Graham, this gentleman loses all sense of propriety, and, forgetting that he is addressing Her Majesty's representative, writes:

Your decision in the case of the Sea Bride was duly received at 4 o'clock p. m. on Saturday. In communicating that decision you simply announce that the vessel was, in your opinion, and according to the evidence before you, a legal prize to the Alabama; but you omit to state the principle of international law that governed your decision, and neglect to furnish me with the evidence relied upon by you.

Under these circumstances, I can neither have the evidence verified or rebutted here, nor am I enabled to transmit it as it stands to the American minister at London, nor to the United States Government at Washington. An invitation to be present when the ex-parte testimony was taken was not extended to me, and I am therefore ignorant of the tenor of it, and cannot distinguish the portion thrown out from that which was accepted. If your decision is that the neutral waters of this colony only extend a distance of three miles from land, the character of that decision would have been aptly illustrated to the people of Cape Town had an American war-vessel appeared on the scene and engaged the Alabama in battle. In such a contest, with cannon carrying a distance of six miles, (three over land,) the crashing buildings in Cape Town would have been an excellent commentary on your decision.

But the decision has been made, and cannot be revoked here, so that further comment at present is, therefore, unnecessary. It can only be reversed by the government you represent, which it probably will be when the United States Government shall claim indemnity for the owners of the Sea Bride.1

Referring to the Tuscaloosa, he ends by saying:

The capture of the Sea Bride in neutral waters, together with the case of the Tuscaloosa, also a prize, constitute the latest and best illustration of British neutrality that has yet been given.

The offensive tone which the United States consuls allowed themselves to assume toward British authorities is not a little remarkable.

The Sea Bride having been put in charge of a prize crew, while the officer in charge was below, the vessel was, through inadvertence, allowed to be brought within two miles of the shore, and this also was forthwith brought under the notice of the governor by Mr. Graham, who insisted that the vessel should be seized. But it appeared from Mr. Graham's own witnesses that the officer, coming on deck, stamped his foot as if vexed at seeing the vessel where she was, and immediately ordered her to be kept farther off. The governor therefore treated it as an act of inadvertence, especially as it was afterward apologized for. 2

Prior to coming into Table Bay, Captain Semmes had written from Saldanha Bay to the governor:

An opportunity is offered me by the coasting schooner Atlas to communicate with the Cape, of which I promptly avail myself.

I have the honor to inform your excellency that I arrived in this bay on Wednesday morning last for the purpose of effecting some necessary repairs. As soon as these repairs can be completed I will proceed to sea, and in the mean time your excellency may rest assured that I will pay the strictest attention to the neutrality of your govern

ment."

On the announcement of the Alabama being in Saldanha Bay, Mr. Graham, the United States consul, wrote to the governor, insisting on her being seized:

From reliable information received by me, and which you are also doubtless in possession of, a war-steamer called the Alabama is now in Saldanha Bay, being painted, discharging prisoners of war, &c.

The vessel in question was built in England, to prey upon the commerce of the United States of America, and escaped therefrom while on her trial trip, forfeiting bonds of £20,000, which the British government exacted under the foreign-enlistment

act.

Now, as your government has a treaty of amity and commerce with the United States, and has not recognized the persons in revolt against the United States as a goverument at all, the vessel alluded to should be at once seized and sent to England, from

Cape.

whence she clandestinely escaped. Assuming that the British governThe Alabama at the ment was sincere in exacting the bonds, you have doubtless been instructed to send her home to England, where she belongs. But if, from some oversight, you have not received such instructions, and you decline the responsibility of making the seizure, I would most respectfully protest against the vessel remaining in any port of the colony another day. She has been at Saldanha Bay four [six] days already, and a week previously on the coast, and has forfeited all right to remain an hour longer by this breach of neutrality. Painting a ship does not come under the head of "necessary repairs," and is no proof that she is unseaworthy; and to allow her to visit other ports after she has set the Queen's proclamation of neutrality at defiance would not be regarded as in accordance with the spirit and purpose of that document.'

Mr. Graham received for answer:

His excellency has no instructions, neither has he any authority, to seize or detain that vessel; and he desires me to acquaint you that he has received a letter from the commander, dated the 1st instant, stating that repairs were in progress, and as soon as they were completed he intended to go to sea. He further announces his intention of respecting strictly the neutrality of the British government.

The course which Captain Semmes here proposes to take is, in the governor's opinion, in conformity with the instructions he has himself received relative to ships of war and privateers belonging to the United States and the States calling themselves the Confederate States of America visiting British ports.

The reports received from Saldanha Bay induce the governor to believe that the vessel will leave that harbor as soon as her repairs are completed; but he will, immediately on receiving intelligence to the contrary, take the necessary steps for enforcing the observance of the rules laid down by Her Majesty's government.

Called upon afterward to advise as to the propriety of what had taken place with reference to the Alabama at the Cape, the law-officers, Sir R. Palmer, Sir R. Collier, and Sir R. Phillimore, the latter so deservedly held up as an authority by the United States, on the 19th of October advised:

With respect to the Alabama herself, we are clearly of opinion that neither the gov ernor nor any other authority at the Cape could exercise any jurisdiction over her and that, whatever was her previous history, they were bound to treat her as a ship of war belonging to a belligerent power.3

It strikes me that this tribunal should hesitate before it decides that three such legal authorities were wrong. Or are we to suppose that an "insincere neutrality" lurks beneath their opinion, though given in the course of official duty?

On his arrival in Table Bay, on the 5th of August, Captain Semmes wrote to the governor, informing him that he had come in for supplies and repairs, and requesting to be allowed to land his prisoners, thirtythree in number, lately captured on board two ships destroyed by him at sea. The governor gave permission to land the prisoners, but desired that Captain Semmes would "state the nature and extent of the supplies and repairs required, that he might be enabled to form some estimate of the time it would be necessary for the Alabama to remain in the port."

Captain Semmes replies:

In the way of supplies I shall need some provisions for my crew, a list of which will be handed you to-morrow by the paymaster, and as for repairs my boilers need some iron-work to be done, and my bends require calking, being quite open. I propose to take on board the necessary materials here, and to proceed with all dispatch to Simon's Bay, for the purpose of making these repairs.*

On the morning of the 6th the 'paymaster of the vessel called on the governor, with the merchant who was to furnish the supplies, and leave

was given to the vessel to remain till the next day, the 7th. In a dispatch to the Duke of Newcastle Sir Philip Wodehouse states:

On the night of the 5th Her Majesty's ship Valorous had come round from Simon's Bay. During the night of the 6th the weather became unfavorable; a vessel was wrecked in the bay, and a heavy sea prevented the Alabama from receiving her supplies by the time arranged. On the morning of the 8th, Captain Forsyth, of the Valorous, and the port captain, by my desire, pressed on Captain Semmes the necessity for his leaving the port without any unnecessary delay; when he pleaded the continued heavy sea and the absence of his cooking-apparatus, which had been sent on shore for repairs, and had not been returned by the tradesman at the time appointed, and intimated his own anxiety to get away. Between 6 and 7 a. m., on the 9th, he sailed, and on his way round to Simon's Bay captured another vessel, but on finding that she was in neutral waters, immediately released her.'

With reference to the latter circumstance, Sir B. Walker, in his dispatch to the admiralty, says:

During his passage to this port Captain Semmes chased another American vessel, the Martha Wentzel, standing in for Table Bay. On my pointing out to him that he had done so in neutral waters, he assured me that it was quite unintentional, and, being at a distance from the land, he did not observe that he had got within three miles of an imaginary line drawn from the Cape of Good Hope to Cape Hanglip, but on discovering it he did not detain the vessel. This explanation I considered sufficient. Having arrived at Simon's Bay on the 9th, the vessel was calked, and had other slight repairs done. She took in no coal on this occasion. She left on the 15th. "Captain Semmes," says the admiral, "was guarded in his conduct, and expressed himself as most anxious not to violate the neutrality of these waters."3

The Alabama again put into Simon's Bay on the 16th of September to coal and have repairs done. It has never been suggested that, either in respect of the stay of the vessel on either occasion, or the amount of repair, or the quantity of coal, any indulgence was allowed to her in excess of the Queen's regulations.

Courtesies and sympathy may have been shown by the inhabitants to the officers and crew of the ship. But, as I have already observed, these are things which a neutral government cannot prevent, and for which it would be simply absurd to say it could be responsible. Probably, as was very sensibly remarked by a Cape newspaper, the Argus, cited by Captain Semmes in his journal, when speaking of the sympathy shown by the inhabitants, "It was not, perhaps, taking the view of either side, Federal or confederate, but in admiration of the skill, pluck, and daring of the Alabama, her captain and her crew, who afford a general theme of admiration all the world over."5

In the Esteri

From the Cape of Good Hope the Alabama proceeded to the Eastern Seas. She touched at Singapore in December, 1863, and visited the Cape on her way back to European waters in March, Seas. 1864. It is mentioned, in the Case of the United States, as a fresh instance of the violation of the duties of Great Britain as a neutral, that, having taken in coal at Singapore on the 23d of December, she was allowed to commence coaling again at Cape Town on the 21st of March— two days too soon. But I can hardly suppose this will be seriously insisted on. Moreover, it appears from the British Counter Case that the charge, such as it is, resting on no better foundation than Captain Semmes's journals, is founded on a miscalculation of dates. The Alabama seems to have taken in her supply of coal at Singapore, not on

At Cherbourg.

the 23d, but on the 22d of December; and, although she arrived at Table Bay on the 20th of March, she did not commence coaling till the 22d, when the period of three months prescribed by the regulations had exactly elapsed. Indeed, she could not have done so earlier had it been wished, on account of the heavy gale that was then prevailing. The career of the Alabama was now drawing to a close. On the 11th of June, 1864, she entered the port of Cherbourg. The United States war-steamer, the Kearsarge, appeared shortly afterward in the neighboring waters. A chailenge ensued between the commanders of the two vessels, and, on the morning of the 19th of June, the Alabama steamed out of Cherbourg to encounter her formidable opponent. The fire of the Kearsarge proved too heavy for the Alabama, and the latter sank under it and went down, affording to the victors the opportunity for the boastful taunt-which even the peaceful occasion of this arbitration could not restrain-that "thus this Britishbuilt, British-armed, and British-manned cruiser went down under the fire of American guns." 1

As if everything connected with this vessel must give birth to controversy, the sinking of the Alabama gave rise to a discussion, not uninteresting in a juridical point of view, though beside the purpose of the present inquiry. As the Alabama was rapidly sinking, an officer in one of her boats came to the Kearsarge, said they had surrendered, and that the ship was going down, and asked for assistance to save the crew. The Deerhound, a steam-yacht belonging to an English gentleman, who had gone out of Cherbourg to witness the combat, coming up at the moment, was begged by the captain of the Kearsarge to help to save the people of the Alabama. The boats of the Deerhound having been lowered succeeded in saving Captain Semmes and many of the crew, who were struggling in the water.2

Others were saved by the Alabama's boat, with the before-mentioned officer in her. All the persons saved were taken on board the Deerhound, and were carried by the owner, Mr. Lancaster, into Southamp ton, and there set free.

They were claimed as prisoners by the United States Government on the ground that, the Alabama having surrendered, her crew were necessarily prisoners. If saved they could only be saved as prisoners, or, as the alternative, they should have been left to drown.

Mr. Adams having written complaining that the owner of the Deerhound had taken away the persons thus saved, Lord Russell answered:

I have the honor to state to you, in reply, that it appears to me that the owner of the Deerhound, of the Royal Yacht Squadron, performed only a common duty of humanity in saving from the waves the captain and several of the crew of the Alabama. They would otherwise, in all probability, have been drowned, and thus would never have been in the situation of prisoners of war.

It does not appear to me to be any part of the duty of a neutral to assist in making prisoners of war for one of the belligerents. 3

The alternative is thus sternly put by Mr. Seward in a dispatch to Mr. Adams:

The earl argues that if those persons had not been so taken from the sea they would, in all probability, have been drowned, and thus would never have been in the situa tion of prisoners of war. Earl Russell further observes, in that connection, that it does not appear to him to be any part of the duty of a neutral to assist in making prisoners of war for one of the belligerents.

I have to observe, upon these remarks of Earl Russell, that it was the right of the Kearsarge that the pirates should drown, unless saved by humane exertions of the

1 Case of the United States, p. 387.

2 British Appendix, vol. i, p. 384.

3 United States appendix, vol. iii, p. 263.

officers and crew of that vessel, or by their own efforts, without the aid of the Deerhound. The men were either already actually prisoners, or they were desperately pursued by the Kearsarge. If they had perished, the Kearsarge would have had the advantage of a lawful destruction of so many enemies; if they had been recovered by the Kearsarge, with or without the aid of the Deerhound, then the yoluntary surrender of those persons would have been perfected, and they would have been prisoners. In neither case would they have remained hostile confederates.

The Deerhound, by taking the men from the waves and conveying them within a foreign jurisdiction, deprived the United States of the lawful benefits of a long and costly pursuit and successful battle.

I freely admit that it is no part of a neutral's duty to assist in making captives for a belligerent; but I maintain it to be equally clear that, so far from being neutrality, it is direct hostility for a stranger to intervene and rescue men who had been cast into the ocean in battle, and then convey them away from under the conqueror's guns.

Possibly, in strictness of law, Mr. Seward was right in contending that a belligerent is entitled to the death of his enemy, and that a neutral cannot interfere to save the latter from destruction. But it is idle to propound legal theories in such a case; the instinct of humanity will be certain to prevail over all considerations of legal right—God forbid that it should not!-and the neutral who has rescued a sinking fellowcreature from impending death may be excused if he does not deliver up as a prisoner the man whom he has saved from perishing.

Be this as it may, the British government had but one answer to make to the demand that these persons should be given up as prisoners, namely, that, however they had reached British soil, when on it they were entitled to the protection of its laws; and that the government, which had had nothing to do with the manner of their escape, even if it had the will, had not the power to deliver them up.

CASE OF THE TUSCALOOSA.

Immediately connected with the case of the Alabama is that of the Tuscaloosa.

The Tuscaloosa.

This vessel, originally called the Conrad, was a merchantvessel of the United States. She was taken by the Alabama when off the coast of Brazil, being then loaded with a cargo of wool,

Captain Semmes, the commander of the Alabama, put an officer and ten men on board of her, with two small rifled 12 pounder guns, gave her the name of Tuscaloosa, and, bringing her to the Cape, where she arrived on the 7th of August, 1863, requested that she might be admitted to the harbor of Simon's Bay as a tender of the Alabama, in other words, as a ship of war.

He

The admiral on the station, Sir Baldwin Walker, learning that the so-called tender had never been condemned in a prize court, conceived doubts as to the legality of considering her in the light of a tender. therefore wrote to the governor, Sir Philip Wodehouse, requesting him to obtain the opinion of the law-officers as to whether the vessel ought not to be looked upon as a prize, and as such prohibited from entering the bay.2

The attorney-general of the colony reported that the Tuscaloosa could not be looked upon as a prize, on the ground that she purported to be a ship of war, and there was no legal proof to satisfy the local government that such was not her true character; that Captain Semmes, as commauding a ship of war of the Confederate States, had authority to convert a captured vessel into a ship of war, and so to invest her with all the rights and immunities accorded to such vessels, and that it was not for the local authorities, but for the courts of the captor, to determine 1 United States Appendix, vol. iii, p. 273.

2 British Appendix, vol. i, p. 308.