[297] *Mr. Dayton, United States minister, to Mr. Seward, Secretary of State. PARIS, March 11, 1864. SIR: M. Drouyn de Lhuys informs me that in a recent interview with Arman, the ship-builder at Bordeaux, he (Arman) assured him that not only the iron-clad vessels he was building at Bordeaux, but the other four vessels (two at Nantes and two at Bordeaux) would certainly be disposed to neutral governments in such manner as to relieve France from any trouble or responsibility on the subject. These vessels, I may add, are in the steady course of construction, the work being constantly advanced upon them. I am, sir, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, WM. L. DAYTON. Secretary of State. [298] *Discours de M. Rouher, ministre d'état. [Du Moniteur Universel, page 670.-Vendredi, 13 mai 1864.] CORPS LÉGISLATIF, (Séance du 12 mai 1864.) M. ROUHER, Ministre d'État: . . Si j'examine le discours de l'honorable M. Jules Favre, en prenant ses objections dans un ordre inverse à celui qu'il a adopté, le premier point que je rencontre est cette prétendue violation des règles de la neutralité commise par la France vis à-vis des états du nord de l'Amérique. Messieurs, les questions de neutralité, l'étendue des devoirs des neutres, ont donné, dans tous les temps, matière à des difficultés, à des conflits nombreux. Je ne veux pas retracer ici les phases diverses que le droit des neutres a subies dans le code international; mais ce que je peux dire à l'honneur de la politique de notre pays, c'est que tout ce qu'il y a eu d'idées libérales, progressives, généreuses, introduites dans la légis lation des neutres, est parti du gouvernement français. [C'est vrai! c'est vrai !] Aussi, lors de la déclaration de la guerre en Amérique entre les états du nord et les états du sud, nous n'avons pas failli à ces précé[299] dents, et nous avons posé, dès les premiers jours, les *principes de neutralité qui devaient régir toute notre conduite. Dans la déclaration du 10 juin 1861, insérée au Moniteur, acte officiel émané du souverain, il est dit par à l'article 3: Il est interdit à tout Français de prendre commission de l'une des deux parties pour armer des vaisseaux en guerre, ou d'accepter des lettres de marque pour faire la course maritime, ou de concourir d'une manière quelconque à l'équipement ou à l'armement d'un navire de guerre ou corsaire de l'une des deux parties belligérantes. Au mois de juin 1863, une demande a été adresseé par deux constructeurs français pour l'exécution de deux steamers, avec l'indication que ces navires étaient destinés à naviguer dans les mers de Chine. M. le ministre des États-Unis, au mois de décembre 1863, a invoqué des lettres, des documents, que, des circonstances dont nous n'avons pas voulu approfondir le caractère, avaient mis en la possession de M. Dayton, il a soutenu que ces navires étaient destinés aux confédérés. Une enquête s'est ouverte immédiatement. [300] Les armateurs ont été interrogés; leurs *explications ont été appréciées, et l'autorisation, un instant donnée, a été retireé par le gouvernement. Plus tard, quelques doutes se sont élevés; ces steamers, qui ne sont pas en partance, ont été indiqués comme destinés à la Suède. De nouvelles informations ont été prises. Cette indication n'a pas paru suffisamment démontrée, et, à la date du 1er mai 1864, il y a dix jours, le ministre de la marine écrivait au ministre des affaires étrangères: Les navires de guerre que vous nous avez signalés ne sortiront des ports français que le jour où il sera démontré d'une manière positive que leur destination n'affecte point les principes de neutralité que le gouvernement français veut rigoureusement observer à l'égard des belligérants. Voilà la conduite qui a été tenue sans équivoque, de la manière la plus nette et la plus précise, par le gouvernement de l'Empereur. [301] *Speech of M. Rouher, minister of state. [Translation.] [From the Moniteur Universel, of Friday, May 13, 1864, p. 670.] CORPS LÉGISLATIF, (Session of the 12th May, 1864.) Mr. ROUHER, Minister of State: If I examine the speech of the Hon. Mr. Jules Favre, taking his objections in an order the reverse of that adopted by him, the first point I meet is the pretended violation of the laws of neutrality committed by France against the States of the North of America. Gentlemen, questions of neutrality, as regarding the duties of neutrals, have been always the causes of difficulties and of numerous conflicts. Í will not here trace the different phases through which the law of neutrals has passed in the international code; but what I may say to the honor of the policy of our country is that all liberal, progressive, and generous ideas introduced into the law of neutrals originated with the French government. [True, true.] Accordingly, after the declaration of war in America between the States of the North and the States of the South, we have followed these precedents, and we announced [302] at an early day the principles of neutrality*which were to regulate our conduct. In the declaration of the 10th of June, 1861, an official act emanating from the sovereign, inserted in the Moniteur, it is stated in Article 3: All Frenchmen are forbidden to take a commission from either of the two parties to arm vessels of war, or to accept letters of marque for a cruise, or to assist in any manner in the equipment or armament of a war-vessel or privateer of either of the belligerents. In the month of June, 1863, a formal request was made by two French builders for the right to construct two steamers, with the information that these vessels were intended to navigate the Chinese seas. Mr. Dayton, the minister of the United States, in the month of December, 1863, called our attention to certain letters and documents, which circumstances, into the character of which we have not wished to inquire, had put into his hands; he maintained that these vessels were for the confederates. An inquiry was immediately instituted; the owners were questioned; their explanations were weighed, and the authorization formerly given was withdrawn by the government. Later, doubts arose; it was intimated that these steamers, which had not yet sailed, were intended for Sweden. New testimony was taken, and this intimation not appearing to be sufficiently proved, the [303] minister of the *marine wrote to the minister of foreign affairs, under the date of May 1, 1864, ten days ago, as follows: The vessels of war to which you have called our attention shall not leave the ports of France until it shall have been positively demonstrated that their destination does not affect the principles of neutrality which the French government wishes to rigidly observe toward both belligerents. Such is the conduct which has been maintained without equivocation, and in the clearest and most precise manner, by the government of the Emperor. Mr. Dayton, United States minister, to Mr. Seward, Secretary of State. PARIS, May 16, 1864. SIR: At a special interview accorded to me on Saturday last, M. Drouyn de Lhuys informed me not only that the two iron-clads, now being constructed by Arman, at Bordeaux, under contract with the confederates, have been positively sold to a neutral power, but he assured me distinctly that the four clipper-ships in the course of construction at Bordeaux and Nantes, under a like contract, should not be delivered to the confederates. As two of these vessels are approaching completion, I confess I was much gratified by receiving this distinct assurance. [304] His language was most explicit, and I thanked *him accordingly. I am, sir, &c., Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, WM. L. DAYTON. Secretary of State. Mr. Seward, Secretary of State, to Mr. Dayton, United States minister. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: Mr. Geofroy has to-day submitted to me a dispatch which has been received from M. Drouyn de Lhuys, in which he states the fact of the sale of two ships, the Yeddo and the Osacca, which Arman built for the insurgents, to alleged neutrals, to be delivered in Holland, substantially on the same terms as those which M. Drouyn de Lhuys made in communicating that transaction to yourself, as you have related them to us in your dispatches. In the absence of full and definite information about the names, condition, or character of the alleged purchaser, the terms of his contract or the other circumstances of the alleged sale, this Government is not prepared to pronounce its acquiescence in the disposition of the subject which has been made by the French govern ment. We are to be understood, therefore, as maintaining in regard to France all the protests we have heretofore made concerning those [305] vessels, and reserving all the rights and remedies in respect to the vessels themselves which belong to the United States under the law of nations. At the same time we willingly believe that the French government has taken proper care to guard against the vessels being used for making war upon the United States. I am, sir, &c., WILLIAM L. DAYTON, Esq. WILLIAM II. SEWARD. Mr. Dayton, United States minister, to Mr. Seward, Secretary of State. [Extract.] PARIS, September 30, 1864. SIR: I saw M. Drouyn de Lhuys on yesterday. He received me in a very cordial manner, but said, smilingly, that I wrote him a sharp dispatch; in allusion to that I had sent him the day before, inclosed to you in No. 542. I said no, but I had answered temperately a sharp dispatch he had sent to me from the minister of marine; and I added that that dispatch had surprised me very much, as there was certainly nothing in my letter, to which this dispatch from the minister of marine purports to be an answer, to justify it. M. Drouyn de Lhuys then said they certainly intended to watch those vessels at Bordeaux and Nantes as [306] *closely as possible; and he thought that this letter from the minister of marine, stating that these vessels should not be delivered" to the confederates, put the matter in the best possible shape for me. I told him I thought so too, and was satisfied, and had so informed the commanders of the Niagara and Sacramento. I am, sir, &c., Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, * WM. L. DAYTON. Secretary of State. [317] *No. 3.-CASE OF THE RAPPAHANNOCK. Mr. Dayton, United States minister, to M. Drouyn de Lhuys, minister of foreign affairs. PARIS, December 4, 1863. M. LE MINISTRE: A ship called by her captain the Rappahannock, and purchased for the confederates of the South, has made her escape from the British port of Sheerness without papers, and ran into the port of Calais. She claims, I am informed, that she is driven in to repair her machinery, rigging, &c. The facts as communicated to me are certain: 1. That she has been bought and fitted up by the confederates, to cruise against and destroy our commerce, 2. That, anticipating or fearing detention, she escaped in an unfinished condition from the port of Sheerness, England, and has come over to Calais to complete her equipment, &c. 3. That a number of young Americans (some twelve or fourteen, I think) have been awaiting at Calais the arrival of this vessel to go aboard of her as officers or crew, and that upon a signal from the vessel they made an attempt by a ruse to accomplish their purpose. This shows that the vessel did not come in as pretended, "en relache force." [3308] *4. Our consular agent writes me that it is quite evident the vessel left the English port suddenly and unexpectedly, with the mechanics employed on her yet on board; that considerable reparations and changes are yet to be made upon her; that her rigging is incomplete, and the ropes and pulleys are yet scattered over the decks. He informed me also that it is understood the captain had said that he had applied, or would apply, to the minister of marine for permission to take out and entirely repair her boilers. [303] minister of the *marine wrote to the minister of for under the date of May 1, 1864, ten days ago, as follo The vessels of war to which you have called our attention shall no of France until it shall have been positively demonstrated that their not affect the principles of neutrality which the French government observe toward both belligerents. Such is the conduct which has been maintained with and in the clearest and most precise manner, by the Emperor. |