The Florida and her own country, or some nearer destination, nor her tenders. after coaling once in British waters was she to be suffered to coal again within three months, unlessly special permission." 991 These rules were rigidly enforced against the United States. They were not only relaxed, but they were oftentimes utterly disregarded in the treatment of the insurgent vessels. The Florida when at Nassau, in the months of May, June, and July, 1862, and again in the month of January, 1863, was distant from Wilmington, Charleston, or Savanah, only two, or at most three, days' steaming. She ordinarily sailed under canvas. Even when using steam in the pursuit and capture of vessels her consumption of coal, as shown by her log-book, did not average four tons a day. Thirty tons, (more than the amount taken by the United States Steamer Dacotah in September, 1862,) was all that she should have been allowed to take on board under the instructions, even had she been an honest vessel, and one that Great Britain was not bound to arrest and detain. Yet in July, 1862, she received all the coal she wanted, and in January, 1863, she took on board a three months' supply. The Tribunal also will note that in January, 1863, the entry into the harbor, though made 1 Bernard's Neutrality of Great Britain, pages 265 and 266. without permission, was condoned; that the visit lasted thirty-six hours instead of twenty-four; and that the "supplies" exceeded largely what was immediately necessary for the subsistence of the crew. This excessive hospitality was in striking contrast with the receptions given to vessels of the United States at that port. It has already been shown that in December, 1861, the United States had been forbidden to land coals at Nassau or Bermuda, except on condition that it should not be used for their vessels of war. It has also been shown that in September, 1862, the United States war steamer Dacotah was forbidden to take more than twenty tons of coal, and that only upon condition that for ten days she would not re-appear in British waters. On the 20th of the previous November the commander of the Wachusett was informed that he could not be allowed even to anchor, or to come within three miles of the shore, without permission of the Governor. In fact, the indignities to which the vessels of the United States were subjected were so great that the RearAdmiral in command of the fleet, on the 2d January, 1863, wrote to the Secretary of the Navy, "I have not entered any British port except Bermuda, nor do I intend to enter, or permit any of the vessels of the squadron to ask permission to The Florida and her tenders. The Florida and enter, or subject myself and those under my com her tenders. mand to the discourtesies those who had entered heretofore had received."1 The United States insist that these excessive hospitalities to the Florida and these discourtesies to the vessels of war of the United States constituted a further violation of the duties of Great Britain as a neutral. By furnishing a full supply of coal to the Florida, after a similar hospitality had been refused to the vessels of the United States, the British officials permitted Nassau to be made a base of hostile operations against the United States; and for this, as well as for other violations of duty as to that vessel, which have been already noticed, Great Britain became liable to the United States for the injuries resulting from her acts. The Florida left the port of Nassau on the afternoon of the 27th of January, 1863. By the middle of the following month her coal was getting low. On the 26th day of February Admiral Wilkes, in command of the United States Squadron in the West Indies, wrote to his Government thus: "The fact of the Florida having but a few days' coal makes me anxious to have our vessels off the Martinique, which is the only island at which they can hope to get any coal or supplies, the English islands being 1 Rear-Admiral Wilkes to the Secretary of the Navy, January 2, 1862. cut off under the rules of Her Majesty's Government for some sixty days yet, which precludes the possibility, unless by chicanery or fraud, of the hope of any coal or comfort there." Admiral Wilkes's hopes were destined to disappointment. On the 24th of February, two days before the date of his dispatch, the Florida had been in the harbor of Barbadoes, and had taken on board about one hundred tons of coal in violation of the instructions of January 31, 1862. Rear-Admiral Wilkes, hearing of this new breach of neutrality, visited Barbadoes ten days later to inquire into the circumstance. He addressed a letter to the Governor, in which he said, "I have to request your Excellency will afford me the opportunity of laying before my Government the circumstances under which the Florida was permitted to take in a supply of coal and provisions to continue her cruise and operations, after having so recently coaled and provisioned at Nassau, one of Her Majesty's colonies in the West Indies, ample time having been afforded, some thirty days, for the information to have reached this island and Government; and if any cause existed why an investigation was not instituted after the letter to Your Excellency was received from Admiral Wilkes to Mr. Welles, Vol. VI, page 338. 2 Trowbridge to Seward, Vol. II, page 619, Vol. VI, page 339. The Florida and her tenders. her tenders. The Florida and the United States Consul." The Governor evaded the question. He "doubted very much whether it would be desirable to enter into correspondence upon the points adverted to," and said that "in sanctioning the coaling of the Florida, he did no more than what he had sanctioned in the case of the United States steamer of war San Jacinto." There was no parallel or even resemblance between the treatment of the San Jacinto and that of the Florida. On the 13th of November, 1863, the San Jacinto received seventy-five tons of coal and some wood at Barbadoes. With that exception she received no coal or other fuel from a British port during that cruise.3 Under these circumstances the United States must ask the Tribunal to declare that the burden is upon Great Britain to establish that this express violation of Her Majesty's proclamation was innocently done. Whether done innocently or designedly, they insist, for the reasons already set forth, that the act was a new violation of the duties of a neutral, and furnished to the United States fresh cause of complaint against Great Britain. Before completing the history of this vessel, the United States desire to show to the Tribunal how the vessels of the United States were received at 1 Wilkes to Walker, Vol. II, page 628; Vol. VI, page 343. 2 Walker to Wilkes, Vol. II, page 629; Vol. VI, page 344. 3 Robeson to Fish, Vol. VI, page 345. |