Enlistment Act. he called Mr. Adams's "demand for a more effective prevention for the future of the fitting out of such vessels from British Propositions to aports,"informed him that Her Majesty's Government were ment the Foreign of opinion that certain amendments might be intro66 duced into the Foreign Enlistment Act, which, if sanctioned by Parliament, would have the effect of giving greater power to the Executive to prevent the construction in British ports of ships destined for the use of belligerents." He also said that he was ready at any time to confer with Mr. Adams, and to listen to any suggestions which he might have to make by which the British Foreign Enlistment Act and the corre sponding Statute of the United States might be made more efficient for their purpose. Mr. Adams communicated with his Government, and, having obtained instructions, informed Lord Russell that his "sugestions of Propositions de. possible amendments to the enlistment laws in order to cled by Great Brit [252] inake *them more effective had been favorably re ain. ceived. Although the law of the United States was considered as of very sufficient vigor, the Government were not unwilling to consider propositions to improve upon it." Lord Russell replied that, since his note was written, the subject had been considered in Cabinet, and the Lord Chancellor had expressed the opinion that the British law was sufficiently effective, and that under these circumstances he did not see that he could have any change to propose.1 The United States are unable to state what amendments to the Foreigu Enlistment Acts of the two countries the British Government might have proposed had they not changed their minds between December, 1862, and March 1863. It is to be presumed, from the use of the word "construction" in Lord Russell's note, that it was in contemplation to make some proposition to remedy a supposed defect in the British statute as to the construction of a vessel intended to carry on war, as distinguished from the "equipping, furnishing, fitting out, or arming” such a vessel. It was understood to be the opinion of the British lawyers that the construction of such a vessel was not an offense under the act of 1819. It is also possible that Her Majesty's Government may [253] have *desired to give the Executive in Great Britain some power similar to that possessed by the Executive of the United States for the arrest of vessels so constructed. As the proposal for negotiations on the subject was withdrawn, it is impossible to do more than conjecture what was contemplated. From the hour when Lord Russell informed Mr. Adams that the Lord Chancellor was satisfied that the British laws were sufficiently effective, the British Government resisted every attempt to change the laws and give them more vigor. re Mr. Adams again, on the 26th of March, 1863, sought an interview with Lord Russell on the subject of the rebel hostile opera- Propositions tions in British territory. What took place there is de- newed and declined. scribed by Lord Russell in a letter written on the following day to Lord Lyons: "With respect to the law itself, Mr. Adams said either it was sufficient for the purposes of neutrality, and then let the British Government enforce it; or it was insufficient, and then let the British Government apply to Parliament to amend it. I said that the cabinet were of 1 Adams to Seward, Vol. I, page 668. Vol. I, page 585. See also Mr. Hammond's letter to Messrs. Lamport and Holt and others, Vol. I, page 602; also Lord Palmerston's speech already cited, Vol. IV, page opinion that the law was sufficient, but that legal evidence could not always be procured; that the British Government had done everything in its power to execute the law, but I admitted that the cases of *the Alabama and Oreto were a scandal, and, in some degree, a re- [254] proach to our laws." 1 The Tribunal of Arbitration will thus see that about three weeks before Earl Russell made his extraordinary official reply to the representations of Mr. Adams, he had informed Mr. Adams "that the Lord Chancellor had expressed the opinion that the British neutrality] law was sufficiently effective, and that, under these circumstances, he did not see that he could have any change to propose" in it. It will also now be observed that when that declaration was made, Mr. Adams's note of February 9, 1863, with the proof of the complicity of the insurgént agents in England, had been in Earl Russell's portfolio four days. It will also be observed that that proof established, or afforded to Earl Russell the clue by which he could, and, as the United States say, should have satisfied himself-1. "That contracts were already made for the construction of iron-clad 'fighting-ships' in England."" 2. That Fraser, Trenholm & Co. were the "depositaries" of the insurgents in Liverpool, and that the money in their hands was "to be applied to the contracts."3 3. That they (F., T. & Co.) were to pay purchases made by Mr. *Huse and other agents. 4. That other contracts for the con- [255] struction of vessels besides those for the six iron-clads had been taken by parties in Great Britain.5 5. That parties in England were arranging for an insurgent cotton loan, the proceeds of which were to be deposited with Fraser, Trenholm & Co. for the purpose of carrying out all these contracts." When the United States found that the proof of such aggravated wrong was not deemed worthy of investigation by Her Majesty's Government, because it contained no statements which could be used as evidence to convict a criminal before an English jury, they were most reluctantly forced from that time forward, throughout the struggle, to believe that no complaints would be listened to by Her Majesty's Government which were not accompanied by proof that the persons complained of had brought themselves "within reach of the criminal law of the United Kingdom;" that the penal *provisions of the [256] Foreign Enlistment Act of 1819 were to be taken by Great Brit ain as the measure of its duty as a neutral; and that no amendment or change in that act was to be made with the assent of the existing Government.. They earnestly and confidently insist before this tribunal, that this These proceedings decision of Her Majesty's Government was in violation of its were and obligations toward the United States; that it was an abandonment, in advance, not only of that " due diligence” which ment, in advance, of "due diligence." 4 Memminger to Fraser, Trenholm & Co., Vol. I, page 574; and same to same, Vol. I, page 575. 5 Memorandum No. 11, in Vol. I, page 572. 6 Benjamin to Mason, Vol. I, page 564. Memminger to Mason, Vol. I, page 565. Memminger to Spence, Vol. I, page 574. Memminger to Fraser, Trenholm & Co., Vol I, page 574. It is supposed to be a principle of English law that a person accused of crime has the right to have the witnesses against him subjected to a personal cross-examination. The absurdity of Earl Russell's position is shown by the fact that every witness whose correspondence was inclosed in Mr. Adams's note of February 9, 1863, was then in Richmond, behind the bayonets of General Lee's army. is defined in the Treaty of Washington as one of the duties of a neutral, but of any measure of diligence, to restrain the insurgents from using its territory for purposes hostile to the United States. Encouraged by the immunity afforded by these several decisions of Her Majesty's Government, the insurgent agents in Great Britain began to extend their operations. The Georgia Early in April, 1863, a steamer, called the Japan, which was afterward known as the Georgia, left the Clyde, "with intent to depredate on the commerce of the United States." This vessel had been publicly launched on the 10th of the previous January as an insurgent steamer, at which time a Miss North, daughter of a Captain North, of one of the Confederate States, officiated [257] as priestess, and christened the craft *"Virginia." "Some seventy or eighty men, twice the number that would be required for any legitimate voyage, were shipped at Liverpool for this vessel, and sent to Greenock."3 A small steamer called the "Alar," belonging to a British subject, was loaded with a large supply of guns, shell, shot, powder, &c.," and dispatched to meet her. The two vessels met off the French coast; the "Alar" was made fast alongside the "Japan," and in twentyfour hours the whole of the guns and ammunition were transferred.* The "Japan" then dropped her Oriental name, hoisted the flag of the insurgents, and steamed away; one day's work after leaving the Clyde having converted her into an armed cruiser. It was not, however, until the 23d of the following June that her British register was canceled and the transfer made to foreign owners." Early in March, 1863, Miller & Son, the builders of the Florida, launched, at their yard in Liverpool, a new gun-boat, to be The Alexandra. called the Alexandra.' The evidence of the hostile uses for which this vessel was intended was so overwhelming that proceed[258] ings were instituted against her for a violation of *the Foreign En listment Act.8 In the trial of this case it was clearly proved that the Alexandra was a man-of-war, and that she was constructed for the purpose of carrying on hostilities against the United States." But the judge instructed the jury that a neutral might "make a vessel and arm it, and then offer it for sale "10 to a belligerent; and that, a fortiori, “if any man may build a vessel for the purpose of offering it to either of the belligerent Powers who is minded to have it, may he not execute an Mr. Adams to Earl Russell, Vol. II, page 666. Underwood to Seward, 16th July, 1863, Vol. VI, page 503. 3 Dudley to Mr. Seward, Vol. II, page 665. 4 Vol. II, page 666. 5 Mahon's affidavit, Vol. II, page 673. Mr. Adams to Earl Russell, 7th July, 1863, Vol. II, page 677. 7 Dudley to Seward, 11th March, 1863, Vol. II, page 258. See Vol. V, pages 1 to 470. 9"The evidence as to the building and fittings of the ship proved that she was strongly built, principally of teak-wood; her beams and hatches, in strength and distance apart, was greater than those in merchant vessels; the length and breadth of her hatches were less than the length and breadth of hatches in merchant vessels; her bulwarks were strong and low, and her upper works were of pitch-pine. At the time of her seizure workmen were employed in fitting her with stanchions for hammock nettings; iron stanchions were fitted in the hold; her three masts were up, and had lightning conductors on each of them; she was provided with a cooking apparatus for 150 or 200 people; she had complete accommodation for men and officers; she had only stowage room sufficient for her crew, supposing them to be 32 men; and she was apparently built for a gun-boat, with low bulwarks, over which pivot-guns could play. The commander of Her Majesty's ship Majestic, stationed at Liverpool, said that she was not intended for mercantile purposes." (Neutrality of Great Britain during the American Civil War, by Mountague Bernard, M. A., page 353, note 1.) 10 Vol. V, page 128.. order for it?" He also instructed them that "to 'equip' is 'to furnish with arms;"""in the case of a ship, especially, it is to furnish and complete with arms;" that "equip,' 'furnish,'fit out,' or arm,' all mean precisely the same thing;" and he closed that branch of the in- [259] structions by saying, " the question is whether you think that this vessel was fitted. Armed she certainly was not, but was there an intention that she should be finished, fitted, or equipped, in Liverpool? Because, gentlemen, I must say, it seems to me that the Alabama sailed away from Liverpool without any arms at all; merely a ship in ballast, unfurnished, unequipped, unprepared; and her arms were put in at Terceira, not a port in Her Majesty's Dominions. The Foreign Enlistment Act is no more violated by that than by any other indifferent matter that might happen about a boat of any kind whatever." The jury gave a verdict without delay for the gun-boat. An appeal on this construction of the statute was taken to a higher court. The rulings of the judge on the trial were not reversed, and the decision stood as the law of England until and after the close of the rebeliion, and still stands as the judicial construction of the act of 1819. Alexandra eisenIated the Foreign Eulistment Act. Thus, after the political branch of Her Majesty's Government had anThe rulings in the Bounced its purpose of limiting its duties to the enforcement of the Foreign Enlistment Act, and had practically stripped that act of all features except those relating to the prosecution of offenders as criminals, the judicial branch of that Government emasculated it by a ruling *which openly authorized the [260] construction of new Alabamas and of new Floridas. Contracts were also made, some time in the year 1862, for the construction, at Glasgow, of a formidable vessel, known as the Pampero. Mr. Dudley reported that the cost of the construction was to be something over £300,000. This vessel was seized at Glasgow for an alleged violation of the Foreign Enlistment Act. On the trial, which took place in 1864, it appeared that the Scottish courts were not disposed to follow the English courts in depriving the Foreign Enlistment Act of all force. The insurgents, therefore, abandoned the attempt to use the Pampero as a cruiser, and ceased to contract for the construction or fitting out of vessels within the Scottish Kingdom. A similar course in the English courts might have produced similar results in England. Lairds' iron-clad About the same time the arrangements were made with the Lairds for the construction, at Birkenhead, opposite Liverpool, of the two iron-clads which were afterward known as "Lairds' iron-. clads," or "Lairds' rams." The keel of one of them, as has been already said, was laid in the same stocks from which the Alabama was launched. These vessels were most formidable, and were "pushed [261] forward with all possible dispatch. The men were at work night and day upon them." The machinery and guns were made simultaneously with the hull, and it was reported that "by the time she is launched they will be ready to be placed in her."4 Their construction was originally ordered from Richmond, and they were superintended by Captain Bullock, who was at that time in frequent correspondence with Mr. Mallory "about building the two abovenamed and other war vessels in England," "and about the money to pay for the same." "The drawings for them were in the office of Fraser, Trenholm & Co., as early as June, 1862, in Captain Bullock's Vel. V, page 129. 3 Dudley to Seward, Vol. II, page 315. Younge's deposition, Vol. II, page 330. 4 2 Dudley to Seward, Vol. II, page 201. Dudley to Seward, Vol. II, page 316. hands." By the early part of April, 1863, "the hulls were complete, and the sides were covered with slabs of teak-wood about twelve inches thick." Early in June, 1863, one of the vessels had begun to receive her iron armor plates, "about four inches thick." "The deck of each vessel was prepared to receive two turrets." "Each ram had a stem, made of wrought iron, about eight inches thick, projecting about five feet under the water line, and obviously intended for the par[262] pose of penetrating and destroying other vessels." These facts, and others, were communicated by Mr. Adams to Earl Russell in a note dated July 11, 1863.3 Commenting upon them Mr. Adams said: "A war has thus been practically conducted by a portion of her people against a Government with which Her Majesty is under the most solenn of all national engagements to preserve a lasting and durable peace." On the 16th of July, Mr. Adams sent to Lord Russell further evidence of the character of these vessels. On the 25th of July, he again wrote him on the subject, with fresh proof of their purposes. On the 14th of August he again wrote to Earl Russell with "further information;" said that he regretted to see "that the preparation * * is not intermitted;" and added: "It is difficult for me to give to your Lordship an adequate idea of the uneasiness and anxiety created in the different ports of the United States by the idea that instruments of injury, of so formidable a character, continue to threaten their safety, as issuing from the ports of Great Britain, a country with which the people of the United States * are at peace." On the 3d of September Mr. Adams again earn[263] estly returned to the subject. He wrote to Earl Russell, inclos ing "copies of further depositions relating to the launching and other preparation of the second of the two vessels of war from the yard of Messrs. Laird, at Birkenhead." He said that he believed there was "not any reasonable ground for doubt that these vessels, if permitted to leave the port of Liverpool, will be at once devoted to the object of carrying on war against the United States of America," and he closed by saying that he had been directed "to describe the grave nature of the situation in which both countries must be placed, in the event of an act of aggression committed against the Government and the people of the United States by either of these formidable vessels." The new evidence inclosed in this letter related only to the fact that the second ram was launched, and cannot be said to have strengthened the case as previously presented. Again, on the 4th of September, Mr. Adams sent to the Foreign Office evidence to show the preparation for immediate departure of one of these vessels. Late in the afternoon of the 4th, after the note had been dispatched to Earl Russell and a copy of it sent to Mr. Seward, Mr. Adams received from Earl Russell a note, dated the 1st of September, saying that *" Her Ma[264 jesty's Government are advised that they cannot interfere in any way with these vessels." On the 5th Mr. Adams replied, expressing his "profound regret at the conclusion to which Her Majesty's Government have arrived;" and added: "It would be superfluous in me to 1 Younge's deposition, Vol. II, page 331. 7 Adams to Russell, Vol. II, page 353. 8 Adams to Russell, September 4, 1863, Vol. II, p. 358. 9 Russell to Adams, Vol. II, page 360. |