1 of men were about violating the neutrality laws." The Solicitor said he must go to his dinner, and passed on. The Consul then went to several other officers in order to secure immediate action on his complaint. Among others, he went to the Attorney General, who sent him to another Solicitor; but he could get no one to attend to it, and the Shenandoah left early in the morning of the 18th without further British interference. The attention of the Tribunal of Arbitration is invited to the fact that a sworn list of the crew of the Shenandoah is attached to an affidavit made in Liverpool by one Temple ten months after the vessel left Melbourne. Forbes in his affidavit, which was submitted to the Governor and laid before the Attorney General, gave the names of five persons who he had reason to believe were about to join the vessel from Melbourne. Temple's affidavit shows that at least three of those persons did join and did serve, viz, "Robert Dunning, an Englishman, captain of the foretop; Thomas Evans, Welchman; and William [436] Green, *an Englishman." This corroborative, independent piece 3 of testimony establishes the truthfulness of Forbes's affidavit. This affidavit, so summarily rejected by the Crown Solicitor, was the specific evidence of the commission of a crime which Her Majesty's Government required to be furnished by the United States. When produced the British authorities declined to act upon it. The United States assert, without fear of contradiction, that there was no time during the stay of the Shenandoah in Melbourne, when it was not notorious that she was procuring recruits. She went there for that purpose. Her effective power as a man-of-war depended entirely upon her success of obtaining a new crew. When she left the Laurel she had but twenty-three men besides her officers. With every capture between there and Melbourne great efforts were made to induce the captured seamen to enlist; and those who would not enlist were compelled to work as sailors in order to avoid being put in irons. The author of the "Cruise of the Shenandoah" says that fourteen were enlisted in this 6 way-ten from the Alina and the Godfrey, two from the Susan, [437] and two from the Stacey. Temple in his affidavit gives the names of three from the Alina, five from the Godfrey, one from the Susan, two from the Stacey, and one from the Edward. It is probable that Temple's statement is correct. Of the twelve whom he names, two appear to have left the vessel at Melbourne, viz: Bruce, of the Alina; and Williams, of the Godfrey. It would therefore appear that, had the Shenandoah received no recruitment of men at Melbourne, her force on leaving would have been thirty-three marines, firemen, and ordinary seamen. One officer and two petty officers were discharged there, which reduced the number of officers to twenty, and her whole force to fifty-three. She was a full-rigged ship, 220 feet in length and 35 feet beam, and carried royal studding-sails, and required double or treble that number of men to make her effective as a man-of-war." The Tribunal will see how important it was to recruit men at Melbourne. Lord to Blanchard, Vol. III, page 429; Vol. VI, page 635. 2 Vol. III, page 477; Vol. VI, page 709. 3 Vol. III, page 488; Vol. VI, page 719. 4 Vol. III, page 489; Vol. VI, page 727. 5 Vol. III, pages 489, 490; Vol. VI, page 721. 6 Cruise of the Shenandoah, page 42. 7 Ibid., page 43. Ibid., page 47. Vol. III, pages 487-491; Vol. VI, page 718, et seq. 10 Cruise of the Shenandoah, page 23. She took in there, according to the account given by the author of the Cruise of the Shenandoah, forty-five men.1 Temple, in his affidavit, gives the names of forty-three, divided as follows: one officer, twelve petty officers, twenty seamen, seven firemen, and three marines. The United States complain of this act, not alone as a technical [438] violation of the duties of a neutral, as laid down in the second rule of the Treaty, but as a great injury to them, from which flowed the subsequent damages to their commerce from the Shenandoah. This recruitment might have been stopped by the exercise of the most ordinary diligence. It ought to have been stopped after the Consul's letter of the 10th of February. It ought to have been stopped after his letter of the 14th. The authorities should have detained the Shenandoah on the information he communicated on the 17th. Most of the men went on board that night. It was a great negligence not to have prevented this. When the Shenandoah sailed on the morning of the 18th, the whole community knew that she had more than doubled her force in Melbourne. The newspapers of the next day were full of it. The Herald said: "Rumors are afloat that the Shenandoah shipped or received on board somewhere about eighty men." The Argus said: "It is not to be denied that during Friday night a large number of men found their way on board the Shenandoah, and did not return on shore again." And the Age said: "It is currently reported that she shipped some eighty men." It is not probable-it may indeed [439] be said to be most improbable-that a shipment of half that number of men could have been made without complicity of the authorities. Mr. Mountague Bernard intimates that they could not have come there without the knowledge of Captain Waddell. A similar train of reasoning will convince the Tribunal of Arbitration that the least measure of "diligence" would have discovered the fact to the local authorities. The permitting a shipment of three hundred tons of coal at Melbourne was also a violation of the duties of a neutral. The Shenandoah was a sailing vessel. Her steam power was auxiliary. From early in December until two days before her arrival at Melbourne, some seven weeks in all, she was under sail, without using her steam; she went from Land's End to Madeira in the same way. She took on board, when she left London, a supply of coal for twelve months. Four hundred tons of it remained when she reached Melbourne. She required no fresh supply to enable her to return to an insurgent port, and she sought it only for the purpose of cruising against the commerce of the United States, thus making Melbourne a base of the insurgent naval operations. *The United States are of the opinion that it [440] was a breach of the duties of an impartial neutral to permit unlimited supplies of coal to be furnished to the Shenandoah in a British port, under circumstances similar to those in which like supplies had been refused to the vessels of the United States; and that it was a still greater violation to permit the supply to be furnished from the insurgent transport, John Fraser, dispatched from Liverpool for that purpose, while the United States were forbidden to supply their vessels in like manner. Cruise of the Shenandoah, page 113. 2 Vol. III, page 435; Vol. VI, page 683. 5 Bernard's Neutrality, page 434. 6 Cruise of the Shenandoah, pages 63-94. 7 Schutcher's affidavit, Vol. III, page 365; Vol. VI, page 586. When the Shenandoah left London she took general supplies for a year; yet she was allowed to replenish at Melbourne within less than six months from the time of leaving London. It must be concluded from the declarations of the author of the Cruise of the Shenandoah, that when this was done she had enough supplies on board for the subsistence of the crew to the nearest insurgent port. The addition obtained at Melbourne enabled her to continue her hostile cruise and to light up the icy seas of the north with the fires of American vessels, long after the military resistance to the United States had ceased. The United States further insist that when the authorities at Melbourne permitted the Shenandoah to make repairs to her machinery in that port, a still greater violation of the duties of Great Britain as a neutral was committed. It has just been shown that this vessel was under no necessity of using her steam; that she had gone to Madeira under sail; that she had come from the Cape of Good Hope to Melbourne under sail. For many days before arriving at Melbourne "a heavy and continuous gale" prevailed. At its height it was "sublime beyond description," and the Shenandoah "drove before it at the rate of eleven knots an hour, under close-reefed topsails and reefed foresail." Yet the author of the Cruise of the Shenandoah makes no mention of any injury to the vessel, or of any leak, and there is nothing to show that the hull needed repairs, or that anything was done to it except that "a gang of calkers were procured and went to work upon the decks with pitch and oakum." The United States are convinced that no other repairs were necessary for the hull, and that if the departure of the vessel was delayed for the ostensible purpose of further repairs to the vessel itself, the pretense was made solely for the purpose of delay. The repairs to the machinery, as distinguished from the hull, were made with the object of enabling the Shenandoah to go to the Arctic [442] Ocean, there to destroy the whalers of the United States, *in accordance with Bullock's instructions to Waddell before he left Liverpool. It is evident, not only from the absence of any mention of injury to the hull by the author of the Cruise of the Shenandoah, but also from the statement of experts of the repairs which the machinery required, that the hull was sound and seaworthy, and that the Shenandoah as a sailing vessel, without steam, could at once have proceeded to sea, and have made her way to the insurgent ports. When Captain Boggs, of the United States Navy, two months later, (after the surrender of Lee,) asked permission to remain at Barbadoes "a few days, for the purpose of overhauling the piston and engine," he was required, as a preliminary to the permission, to “give a definite assurance of his inability to proceed to sea.”6 As a man of honor and truth he could not do this, and he went to sea without his repairs. The same rule applied to the Shenandoah would have produced the same result, supposing Captain Waddell to have been as honorable and as truthful a man as Captain Boggs. Vol. III, page 461; Vol. VI, page 705. It is true that the insurgents had no ports at that time which the Shenandoala could enter. Wilmington, the last of their ports, was closed by the capture of Fort Fisher. This, however, was an additional reason why the Shenandoah should not have been allowed to leave Melbourne, carrying a flag that had no port to receive it. See the correspondence between the United States and Portugal referred to ante, page 59. Walker to Boggs; Vol. VI, pages 178-9. *Twenty-four hours elapsed before any questions were put to [443] Captain Waddell by the local authorities. Then he was told to state what repairs he wanted, in order that the Governor might know how long he was to enjoy the hospitalities of the port. He delayed for two days to answer this question, going on, however, in the meanwhile with some of his repairs. He then reported the repairs already begun as "progressing rapidly," and added that Langland Brothers & Co. were to examine the propeller and bracings (probably a misprint for "bearings") under water; that a diver had that day examined them; and that "so soon as Messrs. Langland Brothers & Co. should hand in their report" he would inclose it. Two days later, on the 30th, Langland Brothers & Co. made their report, "after inspection by the diver," saying that "the lining of the outer sternback" (probably a misprint for "sternbush") is entirely gone, and will have to be replaced; that "three days will elapse before she is slipped," and that they "will not be able to accomplish the repairs within ten days from date.”1 The Tribunal will observe that it was proposed that two kinds of repairs should be made. The first class did not require the vessel to go into the slip. These included the calking referred to by the author of the Cruise of [444] the Shenandoah,2 and perhaps also repairs of a general character, which all steam machinery requires after having been run for any length of time, such as refitting of brasses, packing stuffing-boxes, examining and readjusting of working parts, &c., &c. All these repairs could have gone on simultaneously. Such coal as might be allowed within the construction of the instructions of January 31, 1862, as those instructions were applied to the vessels of the United States, and such supplies as were legally permitted, could also be taken on, and the vessel could be ready to go to sea again in from two to four days after her arrival in port. Or, should it be necessary for the vessel to go into a slip for the purpose of repairing the propeller, this class of repairs might also be going on in the slip, at the same time with the others. The other class of repairs were those which Langland Brothers & Co. were to report upon-repairs to the propeller. It appears from the report made by these mechanics on the 30th of January, that they founded their estimate upon the report of a diver. Mechanics ordinarily have to depend upon such a report, and to found their, estimates upon it. The examination of the propeller of a screw-steamer, and of its bearings *below the water-line, is a simple matter, and takes but a [445] short time. It is confined to the stern of the vessel. A practical expert can go down, satisfy himself of the extent of the injury, and return and report in a few minutes. Had the Governor treated Captain Waddell as Captain Boggs was treated, the examination could easily have been made on the morning of the 26th, and the whole extent of the injury could have been reported to the Governor on the afternoon of the same day within twenty-four hours after the arrival of the vessel in port. Captain Waddell, however, was not required to move so rapidly. He did not send his diver down until the 28th; he did not get the ofiicial report of his mechanics until the 30th. Thus he spent five days in doing what could have been done in five hours. There must have been a motive for that delay; the United States find that motive in his necessity to enlist a crew. 1 Waddell to Francis, Vol. V, page 600; Vol. VI, page 640. 2 Cruise of the Shenandoah, page 77. The Tribunal will also observe that his own report on the 28th of the extent of his injuries differs from that made by his mechanics on the 30th. He reported that "the.composition castings of the propeller shaft were entirely gone, and the bracings (probably a misprint for "bearings") under water were in the same condition." This was a more serious in jury than the one reported by his mechanics two days later, [446] namely, the *necessity of giving the shaft a new outer sternbush. The latter would, it is true, require the docking of the ship to admit of the removal of the shaft. But when the ship was once in the slip, the propeller could be easily hoisted, being a movable one;1 and then the renewal of the lignum-vitæ lining, technically known as the sternbush, the only repairs which the experts reported to be necessary, could be completed two or three days after the ship should be on the slip. If the vessel was necessarily longer on the slip she must have received more repairs than are described in the official report of the Langlands, which embraced all for which the permission was granted. It therefore appears that, on the supposition that the authorities at Melbourne could, under the circumstances, without violating the duty of Great Britain as a neutral, permit the repairs reported by Laugland Brothers & Co. to be made, the Shenandoah should have gone to sea in ten days after her arrival. This estimate gives the extreme time for every requisite step, viz: one calendar day for the examination of the diver, excluding the day of arrival; three days (the estimate of the Langlands) for putting the vessel in the slip; three days for the repairs by the Langlands; one day for getting her out of the slip; and [447] two days for *reloading and getting to sea, which was the time actually taken; but as, during this time she unwarrantably took on board three hundred tons of coal, this is probably too large an estimate. Instead of requiring these repairs to be completed in ten days, the Melbourne authorities allowed the Shenandoah to stay there twentyfour days. The extra fourteen days were occupied in the recruitment of the forty-three men whom she carried away with her. It is difficult, under the circumstances, to resist the conclusion that the repairs were dawdled along for the purpose of securing the recruits, and that the authorities, to say the least, shut their eyes while this was going on; especially if it be true, as said by Temple, that the Government engineer was on board three or four times a day while they were undergoing repairs, and assisted them with his opinion and advice. It is fair to say that this fact is doubted by the Governor of the Colony. If the Government engineer was not there, however, he should have been, in order to see that Waddell was not violating British neutrality. 3 Leaving Melbourne, the Shenandoah went through the Pacific Ocean to the Arctic Seas, via Behring's Straits, under the instructions. [418] issued by Bullock, in Liverpool, for the purpose of destroy*ing the whalers of the United States. How successful she was in her attacks upon these intrepid and daring navigators is shown by the long list of captured vessels, for whose destruction the United States claim compensation. On the cruise to those seas she used her sails only. After arrival there she commenced steaming on the 25th of June, and "from that time till she left the Arctic Seas she made comparatively little use of her sails." Many of the most valuable vessels were destroyed after 2 I Wilson's affidavit, Vol. III, page 325; Vol. VI, page 566. Temple's affidavit, Vol. III, page 481; Vol. V, page 712. 3 Darling to Cardwell, Vol. III, page 506. * Cruise of the Shenandoah, page 187. S. Ex. 31-12 |