« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
sels of her own class in the navy. After making this thorough investigation, I quitted the vessel to make my report to his excellency the governor and the law-officer of the Crown. On Sunday, the 15th, the boatswain and a portion of the crew of the Oreto having made reports to me that I thought made it incumbent on me as a public officer to act promptly on, I forth with seized the Oreto, concluding that his excellency was in church at the time, and made him acquainted with it as soon after church as possible. I received a protest that afternoon, and a letter the following day against, and calling for an explanation of, my proceedings on behalf of the captain, on the seizure of Sanday. A correspondence took place between myself, his excellency, and the law-officer of the Crown, which ended in my releasing the Oreto on Tuesday, the 17th, and on the vessel being released on this occasion, on further conversation and correspondence with the governor, it was deemed necessary fianally to detain the vessel for adjudication in the vice-admiralty court. I found no guns on board of her; she is a vessel capable of carrying guns; she could carry four broadside guns forward, four aft and two pivot guns amidships. Her ports are fitted to ship and unship, port bars cut through on the upper part, to unship also: the construction of ber ports I consider are peculiar to vessels of war. I saw shot-boxes all around the upper deck calculated to receive Armstrong shot, or shot similar; she had breeching-bolts, and shackles, and side tackle-bolts. Magazine, shell-rooms, and light-rooms are entirely at variance with the fittings of merchant-ships. She bad no accommodation whatever for the stowage of cargo, only stowage for provisions and stores. She was in all respects fitted as a vessel of war of her class iu Her Majesty's navy.
In the cross-examination Captain Hickley says: The opinions of the governor and the law-officer of the Crown were to the effect that the vessel was not liable to seizure; this was after iny report of the 13th, after I bad made my first examination, with the exception of clearing the holds. The reason I considered she was acting in bad faith was because she did not sail on the 13th. When I go on board of her the first thing I am made acquainted with is the crew refusing to get the anchor up because they do not know where the ship was going, although she cleared in ballast for the
Havana, and the crew could not get anybody to satisfy them on the point as to  where the ship was going. Captain *Hickley then proceeds to state his opin
ion on various points, such as the right to build vessels adapted as vessels of war without Her Majesty's leave, the right of seamen to refuse going on any voyage which may prove ruinous to them, and he mentions varions circumstances which caused him to inspect the Oreto. He says, “ It is impossible for a vessel to fight without guns, arms, or ammunition on board; but the Oreto as she now stands could, in my professional opinion, that is to say, with her crew, guns, arms, and ammunition, going out with another vessel alongside of her, be equipped in twenty-four hours for battle.” Captain Hickley makes some statements respecting a man named Jones; but as this man has gone away and has given no evidence in the case, I think it unnecessary to take any further notice of him. Alluding, however, to the information given, to him by Jones, Captain Hickley says: “On this public report I seized the vessel again, and Mr. Cardale, the second lieutenant of the Greyhound, was put in charge of her." Captain Hickley's evidence as to the construction and fittings of the vessel I shonld consider conclusive, even had there been no other; but that construction and those fittings were made, not here, but in England, and of whatever nature they may be, do not subject the vessel to forfeiture here. Captain Hickley, it appears, on certain grounds which he states, seized the Oreto; but acting on the opinion of the law officer of the Crown and that of the governor, he subseqnently released her. Between this tine and that of her ultimate seizure there is no evidence whatever that she did an;thing in violation of the foreign-enlistment act; but Captain Hickley's suspicions Were aroused by the vessel not sailing for two or three days after that on which the consignee informed him she would ; he therefore again went on board the Oreto, and found that the reason of her not going was because the crew had refused to get her under way on account of their not being satisfied as to what port she was bound to. I must confess I look npon this as exonerating Captain Duguid and others concerned from suspicion of mala fides for not having gone at the time specified by Mr. Harris, but Captain Hickley took a different view of it, and he thereupon seized the vessel again. Now, if he did this, as seems implied in part of his evidence, on account of tbe crew not being able to obtain satisfactory information as to the destination of the vessel. I can only remark that he did it on ground which is not within the purview of the statute under which she is libeled; but if Captain Hickley thought proper, on a reconsideration of the whole case, to seize her again, he had a right to do so.
Lientenant Cardale gives nearly the same evidence as Captain Hickley did respect. ing the construction and fitting of the Oreto, proving that she is in every way adapter to be used as a vessel of war, He gives his opinion that the vessel could be fitted with her guns in twenty-four hours, supposing great exertions were made, with plenty of hands, and that everything was sent on board ready fitted for use; that is, the gun-carriage slides, train-tackles, side-tackles, and all the equipments of the guns.
With reference to what Captain Hickley as well as Lieutenant Cardale say respecting the possibility of fitting the vessel with guns, ammunition, &c., in a certain time, I have to observe that this evidence may be perfectly correct, but that I have no right whatever to take it into consideration. The case depends upon what has been done since the vessel came within this jurisdiction, and cau in no way be affected by what it is possible might be done at some future period.
Mr. Stuart, the master and pilot of Her Majesty's ship Greyhound, corroborates the evidence of the Oreto being built and fitted as a vessel of war,
With respect to acts which were done, or circumstances which occurred on board the Oreto before she came within the jurisdiction of the Bahamas vice-admiralty court, it is admitted and is clear that the court has no authority to adjudicate. The only ground, then, on which the evidence of those facts or circumstances can be admitted at all, is that it may explain or elucidate acts which have taken place since the arrival of the vessel in this port. The stropping of blocks tbat might be used as gun-tackle blocks, or the taking of shells on board of a vessel built as a vessel of war, might a Ford ground for suspecting that such vessel was intended to be used as a vessel of war, when the same suspicion would not attach to a vessel not adapted for the purposes of war; and if there were evidence that a vessel was being armed for war purposes, the conversation of the parties so arming her, though occurring out of the jurisdiction of the court, might be evidence to point out for what purposes she was being armed. I proceed now to the evidence of what took place after the arrival of the Oreto in the Bahamas.
The chief mate, Duggan, says the vessel arrived at Nassan and went to Cochrane's Anchorage; some tackle-blocks were fitted on board of her, some there and some on the passage out. I do not know to what use they were to be applied; they were spareblocks, and we fitted them in case they might be wanted. I do not know if they are
what are called side-tackle or train-tackle blocks. I never saw a gun used in  my life. I can't say "if they were fitted as gun-tackle blocks are. I directed them
to be fitted. No one ordered me to bave them fitted. They are such blocks as are usually used as watch-tackle or luff-tackle blocks on board merchant-vessels. There was nothing put on board the vessel at Cochrane's Anchorage but coal and a spare spar. We came into this harbor from Cochrane's Anchorage. No fittings trore put on the vessel in this harbor. There were some cases of shells came on board as cargo; we stowed them aft in a room which the boatswain called the shell-room. I bave seen a similar compartinent in merchant-vessels; we called it a store-room. I have seen the store-room filled with cargo iu merchant-ships. I don't know how many cases of shell came; some two hundred or three hundred; they were put out again the same evening, or next day. I do not know the reason for discbarging them. I was ordered by the captain to discharge them. The stropping of watch-tackle blocks were in the ordinary avocations of the seamen on board. There were no guns on board the ship that these blocks could be used for. He adds : I do not know that Captain Dugnid, or any one else, had the intention that the Oreto should cruise or commit hostilities against any state, province, or people. I do not know that Captain Duguid, or any one else, attempted to equip, furnish, or arm the Oreto with that intent.
William Porter, a seaman of the Oreto, says: We went to Cochrane's Anchorage. There were blocks stropped for guns. I cannot say how many. They were blocks such as could be used for merchant-vessels, but they were not to be used as such. I will here ask: How does he know this ? It is mere opinion, without any specified ground.
When the Oreto came into Nassau Harbor cases of shells were pnt on board. The next day, between breakfast and dinner, we were worked hurried to get them out. They were all cleared out before night. Orders were on two occasions given to get the anchor up. We refused to get the ship under way. Next day we all got police summonses. Our sole objection to get the vessel under way was that we had been deceived.
And on cross-examination he says: I had never seen a gin-tackle until I saw one on board the Greyhound.
I did not know there were gun-tackle blocks on board the Oreto. All I know is from what I heard from one of the seanen.
Mr. Porter's evidence must be taken quantum valeat.
Peter Hanson, seaman, says: While we lay at anchor blocks were stropped-two sheaf-blocks. I had orders from the chief mate to get the gun-tackle blocks stropped, and to do them as neat as possible, as they would have to be handed over to some person else, and there might be no fault found with them. There were no guns on board. The blocks were too small for lutf-tackle blocks. They can be used on board a merchant-vessel. They are used for several purposes, but not such a quantity. Tbere were more than were necessary for the usual use of the vessel. We came into the harbor. Some shell was put on board ; it was stowed underneath the cabin. Some was put on board in the evening and some next morning. We had just finished before dinner, when we were told to discharge them again. We set to work to get them out. I worked very hard, and the shells were discharged on that day. We were ordered two mornings to take up the anchor. We disobeyed both times. We did not mutiny; we only wanted to be sure of British protection. We were in consequence summoned to go before the magistrate.
Benson, it will be observed, states that he had orders from the chief mate to get the " gun-tackle blocks stropped" but whether he means that the mate made use of that term, or whether he merely uses it himself to designate the blocks he is speaking of, does not clearly appear. He says they could be used for several purposes on board a merchant-vessel, but not such a quantity. He grounds his belief, then, that they were to be used as gun-tackle blocks, on his opinion that there were more of them than were required for the ordinary use of the vessel.
Walter Irving, a fireman, says: I saw the men fitting blocks all the spare time they had. They were called yun-tackle blocks by the crew of the ship. As far as I can say, they were twenty or nore. She remained at Cochrane's Anchorago six or seven weeks and then came into this barbor. I saw shell come on board of her and go out again.
Thonjas Robinson, fireman, says: We arrived at Nassau, went to Cochrane's Anchorage. A passenger, called Mr. Löwe, came out with us. I saw him go ashore in a boat the first day we arrived. He came on board while we were at Cochrane's Anchorage two or three times. The only orders I ever heard bim give on board the Oreto were to some divers that were putting on some copper. I have seen the sailors working at blocks while at Cochrane's Anchorage; they were putting strops on them. I heard them call them gun-tackle blocks. When the Oreto came into Nassau Harbor some cases came on board, which were called shells. I saw them coming out of the vessel again next day.
John Quinn, fireman, states: There was a passenger on board the vessel  named *Lowe. I saw him and another person looking at the galley the day
they were fixing on the pieces of copper at Cochrane's Auchorage. A gentleman said to Mr. Lowe that it was a very dangerous place to have the galley in. Mr. Lowe said that he would get it altered. Two or three days after the galley was shifted on the apper deck. Captain Doguid, it will be seen in his evidence, devies that Mr. Lowe had anything to do with the moving of the galley. He explains his reason for moving it, and states that it could not have remained where it had been moved to wlien the vessel was under way. Mr. Lowe frequently came on board the Fessel at Cochrane's Anchorage. I saw the men while at Cochrane's Anchorage working at blocks, stropping and painting them. I do not know what they were for. They were called by the men gun-tackle blocks.
The ship quitted Cochrane's Anchorage, and came into this port. There were some little square boxes, which they said were shot or shell, taken on board after we came in. I think they were taken out next day.
Neither this nor the two preceding witnesses knew that the blocks they were speaking about were gun-tackle blocks, but they heard them called so by some of the crew.
Charles Ward, formerly steward of the Oreto, says: Mr. Lowe went in the ship to the Anchorage ; he left her there, but came on board several times while we were there. He provisioned the ship. Mr. Harris swears, it will be seen, that Mr. Lowe had nothing to do with provisioning the ship; that he (Mr. Harris) gave orders to Turtle and Miller to send provisions on board. He asked me one day if I would like to join the ship after he got the other crew on board. On one occasion the captain, and the chief engineer, and Mr. Lowo came on board, and had tea, and they had some words. Mr. Lowe told the captain and chief engineer that he wanted to provision them in a different manner. He said, if they would even eat 3 or 4 or 5 pounds of meat a-ılay, he would send it to satisfy them; and Mr. Lowe told the chief engineer he was no more than a boy in the ship, and had nothing to do with the matter, and he was qualified to do his own duty. The chief engineer said, that if Mr. Lowe wished, he would leave the ship, and go home when Captain Duguid did, and break the contract. Mr. Lowe then went on deck. I afterward heard the captain say it was nothing out of his pocket; he did not care how the ship was provisioned, as he knew she belonged to the southerners, and did not care for northerners or southerners as long as he got his pay out of the ship. This was while she was at Cochrane's Anchorage.
In his cross-examination he says: I quitted the ship at Cochrane's Anchorage. The captain put me in prison, where I remained fourteen days. The magistrate put me in for refusing to do seaman's duty, which I did not sign for. I know a Mr. Jones. We were both in jail together. He came out the day before me. He and I went to live at the Clifton Hotel. I had no money when I quitted the Oreto. On the morning I came out Jones said he would pay my way. I heard the captain, the chief engineer, and Mr. Lowe say the ship was for the southerners. I know, from what I heard Mr. Lowe say, that he provisioned the ship. I heard the captain, the chief engineer, and Mr. Lowe say that she was intended for the southerners. I also heard them say that if she had her guns on board she could compete with anything the northerners had.
I here repeat the observation I before made, that this evidence ought to be received with great caution. What the wituess gives in evidence is, the inference he draws
from certain conversations which he states he overheard. Now, if we had the very words which were spoken, we might not draw that inference. Knowing the powerful vessels which the Federal States possessed, I can hardly believe that a nautical man would utter such an absurdity as that a small vessel like the Oreto could compete with anything the northerners had; and I think it very improbable that Mr. Lowe would tell the chief engineer that he was no more than a boy on board the ship. Now, from several improbabilities which Charles Ward's evidence contains, from its being positively contradicted by respectable witnesses in some parts, and from the unsatisfactory manner in which the man appeared to me to give his testimony, I attach but little weight to it.
Daniel Harvey, coal trimmer: Mr. Lowe gave me orders to make travelers for boats' masts and stanchions for the dingey and gig-boat. He said they would do very well. Mr. Allan, the chief engineer, gave me a paper with the pattern on it, and said that Mr. Lowe said he would rather have them made of iron thau vood. Mr. Lowe asked me if I would like to remain by the vessel for a commission-he did not say how long-it might be two or three years-as greaser and blacksmith. This conversation took place two or three days before he left Nassan.
Thomas Joseph Waters gives the following evidence: I met a gentleman named Lowe once or twice. I beard he had come out in the Oreto. I left this place some
time ago in a vessel called the Nassau. Mr. Lowe was a passenger with me in  that vessel. We were bound, I believe, to a confederate * port. I wished to go
to Charleston. I do not know where this vessel was bound to. We were captured off Wilmington by a Federal war-steamer called the Georgia and a gun-boat called the Victoria. After capture of the vessel she was carried to Fort Monroe, and afterward to New York. Mr. Lowe was carried with the vessel. He was brought before the prize court at New York, examined, and set at liberty.
This evidence is merely to show that Mr. Lowe was connected with the Confederate States of America. It appears, however, that the prize court at New York saw no ground for detaining him.
Mr. Stuart, the master and pilot of the Greyhound, says: I also saw many double blocks fitted. Eight might be in use for ships' purposes for Inff-tackle blocks, but the residue might be used for side and train tackle, that is, for working at guns. I should say there were more than double or treble the number required for the ordinary use of the vessel.
He then states, baving seen some of the boxes of shells which were put on board in the harbor, it appears that the men belonging to the Oreto, who have given evidence on the part of the prosecution had had a quarrel with the captain, and that they had been before the magistrate. This must be taken in consideration in weighing their evidence.
Honorable G. D. Harris. I am a member of the firm of Henry Adderley & Co., of this town, merchants. We do foreign commission business. I know the British steamship Oretó.
She arrived in this port consigned to our care. I made application to the receiver general, on behalf of the firm, to know if there was any objection to our shipping arms and other merchandise by that steamer, and requested that he would communicate with the governor, in order that there might not be any possible misunderstanding The receiver general informed our firm a day or two afterward that he had communicated with the governor, and that there was no reason why we should not ship a cargo or arms or any other merchandise by that vessel, and that he was fully authorized to grant his permission, which he then immediately did. We then made the usual entries, and applied for a civil officer of customs. Before, however, any cargo was transshipped we received a letter from the colonial secretary, informing us that as the build of that vessel had excited some suspicion, the government directed that, if practicable, she should come into the harbor and take in her cargo under the immediate eyes of the authorities, or words to that effect. She was accordingly brought into the harbor and certain cargo was taken on board, I believe under the supervisiou of an officer of the customs. Some of the cargo consisted of shell. They were certaivly not live shell. This cargo that we were putting on board was what we had received special permission to put on board from the receiver general. It was put on board under our direct orders as consignees of the vessel.
The consignees, it appears, changed their minds about the destination of the vessel, and ordered the shell to be taken out, intending that the vessel should go immediately in ballast to Havana. When the cargo was nearly discharger, Mr. Harris met Captain Hickley on board the Oreto. On that occasion he says: I informed Captain Hickley that we had given orders for the discharge of the Oreto’s cargo, it being our intention to dispatch her in ballast to Havana, and that the custom-house ofiicer then present was prepared to hand me the clearance after ascertaining that the cargo was entirely discharged. The landing-waiter and searcher were present and heard what I said. Captain Hickley then informed me that he considered he had nothing further to do with it. I came on shore with Captain Hickley after he had ordered his men into their boats. I think the custom-house officer had the clearance in his possession. I do not know whether he showed it to Captain Hickley. It was afterward given to us. (The clearance was produced.) In accordance with a promise I had given Captain Hickley, I sent a message on board the Greyhound to inform him that the vessel was ready for sea, and to ask if he would like to visit her or send officers to inspect her. He wrote to me that he would do so immediately. I know Captain Hickley went on board, but I was not present. We had some difficulty with the crew. They set up a plea that the vessel, not having touched at Palern there had been a deviation of the voyage, and therefore they claimed their discharge. We demurred to this, but afterward agreed to pay them their wages up to date, and give them a bonus of £5 and pay their passage to England, if they would not remain in the ship. This they refused to accept, stating that, from the several visits of the officers of the man-of-war on board the vessel, they considered she was of a suspicious character, and that they would not go in her unless the Governor and Captain Hickley guaranteed their safety. Some accepted the terms that were offered. In consequence of this they were sunimoned before the police magistrate, and the case was brought
under his adjudication. They elected to take their discharge. I was present at  *the time they then and there agreed to quit the ship. They then obtained leave
to go on board for their clothes. The men were discharged by the magistrate. In consequence of this we got a shipping-master to ship another crew for the Oreto. I think there were fifteen or sixteen new hands then shipped. They received the usual advance. It was our intention to send her immediately to sea. I had arranged with the pilot to take her out the following morning (Sunday;) they, however, missed the tide, the crew not having come on board. The vessel was again seized that day. The crew we shipped then left the Oreto. I have not seen them since, and all the advance that we paid is lost. We had the sole direction and management of the Oreto. I know of no person but Captain Duguid having any control over the Oreto. I have seen a person named John Lowe, who came out passenger in the Oreto. Mr. Lowe, while at Nassau, never exercised any authority over the Oreto. We never received any instructions from him relative to the Oreto. The day the vessel arrived we received a message from the captain requesting us to send meat and other provisions on board. I gave orders to Turtle and Miller to supply the vessel with meat. In placing the cargo on board the Oreto, it was distinctly understood as cargo. I stated to the receivergeneral that it was cargo only; that we intended to ship a full load by that vessel. We were fully aware that we could not ship such goods otherwise than as cargo, unless committing a breach of the foreign enlistment act; and had we been ordered to do 60 we should have banded the consignment over to some one else. No act was done by the authority of Henry Adderley & Co. with the intent that the vessel should be employed as a cruiser. I told captain Duguid very shortly after he arrived here, that they were talking a good deal about the build of his vessel, and I said, “Mind, do nothing that will have the appearance of equipping."
On cross-examination, he says the vessel was consigned to us by Messrs. Fraser, 'Trenbolni & Co., of Liverpool. She was cousigned as a merchant-vessel, and we considered her as such. No instruction in the first instance was given to us except the general instructions of shipping cargoes by all their vessels to Messrs. W. & R. Whight, Saint John's, New Brunswick, on account and risk of J. R. Armstrong, of Liverpool. Mr. John Lowe, I think, brought a letter of introduction from Mr. Trenholm to the firm. I do not know whether Mr. Lowe was in any way interested in the Oreto. I do not recolleet Mr. Lowe being mentioned in any correspondence which we received from Fraser, Trenbolm & Co. We never had any transactions with Mr. Lowo in regard to the Oreto. She remained here several weeks before any attempt was made to ship cargo in her. We thought we should receive some instructions from our friends about ber, but we did not. The shipping of the cargo on board the Oreto was performed by us under our general instructions. I am not prepared to say whether the vessel was actually going to Saint John's, New Brunswick. There ought to have been a searcher of the customs on board at the time of the loading and unloading: I am not aware that there was. In this case I particularly requested that one might be put on board.
It will be seen that Mr. Harris distinctly negatives the idea that Mr. Lowe had any control over the Oreto while in Nassau, or that the consignees had any transactions with him in regard to her.
Frederick T. Parke says: I am a master mariner. I have commanded steamships, and now command the Minho. I have seen the Oreto. I have not been on board of her. I know ber size. I think four or five dozen spare watch and luff-tackle blocks sufficient for a vessel of the Oreto's size. A new vessel in fitting out generally takes more extra blocks than a vessel that has been a voyage. On cross-examination, he says lutf-tackle are used for cargo, for taking in boats, and for other purposes. Watch-tackle blocks are used in a variety of ways. Blocks are called luti-tackle, watch-tackle, or gun-tackle blocks, according to the purposes to which they are to be applied. They can be applied in various ways.
William Raisbeck says: I am a master inariner. I have never before commanded a steamship. I am now in command of a steamship. I command the Leopard. I have