étendues à la fabrication et à la livraison des armes de guerre au com merce étranger.

Pour obtenir les autorisations toujours requises en pareil cas, et pour pouvoir livrer aux confédérés les armements de guerre qu'ils s'étaient engagés à leur fournir, MM. Arman et Voruz ont addressé leurs demandes à MM. les ministres de la marine et de la guerre. Les autorisations leur ont été accordées, même ils ont obtenu la permission de visiter les établissements de l'état pour profiter des améliorations appor tées à l'outillage.

[257] *C'est à la vue de ces autorisations qu'il a dit lui paraître suffisantes que l'agent diplomatique des confédéres à ratifié, le 6 juin 1863, le traité passé le 15 avril précédent entre MM. Arman et Bullock. Mais, comme on l'a vu dans la lettre adressée par M. Arman à M. le ministre de la marine le 1er juin, ce n'est qu'en trompant sciemment le ministre sur la destination des armements dont ils voulaient munir les quatre navires construits à Bordeaux et à Nantes que ces messieurs se sont fait accorder les autorisations qu'ils sollicitaient indûment.

De telles autorisations subrepticement obtenues doivent donc être considerées comme nulles et de nul effet. MM. Arman, Voruz et leurs complices sont donc dans un cas de violation de la loi du 24 mai 1834, et sous le coup des peines correctionelles qu'elle prononce.

Le crime et le délit résultant de la violation de l'article 84 du Code pénal et de la loi de 1834 constituent MM. Arman et Voruz et leurs co-intéressés contrevenants aux défenses et recommendations contenues dans la déclaration impériale du 10 juin, et doivent être, ainsi qu'il est dit dans cette déclaration, poursuivis conformément aux dispositions de la loi.

Les faits qui doivent donner lieu à ces poursuites légales ont été commis au préjudice et contre la sécurité du gouvernement des Étas-Unis.

Il est hors de doute que le gouvernement est en droit, comme tout [258] étranger, de se pourvoir devant les tribunaux français pour ré

clamer la répression et la réparation de faits accomplis en France qui lui sont dommageables. Ici, le dommage est incontestable, parce que, indépendamment de la livraison des navires et de leurs armements de guerre, le fait notoire de la construction et de l'armement en France, sous l'apparente autorisation du gouvernement français, de navires de guerre destinés aux confédérés, était en lui-même pour ceux-ci un puissant encouragement à soutenir la lutte, et portait ainsi un incalculable préjudice au Gouvernement fédéral.

Il reste au soussigné à indiquer au Gouvernement des États-Unis quelles voies judiciaries il peut suivre pour faire prononcer contre les coupables les réparations qui lui sont dues, et quelles doivent être ces réparations.

Le Gouvernement des États-Unis peut rendre plainte devant les tribunaux français pour raison des faits dont la criminalité vient d'être établie, et notamment quant au crime prévu par l'article 84 du Code pénal. Cette plainte devra être remise, soit à la diligence d'un agent spécialement autorisé, soit sur la poursuite de l'envoyé extraordinaire et plénipotentiaire des États-Unis en France, au procureur impérial. Conformément aux dispositions des articles 63 et 64 du Code d'instruction criminelle, la plainte peut être portée, ou devant le magistrat

du lieu où le crime et le délit ont été commis, ou devant celui de [239] la résidence de l'inculpé. Comme il y a plusieurs complices et

agents des faits incriminés, le juge du domicile de l'un d'eux est compétent pour recevoir la plainte, et tous les complices seront appelés devant lui en raison de la connexité des faits dénoncés.

MM. Bullock et Slidell, agents des confédérés, sont, quoiqu'étrangers, justiciables des tribunaux français pour raison des faits coupables qu'ils ont provoqués ou anxquels ils ont participé sur le territoire français. La plainte devra énoncer les faits inculpés et être appuyée des pièces justificatives.

Pour faire prononcer les réparations qu'il se propose de demander, le Gouvernement américain devra, par son agent spécial, déclarer qu'il entend se constituer partie civile-c'est-à-dire, qu'il entend soutenir la poursuite à fin de réparation, concurremment avec le ministère public. En se constituant partie civile, le Gouvernement des États-Unis doit être averti qu'il pourra être tenu de donner caution judicatum solvi, aux termes de l'article 166 du Code de procédure civile, ainsi conçu:

Tous étrangers, demandeurs principaux ou intervenants seront tenus, si le défendeur le requiert, avant toute exception, de fournir caution et payer les frais et dommagesintérêts auxquels ils pourraient être condamnés.

Enfin, il faut faire observer que l'une des personnes contre lesquelles la plainte devra être portée collectivement est membre du Corps légis

latif, et qu'en raison de la qualité qui lui appartient, avant de [260] donner suite à la plainte, le ministère public devra demander *à

l'assemblée l'autorisation de poursuivre, conformément à l'article

11 du décret organique de février 1852.

Dans le cas où l'on ne voudrait porter plainte que pour raison de la violation de la loi du 24 mai 1834 et de l'ordonnance de 1847, au lieu de soumettre la plainte au juge d'instruction ou de la remettre au procureur impérial, l'action devant être portée devant un tribunal correctionnel, le Gouvernement américan pourrait procéder par voie de citation directe, et il porterait devant le juge correctionnel sa demande à fin de réparations civiles et de dommages-intérêts.

Dans le cas enfin où le Gouvernement des États-Unis renoncerait à intenter, pour raison des faits dont il s'agit, soit une action au criminel par voie de plainte, soit une simple action correctionnelle, il peut sépa rer l'action civile de l'action publique, et intenter contre ceux qui lui ont fait préjudice une action devant les tribunaux civils, sauf au ministère public à exercer l'action publique en répression du crime et du délit, s'il le juge à propos.

Devant le tribunal civil, le Gouvernement des États-Unis n'aura à invoquer, en justifiant des actes dont il a souffert, que les dispositions de l'article 1382 du Code civil, où il est écrit:

[261]

Tout fait quelconque de l'homme, qui cause *à autrui un dommage oblige celui, par la faute duquel il est arrivé, à réparer.

À fin de réparation du crime ou du délit commis envers lui, le Gou vernement fédéral demandera, à titre d'indemnité, la confiscation des constructions et fabrications faites à son préjudice. Il pourra même, après avoir intenté le procès, demander, à titre de mesure conservatrice, d'être autorisé à saisir provisoirement, et à ses risques et périls, tous les objets construits et fabriqués, comme éléments des faits criminels dont la réparation peut être ainsi ordonnée sans que, devant les juridictions compétentes, les dispositions des lois pénales aient reçu leur application.

Délibéré à Paris, le 12 novembre 1863.

BERRYER,

Ancien Bâtonnier de l'Ordre des Avocats de Paris.

[262]

*E.

Translation of the opinion of Mr. Berryer.

The undersigned, formerly advocate, after examination of the consultative memoir presented in the name of the United States of America, together with the documents justificative, hereto annexed, and after deliberation upon the questions submitted to him, is of the following opinion:

From the exposé contained in the memorandum and the accompanying documents results the complete proof of the facts, which it will be advantageous first to recapitulate.

In the month of February, 1861, several of the Southern American States, until that time under the Government of the Federal Constitution of the United States, resolved to separate themselves from the Northern States, and assembled a congress for the purpose of constituting the government of the Confederate States of America. War between the confederates and the Federal Government broke out in the month of April.

On the 10th of June, in the same year, in the official part of the Moniteur, a declaration appeared, submitted by the minister of foreign

affairs to the Emperor of the French and by him approved. [263] *By this solemn act the Emperor, considering the peaceful re

lations existing between France and the United States of America, resolved to maintain a a strict neutrality in the struggle commenced between the Government of the Union and the States pretending to form a distinct confederation.

It declares, among other things:

3. All Frenchmen are forbidden to take a commission from either of the two parties for arming vessels of war, or to co-operate in any manner whatsoever in

the equipment or armament of a war-vessel or corsair of either of the parties.

5. Frenchmen residing in France or in other countries will be required equally to abstain from every act which, committed in violation of the laws of the empire or of the laws of nations, could be considered as a hostile act by one of the parties, and contrary to the neutrality which we have resolved to maintain.

The imperial declaration ends thus:

Offenders against the prohibitions and recommendations contained in the presen declaration will be prosecuted, if opportunity shall offer, in conformity with the terms of the law of the 10th of April, 1825, and of articles 84 and 85 of the penal code, without prejudice to the application which may be made in the case of such offen[264] ders of the terms of article 21 of the code Napoléon, and of articles 65 and following of the decree of the 24th of March, 1802, concerning the merchant marine, 313 and following of the penal code for the navy.

In spite of this public declaration of the neutrality of France, in spite of the formal prohibitions which it pronounces in conformity with the law of nations and the special laws of France, an agreement was signed on the 15th of April, 1863, between Lucien Arman, ship-builder at Bordeaux, and James Dunwoody Bullock, an American, agent of the confederate government, stipulating that it is by the order and for the account of his principal, whose duly-executed power of attorney it declares him to have produced,

For the execution of the agreement Mr. Bullock names the banking. house of Mr. Erlanger, of Paris.

By this agreement Mr. Arman "engages to construct four steamers of four hundred horse-power, and arranged for the reception of an armament of from ten to twelve cannons."

It is stipulated that Mr. Arman shall construct two of these ships in

his yards at Bordeaux, and shall intrust the execution of two other ships to Mr. Voruz, to be constructed at the same time in his yards at Nantes. To disguise the destination of these four ships the agreement states that they are intended to establish a "regular communication between

Shanghai, Jeddo, and San Francisco, passing the strait of Van [265] Dieman, and also that they are to be fitted out, should the opportunity present itself, for sale to the Chinese or Japanese empire." Finally Mr. Builock engages to make known to the constructors the banking-house which will be charged with effecting the payment at Paris of the price of each of these ships, which is fixed at the sum of 1,800,000 francs.

The 1st of June following, Mr. Arman, in order to conform to the royal ordinance of 12th July, 1847, addressed to the minister of marine a demand for authorization to supply with an armament of twelve to fourteen thirty-pound cannon four steamships, iron-clad, in process of construction. two in his ship-yards at Bordeaux, one in that of Jollet & Babin at Nantes, and one in that of Mr. Dubigeon at Nantes.

These ships (it is said in the letter addressed to the minister) are destined for a foreign shipper, to do service in the Chinese seas and on the Pacific between China, Japan. and San Francisco. Their special armament has the additional object of permitting their eventual sale to the government of China and Japan.

The cannons will be made under the superintendence of Mr. Voruz, sr., of Nantes. Mr. Arman's letter ends as follows:

The construction being under way since the 15th of last April, I pray your excellency to grant Mr. Voruz, as soon as possible, the authorization I solicit and which the royal ordinance of July 12, 1847, requires.

Upon this exposé, and for the supposed destination of the four ships. authorization was accorded by the minister of marine on the 6th June, as requested by Mr. Arman.

[266] *On the same 6th of June Mr. Slidell, another agent of the government of the Confederate States, addressed to Mr. Arman the

following letter:

In consequence of the ministerial authorization which you have shown me, and which I deem sufficient, the agreement of the 15th of April becomes obligatory.

Three days after, the 9th of June, Mr. Erlanger, a banker at Paris, whom Bullock had named in the agreement of the 15th of April, and who was to guarantee the payments to the constructors of the four ships, wrote to Mr. Arman:

I engage to guarantee you the first two payments for the ships which you are building for the confederates, in consideration of a cominission, &c.

The financial conditions proposed by Mr. Erlanger were accepted by Mr. Arman, who, the same 9th of June, addressed to Mr. Voruz, at Nautes, the following telegram:

Mr. VORUZ, Grand Hôtel, Paris:

I have signed, without modification, the letter to Erlanger. It is on the way. ARMAN.

On his part, Mr. Erlanger wrote on the same day to Voruz, at Nantes : Here are the letters of engagement, the contract, and the copy. As you are living under the same roof with Captain Bullock, you will perhaps be good enough to have him sign the copy of the contract. I have written directly to Mr. Arman. Receive, &c.

[267]

*On the next day, the 10th of June, Mr. Arman addressed to Mr. Voruz, sr., a letter to the following effect:

DEAR MR. VORUZ: I have to acknowledge receipt of your registered letter of the 9th, and of the draft of Bullock for 720,000 francs, which was inclosed. I hasten to discharge

you, as you desire, from the documents signed by you in the hands of Mr. Bullock for the first payment of the two ships of four hundred horse-power, which I am constructing for the account of the confederates simultaneously with those which you are having built by Messrs. Jollet & Babin and Dubigeon.

I pray you to arrange in such manner as to obtain from Mr. Bullock the promise to re-imburse us finally on account of the discounts of guarantee we are paying to Mr. Erlanger. Receive, &c.

On the other hand, Messrs. Jollet & Babin and Dubigeon, charged with the construction, in their yards at Nantes, of two of the four ships, as above stated in the letter addressed on the 1st of June by Mr. Arman to the minister of marine, wrote on the 10th of the same month to Mr. Voruz:

DEAR MR. VORUZ: After having noted the financial conditions which have been

addressed to you by the house of Erlanger, as well as the letters which have passed [268] between you and Messrs. Slidell and Bullock, we recall to you our verbal agreements, for the purpose of fixing precisely our respective positions in this affair. Other persons, with full knowledge of the real destination of these Constructions and of the naval armaments, were to take a notable part in the benefits to be derived from the operation, and were to support proportionally the discount of guarantee stipulated in favor of Mr. Erlanger. It is to arrive at an understanding upon this last head that Mr. Henri Arnous Rivière, a merchant at Nantes, wrote on the 8th of June. to Mr. Voruz, sr.:

The financial complication arisen in the affair of which the contract was signed on the 15th of April last, between Arman, yourself, and Captain Bullock, is the motive of the proposition which I am about to submit to you.

Messrs. Mazetin & Co., of Havre, were charged with preparing the steam-engines for the four screw-steamers whose hulls were building in the yards of Bordeaux and Nantes. But were they ignorant of the actual destination of these war-ships when they wrote to Voruz, sr., on the 23d of June, 1863 ?

MONSIEUR: In signing some days since the Bullock agreement, &c., we omitted to correct an error in the dimensions of the engines, &c. We pray you to write us that the last measures, which are those in construction, are those agreed on between us.

[269] *All then was perfectly agreed upon between the different participants for the execution of the agreement completed on the 15th of April, 1863, between Arman, the French builder, and Captain Bullock. This agreement had been expressly ratified by Slidell, the diplomatic agent of the Confederate States, according to his letter addressed to Mr. Arman on the 6th of June, 1863. The ministerial authorization required by French law for the construction and armament of ships of war has been accorded; the administration having doubtless been deceived by the pretended destination that a foreign shipper had in view for these ships of war, in the China seas and the Pacific, and by the eventual condition of a sale to the governments of China and Japan. But their real destination for the service of the belligerent States of the South is perfectly known to all the parties interested.

The construction of the vessels, their engines, and armaments is in full activity. The payments, guaranteed to the constructors by a powerful banking-house, are partially effected.

A second operation was to take place. On the 14th of July, 1863, Voruz, sr., writing from Paris to his son Anthony, announces to him that Captain Bullock and Mr. Arman set out the evening before for Bordeaux, together with Erlanger, the banker, and that there was question

of an agreement for some iron-clads. At the same time he told him [270] that an arrangement had been completed with a *Mr. Blakeley, an English iron-founder, for furnishing 48 cannon with 200 balls each.