Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

that of the foregoing amount no less than 4,000 tons was had expressly for the purpose of watching or pursuing particular ships.

The case of the Vanderbilt, when in pursuit of the Alabama, is a striking instance. After having coaled at Rio, she proceeded to St. Helena, there took in 400 tons, (all she could get,) then proceeded to Simon's Bay, and there took in 1,000 tons; she then went to the Mauritius, and there coaled again. If the construction put by the United States Government on the term "base of operations" is correct, in every one of these instances there was a violation of neutrality, and an infraction of the second and third rules. Is there to be one law for the United States and another for Great Britain?

But, in truth, such a construction is altogether unwarranted.

Right of asylum.

It may, perhaps, be as well to notice, as one instance occurs in this inquiry of a vessel remaining in a British port to avoid capture by an enemy, that the right of naval asylum is not subject, as is that afforded to military forces on land, to any condition of disarming or dismantling the vessel. Azuni alone proposed to subject a vessel seeking refuge from an enemy to a similar condition to that of a military force on land, but he admitted that no precedent could be found for such a thing, and all subsequent writers have repudiated such a notion.

M. Hautefeuille, for instance, says:

Le droit d'asile maritime diffère essentiellement de celui que les neutres peuvent exercer en faveur des belligérants sur le territoire continental. Dans les guerres terrestres, lorsqu'une armée, fuyant devant son ennemi, vient se réfugier sur un territoire Deutre, elle y est reçue, il est vrai; elle y trouve tous les secours d'humanité. Mais l'armée est dissoute, les hommes qui la composent sont désarmés et éloignés du théâtre de la guerre; en un mot, on remplit les devoirs d'humanité à l'égard des individus, mais on n'accorde pas l'asile à l'armée pris comme corps. Le neutre qui, an lieu d'agir ainsi que je viens de le dire, accueillerait les troupes ennemies, leur fournirait des vivres, leur donnerait le temps de se remettre de leurs fatigues, de soigner leurs malades et leurs blessés, et leur permettrait ensuite de retourner sur le théâtre des opérations militaires, ne serait pas considéré comme neutre; il manquerait à tous les devoirs de son état. L'asile maritime, au contraire, consiste à recevoir dans les rades fermées, même dans les ports, les bâtiments des belligérants, que leur entrée soit volontaire ou nécessitée par la tempête, par le manque de vivres ou par toute autre cause, même par la poursuite de l'ennemi. Les vaisseaux admis peuvent acheter les vivres qui leur sont nécessaires, réparer les avaries faites, soit par les accidents de mer, soit par le combat, soigner leurs malades ou leurs blessés, puis sortir librement pour aller livrer de nouveaux combats. Ils ne sont pas, par conséquent, soumis au désarmement comme les troupes de terre.1

M. Calvo, in his recently published work on International Law, says:

Tous les auteurs sont d'accord sur la difference radicale à établir entre l'asile accordé aux forces navales et celui qui l'est aux troupes de terre. En effet, lorsqu'une armée en fuite ou en déroute franchit les frontières d'une nation neutre, celle-ci doit aussitôt la désarmer, l'interner et l'éloigner le plus possible du théâtre des hostilités. Les mêmes mesures ne sont évidemment pas praticables à l'égard des navires qui entrent dansles ports, et qu'un usage universellement établi autorise, au contraire, à s'approvisionner, à se réparer et à faire soigner leurs blessés, sauf à remettre en mer dès qu'ils ont pourvu à leurs besoins.?

M. Hautefeuille gives what seems to me to be the true ground of the distinction. Galiani and Azuni had ascribed it to the perils to which ships and men are exposed on the seas.

M. Hautefeuille says:

Il y a donc à cette différence immense une autre cause qu'il est utile de rechercher. Je crois qu'elle est tout entière dans la qualité reconnue du bâtiment. Il est une partie du territoire de son pays; pour tout ce qui concerne son gouvernement intérieur, il est exclusivement placé sous la juridiction de son souverain. Or, il est évident qu'ordon1 Hautefeuille, Droits et devoirs de nations neutres, vol. i, p. 307.

2 Le droit international, vol. ii, p. 420.

ner le désarmement, c'est s'immiscer dans le gouvernement intérieur du vaisseau, c'est faire un acte de juridiction sur le vaisseau; le prince neutre n'a pas le droit de le faire. Il peut refuser l'asile; il peut l'accorder seulement sous certaines conditions, avec des restrictions. S'il veut remplir les devoirs d'humanité, arracher le bâtiment aux périls qui peuvent le menacer, il le reçoit dans ses ports, il lui accorde les secours nécessaires pour le mettre en état de reprendre la mer. Tel est, à mon avis, le seul motif de la différence dont je viens de parler.1

Supply of coal.

It is plain, therefore, that M. Staempfli was in error when, in speaking of the Sumter at Gibraltar, he assumed that her being allowed to remain in port, to avoid hostile capture, was a violation of neutrality. It would be to carry the perversion of language too far to contend that, to supply coals to a belligerent from a neutral port was a use of the port for a "renewal or augmentation of military supplies" within the meaning of the rule of the treaty. The term can only have reference to munitions of war-things necessary for actual battle, as powder, shot, shell, and the like. No question has ever been raised-no one has ever entertained a doubt-as to the perfect legality of supplying to a belligerent vessel whatever was necessary to it for the purpose of navigation. Machinery and coal having taken, in a great measure, the place of masts and sails, the same principle must of course apply to them. It was upon this principle that the great maritime nations-France, Holland, Spain, Brazil-acted in allowing coal to be supplied to confederate vessels; it was on this principle that so abundant a supply was afforded in British ports to vessels of the United States.

At Nassan.

In the result, then, it seems to me beyond all doubt that no question can arise as to the stay of belligerent ships in British ports prior to the issuing of the regulations of 31st of January, 1862, or as to the quantity of coal supplied to them before that time, so long as equal accommodation was afforded to both; and that, subsequently to that period, the only question is, whether these regulations were honestly and fairly acted upon toward both parties? To that question I shall now proceed to address myself, with reference, in the first instance, to the Florida. Having left Mobile on the 16th of January, 1863, the Florida arrived at Nassau on the 26th. It is complained in the Case of the United States that "her entry into the harbor, though made without permission, was condoned;" that the visit lasted thirtysix hours instead of twenty-four; "that the supplies exceeded largely what was immediately necessary for the subsistence of the crew;" that "by the permission of the authorities she took in coal and provisions to last three months." "She entered the port," it is said, "without any restrictions, and the officers landed in the garrison-boat, escorted by the fort adjutant, Lieutenant Williams, of the second West India regiment." "The governor made a feint of finding fault with the way in which she had entered, but ended by giving her all the hospitality which her commander desired."

In an intemperate letter from Consul Whiting to Mr. Seward, of the 26th, he says:

SIR: I have the honor to inform you of the arrival at this port this morning of the confederate steamer Florida, late the noted Oreto, in command of one Maffitt, once a lien enant in the United States Navy. This pirate ship entered this port without any restrictions, with the secession ensign at the peak and the secession war-pennant at the main, and anchored abreast of Her Majesty's ship Barracouta, Maffitt and his officers landing in the garrison-boat, escorted by the fort adjutant, Lieutenant Williams, of the second West India regiment.

The pirate officers proceeded at once to the Royal Victoria Hotel, to breakfast with the confederate agents here, and they were received with much enthusiasm by the se1 Droits et devoirs des nations neutres, vol. i, p. 309. Page 350.

cession sympathizers, and a display of secession bunting. The pirate ship, soon after anchoring, commenced coaling, by permission of the governor; an evidence of the perfect neutrality which exists here, where the United States steamer Dacotah but a few months since was only permitted to take on board twenty tons of coal from an American bark off Hog Island, and then only on Captain McKinstry and myself pledging ourselves, in writing, "that within ten days after leaving this port she would not be cruising within five miles of any island of the Bahama government."

[blocks in formation]

JANUARY 27, 1863.-The pirate ship is still at anchor, having exceeded her time of lying in a neutral port. Gangs worked all night taking in her coal, and she is ordered to sea this forenoon. By this time, however, my dispatches have most likely reached some of our war-vessels, and I trust they may be able to capture this formidable pirate.

At noon the pirate got under way and stood out of the harbor, but continued all day coasting up and down the Hog Island shore, within two miles of the land. Twenty of her men left here and others were shipped in their place. From one of the deserters I gleaned the following information, viz:

The Oreto left Mobile January 15, under command of Maffitt; touched at Havana, where she lay twenty-four hours; thence sailed for Nassau, where she lay thirty-six hours, and took on board coal. She has six 32-pounders, two 9-inch pivot-guns, two brass 12-pounders, ample stores, ammunition, and one hundred and thirty men.”

I do not see why it should be stated in the case that the Florida remained in the port of Nassau thirty-six hours, when Mr. Whitting's letter states that she arrived on the morning of the 26th and left at noon on the 27th. In point of fact she remained twenty-six hours. It behooves those who make accusations to use "due diligence" to secure accuracy in their facts.

It is to be regretted that it should be asserted that this steamer was allowed to take in coal for three months, when the other facts stated in the case show this to have been impossible. It is difficult to suppose that the consul should not have been aware of the circumstances under which Captain Maffitt, the commander of the Florida, had been brought on shore in the garrison-boat. It is to be regretted that his statement on this subject should have been repeated in the case of the United States, accompanied by the offensive remark that "the governor made a feint of finding fault with the mode in which the vessel had entered, but ended by giving her all the hospitality which her commander required," especially after the full explanation afforded by Governor Bayley at the time, both to Lord Lyons and to the secretary of state for the colonies, which was in due course communicated to the Government at Washington. It is the more to be regretted that these imputations should have been made, because it must have been known to those who make them that a ship of war of the United States had shortly before entered the port of Nassau without permission; that her commander had, in like manner, been brought on shore in the garrison-boat; and that the entry had been, in like manner, "condoned," and the ship allowed to remain in the harbor for repairs. The conduct of a British governor being thus called in question, I think it right to call attention to the correspondence, which will speak for itself.

Mr. Whiting's letter having been brought to the notice of Lord Lyons, and his lordship having applied to Governor Bayley for an explanation, the latter, in a letter of the 11th of March, 1863, replies as follows:

GOVERNMENT HOUSE, Nassau, Bahamas, March 11, 1863.

MY LORD: I have the honor to acknowledge your lordship's dispatch_inclosing a complaint from the United States consul at this port to Mr. Seward, the Secretary of State, respecting undue advantages alleged to have been given to the confederate steamer Florida in this harbor.

United States Documents, vol. vi, p. 333.

In reply, I beg leave to state that no undue advantages were accorded to the Florida. She arrived in our harbor, having steamed over the bar without a pilot, early in the morning of the 20th of January. I was not aware of it till 8 or 9 o'clock a. m. About that hour Captain Maffitt called (I think in company with the fort adjutant) to explain that he was ignorant of my proclamation requiring that permission should be formally asked before any man-of-war belonging to either of the two belligerents could enter the harbor. I did not see him; but in a very short time I received a letter from him, of which I transmit your lordship a copy, along with the copy of the memorandum indorsed on it by myself before I sent it to the colonial secretary. The Florida remained in harbor about twenty-six hours, during which time I neither spoke to nor saw Captain Maffitt.

So far from any advantage having been accorded to the Florida which was not accorded to United States vessels, she did not receive privileges equal to those which I granted to the United States gun-boat Stars and Stripes. That vessel entered the harbor without permission (which she asked for after she had come in.) Her commander then asked for an extension of the permission, which I also accorded; and she remained in harbor, if I remember rightly, three or four days for the alleged purpose of undergoing repairs.

I regret that the Secretary of State should have given credence to the misrepresentations of a person of such infirm judgment and excitable temperament as Mr. Whiting has proved himself to be.'

I have, &c.,

C. J. BAYLEY.

Captain Maffitt, the commander of the Florida, having written to the governor, saying that the vessel was in distress for want of coal, and asking leave to enter the harbor in order to obtain a supply, the following memorandum was made by the governor :

I grant this request under the circumstances; thereby according to a confederate steamer the same privileges which I have formerly granted to Federal steamers. But the irregularity in delaying to make this request should be pointed out, and the pilot called on to explain how he admitted the Florida without my permission.

Repeating these statements in a letter to the secretary of state for the colonies, of May 2, Governor Bayley adds:

I have no distinct recollection of the special reasons which induced me to impose the restrictions mentioned by the consul in the Dacotah's coaling; I can only suppose that I did this in consequence of the pertinacity with which Federal vessels about that time resorted to the harbor on pretense of coaling, but really with the object of watching the arrival and departure of English merchant-vessels, supposed to be freighted with cargoes for the southern ports. Had not such prohibition been issued, the harbor would have become a mere convenience for Federal men-of-war running in and out to intercept British shipping. And that such conditions as I thought it my duty to impose were tempered by a proper feeling of courtesy and humanity will, I think, be made evident by the accompanying letters from the American consul on the subject of the Federal man-of-war the R. Cuyler, and the memoranda of my replies indorsed upon them by myself.

On the whole I am satisfied that I have acted with perfect impartiality in all my dealings with Federal and confederate men-of-war. But I am not surprised that my conduct should have been misrepresented by so hot-headed a partisan as the late American consul, Mr. Whiting, whose ingenuity in misconstruction is well illustrated by his reply to my letter of the 29th of September, of both of which papers I inclose copies, with the indorsation of the draught of my replies to his last communication. I think that these inclosures will be sufficient to prove that, in my demeanor to the Federal men-of-war, I have generally preserved an attitude of fairness and impartiality; and that if at any time I have appeared to assume an unfriendly or inhospitable mien, the charge can be fully explained and defended by my desire to maintain the security of a British possession, and the rights of British subjects.3

It is not worth while to set out the inclosures, with the exception of the letter of Lieutenant Williams, the fort adjutant, which The Florida at is of importance, and is in these terms:

Nassau.

NASSAU, NEW PROVIDENCE, April 30, 1863.

SIR: In answer to your letter of yesterday, requesting me to state, for the information of his excellency the governor, whether Captain Maffitt, of the Confederate States

[blocks in formation]

steamer Florida, came ashore in the garrison-boat, I beg to observe that, in the middle of last year, I received instructions from his excellency, through the colonial secretary, that when I boarded any ship of war belonging to either belligerent, I was to hand to the captain of such vessel a copy of the proclamation regarding neutrality, and to point out the clause forbidding belligerent vessels to anchor in the port or roadstead of Nassau without having previously obtained the governor's permission, adding at the same time that, circumstances permitting, his excellency would always be most happy to extend the hospitality of the port to such as might require it.

The first vessel which I had occasion to visit after the receipt of the above instructions, was the Federal gun-boat Stars and Stripes. I pointed out to the captain the requirements of the proclamation, but he said that, "owing to certain injuries received by his machinery, and the roughness of the weather, he must anchor at once, or his ship would go on shore." I therefore suggested to him the propriety of coming ashore with me, and proceeding to Government House to explain personally to his excellency the necessities of his position. He landed in the garrison-boat, and went with me to the governor.

A short time after this the Confederate States steamer Florida ran into the port at daybreak, and cast anchor before I was able to board her. I gave a copy of the procla mation to Captain Maffitt, who stated his entire ignorance of any such restrictions, and expressed his regret for having unwittingly violated the regulations of the port, and also asked me what course he had better follow. I told him that he had better come ashore in my boat, and go with me to the governor, explain matters, and obtain the necessary permission to remain. He therefore, like the captain of the Stars and Stripes, landed in the government boat, and proceeded with me to his excellency the governor.

Trusting that his excellency will consider the above explanation sufficient for the purpose for which he may require it, I have, &c.,

(Signed)

S. W. WILLIAMS, Lieutenant 2d West Indian Regiment, Fort Adjutant.

The tribunal must judge for itself how far, after these explanations, which were communicated to the United States Government, and the fact that precisely the same circumstances had previously occurred with a Federal vessel-unless, indeed, the word of a British governor or of a British officer is to be discredited or set aside by an offensive sneerthe color attempted to be given to this transaction in the case of the United States is just or right. I pass on to what is of greater relevancy to the present inquiry, namely, the quantity of coal taken by the Florida on this occasion.

It is stated in the American Case2 that the Florida at the time in question "received a three months' supply." A moment's reflection would have sufficed to satisfy those who make this rash assertion that, upon their own data, it must necessarily be incorrect. The only evidence adduced in support of it is a loose statement from the Liverpool Journal of Commerce of the 27th February, 1863, in which, after say ing that the Florida had arrived at Nassau on the 30th January, (instead of the 26th,) it is said, by some one writing on this side of the Atlantic, that she left on the evening of the 31st (instead of the 27th) "fully sup plied," it is not said with what, "for a three months' cruise."3 To which must be added a passage from an anonymous journal afterwards found on board the Florida, in which it is said, under the date of January 26, "We took on board coal and provisions to last us several months." But when we come to the only evidence worthy of a moment's consideration, namely, the deposition furnished to Mr. Whiting by John Demeritt, who assisted to put the coal on board, the quantity is reduced to 180 tons. "I suppose," he says, "she had on board over 180 tons that we put there; she did not have less than that quantity."5 Yet even this must have been an exaggeration. According to the report of the

[blocks in formation]
« iepriekšējāTurpināt »