with Arman for

of vessels in France.

On the 16th of July, 1863, another agreement The contracts was made in Bordeaux between Mr. Arman and the construction Mr. Bullock, "acting for the account of principals." Arman agreed to construct two screw steamships of wood and iron, with iron turrets, of 300 horse-power. Bullock was to supply the armament; the ships were to be finished in six months; one-fifth of the price was to be paid in advance.

Under these contracts Bullock is said to have paid Arman 5,280,000 francs.' But one of the vessels ever went into the possession of the insurgents, and that by fraud. It may interest the Tribunal of Arbitration to learn, in a few words, the result of these contracts and the course pursued by the French Government.

Conduct of the French Govern

The authorization which had been obtained for Mr. Arman and Mr. Vorus to arm the four vessels, ment. under the contract of the 15th April, and the doings of Mr. Arman under the contract of the 16th of July, were unknown to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. When they were brought to Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys's attention, by the Minister of the United States at Paris, he took immediate

Mr. Moreau, counsel for the United States in a suit pending before the Cour d'Appel de Paris, growing out of these transactions, so states: "Il nous reste maintenant à indiquer à la cour ce que fit M. Arman, et des navires qu'il construisait et des capitaux qu'il avait reçus de M. Bullock, capitaux dont le montant, suivant le dire de M. Arman lui-même, ne s'élève pas à moins de 5,280,000 francs.

French Government.

Conduct of the steps to prevent a violation of the neutrality of France. He wrote to Mr. Dayton, (October 22, 1863,)"Que M. le Ministre de la Marine vient de notifier à M. Vorus le retrait de l'autorisation qu'il avait obtenue pour l'armement de quatre navires en construction à Nantes et à Bordeaux. Il en a été donné également avis à M. Arman, dont l'attention a été en même temps apelée sur la responsabilité qu'il pourrait encourir par des actes en opposition avec la déclaration du 11 Juin, 1861."

Mr. Arman made many efforts to remove the injunctions of the Government, but without success. He was finally forced to sell to the Prussian Government two of the clippers constructed at Bordeaux under the contract of April 15. Two other clippers, constructed at Nantes under that contract, were sold to the Peruvian Government. Of the two iron-clads constructed under the contract of July 16, one was sold to Prussia for 2,075,000 francs. A contract was made for the sale of the other to Denmark, which was then at war, and it was sent, under the Danish name of Stoerkodder, to Copenhagen for delivery. It arrived there after the time agreed upon for the delivery and after the war was over; and the Danish Government refused to accept it.

The person in charge

of the vessel in Copenhagen held at once the power of attorney of M. Arman and of Mr. Bul

Conduct of the

lock; and in one capacity he delivered the vessel French Govern

to himself in the other capacity, and took her to ment.
the Isle of Houat, off the French coast, where she
was met by a steamer from England with an arma-
ment. Taking this on board, she crossed the
Atlantic, stopping in Spain and Portugal on the
way. In the port of Havana news was received
of the suppression of the insurrection, and she was
delivered to the authorities of the United States.
The course pursued by France toward these ves-
sels is in striking contrast with Great Britain's
conduct in the cases of the Florida and the Ala-
bama.

Bullock's operations in this way called for a great deal of money. On the 22d May, 1863, a "navy warrant on Messrs. Fraser, Trenholm & Co. for £300,000" was sent to him. On the 25th June, 1863, "drafts for £26,000 and £38,962 13s. 4d., in favor of Commander James D. Bullock, on the C. S. Depositary in Liverpool, were forwarded to him." Other funds were sent that the United States are not able to trace. In September, 1863, his contracts had been so heavy that he was low in funds. Maffitt sent to him at Liverpool a number of “men, discharged from the Florida, with their accounts and discharges."

He could

1 Bullock to Elmore, July 3, 1863, Vol. VI, page 129.

2 Mallory to Elmore, June 25, 1863, Vol. VI, page 126.

3 Maffitt to Bullock, September 3, 1863, Vol. II, page 639.

Contrast be

tween the conduct

of France and of

Great Britain.

Contrast be- not pay them, and the men "began to get restive."

tween the conduct

Great Britain.

of France and of Mallory made an effort to send him further funds, and asked Memminger to instruct "the Depositary at Liverpool" to countersign certain cotton certificates "on the application of Commander Bullock."1 In this, or in some other way, the funds were replenished, and large sums were spent after that time.

The Tuscaloosa at the Cape of Good Hope.

While these extensive preparations for a fleet were going on in England and France, an event took place at the Cape of Good Hope which tested afresh the purpose of Her Majesty's Government to maintain British neutrality and enforce the Queen's proclamation

On the 5th of August, 1863, the Alabama arrived in Table Bay and gave information that the Tuscaloosa, a prize that had been captured off Brazil, would soon arrive in the character of a tender. On the 8th that vessel arrived in Simon's Bay, having her original cargo of wool on board. She lay in port about a week, and while there "overtures were made by some parties in Cape Town to purchase the cargo of wool." The wool was disposed of to a Cape Town merchant, on condition that he should send it to Europe for sale, and two-thirds of the price should be paid into the insurgent treasury; and it was landed for that pur

1 Mallory to Memminger, September 12, 1863, Vol. VI, page 132. 2 Walker to the Secretary of the Admiralty, Vol. IV, page 216; Vol. VI, page 456.

The Tuscaloosa

at the Cape of

pose by the Tuscaloosa, on a wild spot, called
Angra Pequena, outside of British jurisdiction.1 Good Hope."
When the Tuscaloosa made her appearance at Cape
Town, Rear-Admiral Sir Baldwin Walker wrote to
the Governor, desiring to know "whether this ves-
sel ought still to be looked upon in the light of a
prize, she never having been condemned in a prize
court." He was instructed to admit the vessel.
The practical experience of the honest sailor
rebelled at this decision, and he replied, "I appre-
hend that to bring a captured vessel under the
denomination of a vessel of war, she must be fitted
for warlike purposes, and not merely have a few
men and a few small guns put on board her, (in
fact nothing but a prize crew,) in order to disguise
her real character as a prize. Now, this vessel has
her original cargo of wool still on board, which can-
not be required for warlike purposes, and her arma-
ment and number of her crew are quite insufficient
for any services other than those of slight defense.
Viewing all the circumstances of the case, they
afford room for the supposition that the vessel is
styled a tender, with the object of avoiding the
prohibition against her entrance as a prize into our
ports, where, if the captors wished, arrangements

'Mountague Bernard's Neutrality of Great Britain, &c., page 421, note 1.

2 Vol. IV, page 217; Vol. VI, page 458.