vessels mentioned in the first article above referred to, published in the London Daily News, were, in fact, being built under the above-mentioned arrangement, and were, in fact, intended for the "Emperor of China." But it is certain that all were not so intended, and particularly was this the case with the Laird iron-clads, the Pampero (or Canton) and the Virginia, (or Georgia.) It is also certain that the steps "taken to provide the Chinese Government" with "naval assistance" were made use of by the insurgents as a cover to their transactions, and that this was so notorious in commercial circles as to have become the subject of newspaper comment.

When a foreign government comes to the ship-yards of Great Britain to replenish or strengthen its navy, it has, or should have, no concealments. If at peace, it is lawfully there, and Her Majesty's subjects may and do invite contracts for that kind of work; but in such case, the representative of the government should do as was done during the war in the United States by the representative of the Danish government, who, "wishing to spare Her Majesty's Government all the embarrassment possible, came forward and gave the fullest information that a vessel was being constructed for the Danish Government."

When, therefore, as in this case, vessels suspected to be for warlike use against a nation with which Great Britain was at peace, were being constructed in the ship-yards of the subjects of Her Majesty, and it was said that they were for the use of a nation which could lawfully contract for their construction, Her Majesty's Government had the right, and it became its duty at once, to demand the "fullest information. Answers from a nation that could lawfully contract would be prompt and direct. There would be no necessity for concealment, and consequently none would be attempted.

If Inspector-General Lay, or Captain Osborn, had been requested by Her Majesty's Government to name the vessels actually being constructed under their supervision for the Emperor of China, a prompt and truthful answer might have been expected and would doubtless have been given. So far as appears, no such request was ever made, and the insurgents enjoyed the full benefit of the omission.

It is quite true, that neither Mr. Adams nor any other representative of the United States, at any time brought his suspicions as to the Virginia to the special attention of Earl Russell, or any other officer of Her Majesty's Government, before she left the Clyde. The Consul at Glasgow had strong suspicions as to her character and destination, but he had not and could not, with his means of information, produce “such evidence of the fact as would support an indictment for the misdemeanor;" and nothing short of that, Mr. Adams had been informed in July previous, in the case of the Alabama, would, in the opinion of the solicitor of customs at London, furnish "justifiable grounds of seizure."" The building of vessels for the insurgents upon the Clyde had but just commenced. The consul at Glasgow had not then perfected his arrangements for procuring information, as had been done at Liverpool, where the operations of the insurgents began, and had been continued with so much activity. Consequently the United States could not then comply with the rules that had been already prescribed, and so strenuously insisted upon, in previous cases, for the guidance of the officers of

1 Mr. Layard in the House of Commons, March 7, 1834, Am. App., vol. iv, p. 499. 2 O'Dowd's Opinion, Brit. Case, p. 90.

Her Majesty's Government in such matters. Such, however, was not the case with Her Majesty's Government itself. It had in full operation all the machinery by which for years it had been accustomed to carry on its police and revenue departments. It needed only to put this machinery into operation, and suspicions could be raised to the dignity and importance of evidence, or set aside as unfounded.

This was never done. "Facts notorious," "the evidence of which was more easily accessible to the agents of the Government than to lookers on," were passed by without the notice of the government, and this vessel was permitted to escape.

But it is said that, "when surveyed by the measuring surveyor, she presented nothing calculated to excite suspicion; that she had the appearance of being intended for commercial purposes, her framework and plating being such as are ordinary in trading-vessels of her class."

The surveyor's certificate bears date February 4. He commenced his survey on the 17th of January, seven days after her launch, and he visited her on two separate occasions afterwards for the purpose of completing his survey. These visits must, therefore, have all been made previous to the date of his certificate, (February 4.) She Registry, clearance, was not registered until the 20th of March, nor cleared un- and departure. til the 1st of April, and did not sail until the 2d. The evidence presented is, therefore, only of her appearance on the 4th of February. Her Majesty's government does not appear to have caused any examination to be made after that time; or if it did, it has not seen fit to furnish the arbitrators with the result.

It is true that after she had sailed and it was known she had already been converted into a cruiser, the collector of the port did say, in a report to the commissioners of customs then called for, that the "officer who performs the tide surveyor's duty afloat, and who visited her on the evening of the 1st instant, to see that the stores were correct, informs me he saw nothing on board which could lead him to suspect that she was intended for war purposes." He also said that he, himself, could "testify that she was not heavily sparred; indeed, she could not spread more canvas than an ordinary merchant steamer."3

But this can hardly be looked upon as having the effect of an examination actually made.

On the 14th of February, eight days after the certificate of the surveyor, the first article above referred to appeared in the Daily News. Three days after, on the 17th, the next appeared. The vessel remained in port for nearly two months after these suspicions assumed shape and became "notorious in commercial circles."

That she was specially adapted to warlike use when she left port, is proven by the fact that, as soon as the armament was transferred to her, off the coast of France on the 9th, she set forth as a vessel of war, complete and ready for active service. She needed, when she left Greenock, nothing but arms and ammunition. Those were soon obtained out of Her Majesty's dominions, and without entering any port she commenced her work of destruction.

4

She was registered on the 20th of March, in the name of one "Thomas Bold, a merchant residing at Liverpool," as the owner. He was a relative of Lieutenant Maury, her commander.5 On the 27th she commenced shipping her crew at a shipping office and before a shipping

1 Brit. Case, p. 122.

2 Ibid. 3 Ibid.

4 Ibid., p. 123.

Dudley to Seward, Am. App., vol. vi, p. 519.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »