Slike strani
PDF
ePub

law in the colony, although the agent for American underwriters, whose duty it would have been to bring forward the case, was, during the year 1863, in constant communication with the attorney-general in reference to that of the Hanover. The then collector at the port of Long Cay is now dead; and the time is past when authentic information of the facts could be obtained. Evidence produced under such circumstances ought not (if received at all) to be accepted without very close scrutiny. The evidence offered by the United States is that of the owners of the ship, (who were not present, and could have no personal knowledge of the matter;) of one, Sampson, who represents himself as having been employed at that time as a "detective" in the Bahamas by the American Government; and of the master of the Emily Fisher. Sampson swears that all the facts alleged respecting the capture of the Emily Fisher and the subsequent transactions are true "within his personal knowledge," and that he testified to them in 1866, in a case tried before a court in New Jersey. On reference to the published proceedings of that case, it will appear that he gave no such evidence, although it would have been extremely material. He then swore only that he had seen the Retribution at Long Cay, lying outside of the Emily Fisher, and had been introduced "by an acting magistrate at Long Cay" to her officers, with whom he had had "a general talk about the difficulty with the North and South."3 That he should have had personal knowledge of circumstances which are stated to have occurred at a great. distance before the two vessels arrived at Long Cay, where he [106] was, is obviously impossible; and the American Government is

well aware that such testimony would be at once rejected in an American court as it would be in a court of Great Britain. The evidence, therefore, reduces itself to that of Staples, the master. Staples alleges in effect that he was captured off an islet called Castle Island, nearly two days before he arrived at Long Cay; that his captor was in league with some wreckers, (persons whose trade it is to make profit by saving vessels abandoned or in distress,) and ran the ship aground, when the wreckers took possession of her; that she was afterward taken to Long Cay, in company with the Retribution; and that "he (the master) was not able, when there, to obtain possession of the brig until after he had bargained with the wreckers to pay them 50 per cent. on the cargo and 33 per cent. on the vessel; when, after making affidavit of his being the master, he was placed in possession by the collector, and went on board." He adds that "he was told by the captain of the Retribution that the wreckers were to pay him something handsome, and the deponent believes they did so;" and that he "was obliged to accept the wreckers' terms at the port of entry, because the brig lay under the guns of the privateer, and the authorities declared their inability to protect him." He was "told by the authorities that, though the law would not allow the privateer to touch the brig, if he wished to do so, they had no means of preventing him.”4 What is here alleged, and may be true, is a conspiracy between the captain of the Retribution and the wreckers to represent the Emily Fisher not as a prize to the Retribution, but as having run aground and been got off by the latter, and thus to enable the wreckers to extort a large salvage, for which they were to pay a sum of money to Locke. Locke would thus be enabled to make profit by a prize which he would otherwise have

'Appendix to British Case, pp. 17, 23.

2Appendix to Case of the United States, vol. vi, p. 736.
Appendix to British Case, vol. v., p. 196.

"Appendix to Case of the United States, vol vi, p. 738.

been obliged to release or destroy; and the fact of his having recourse. to this circuitous and fraudulent transaction proves that he did not venture to attempt an actual sale of the ship or cargo even in this remote and unfrequented spot. Nothing is said about "the presence of a magistrate." Nor is anything said (which might have been expected) about a "protest" by the master; probably he was afraid to make one while his vessel was under the guns of the Retribution, against which the "authorities," apparently the local revenue officer, told him it would be impossible to protect him, the port being a very small place in a remote island. It is not even stated that he ever told the authorities what had occurred before his arrival at Long Cay. He paid the salvage demanded, regained his ship and part of his cargo, part having been stolen or wasted, and left the island.

It is possible that, on these facts, supposing them to be true, the owners of the ship and cargo may have been entitled to legal redress against the persons concerned in defrauding them of their property; and, if so, they might probably have obtained such redress if they had taken the necessary steps at that time. They took no steps, however; they did not even make complaint or give notice of what had occurred to the colonial government; and now, nearly nine years afterward, when authentic information cannot be obtained, the United States bring forward this case, not as a ground for making compensation to the owners of the Emily Fisher and her cargo, but in support of the grave charges against the British government which they allege before this tribunal, and of a claim to hold Great Britain liable for all the acts of the Retribution. Her Majesty's government denies that the facts, if proved, argue any failure of international duty on the part of Great Britain, or furnish any evidence of such a failure.

[107]

*PART IX.

RECEPTION OF CONFEDERATE CRUISERS IN BRITISH PORTS.

PART IX.-Recep cruisers in British ports.

It has been thought best to treat collectively the various complaints scattered throughout the case of the United States, as to tion of confederate the "excessive hospitality" which is alleged to have been extended in British ports to the vessels of war of the Confederate States, in comparison with the "discourtesy" with which vessels of the United States are said to have been treated under similar circumstances. These complaints may be divided under three heads: (1) the amount of supplies granted to confederate cruisers before any limitation was placed on such supplies by the regulations issued by the British government on the 31st of January, 1862; (2) the alleged disregard of those regulations in the case of confederate vessels; and (3) their alleged rigid enforcement against vessels of war of the United States.

The Sumter and Nashville.

As regards the first question, there were but two vessels of war of the Confederate States which visited British ports before the issue of the regulations of January 31, 1862-the Sumter and the Nashville. The facts as to these two vessels have already been stated, and it is only necessary to add a few words to show how their proceedings, coupled with those of the United States ships, and the representations of the United States Government, led to the adoption of the regulations. The reception of the Sumter in the ports of Brazil, and of the neigh boring possessions of Great Britain and the Netherlands, in the summer and autumn of 1861, had given rise to warm remonstrances on the part of the United States, and they had urged on each of the three powers the expediency of placing restrictions on the hospitality to be accorded to what they termed the "piratical" vessels of the insurgents. The governments of Brazil and of the Netherlands, no less than that of Great Britain, had maintained that the Sumter must be regarded as a vessel of war of a belligerent power, and that whatever restrictions might be placed on the stay of such vessels in their ports must be applied equally to the vessels of war of the United States. Mr. Seward, however, continued to press the suggestion. Lord Russell expressly stated to Mr. Adams on the 19th December, 1861, that the reason why no such limitation had hitherto been enforced by Great Britain was that it might have seemed churlish toward vessels of the United States Navy.1

On the 24th January, 1862, Mr. Adams wrote to his Government, announcing that the Sumter, after repairing at Cadiz, had gone into the port of Gibraltar; and he added, "This tendency to take refuge in British ports is becoming so annoying to the government here, that I shall not be surprised if the limit of twenty-four hours' stay be soon adopted.”

1 Appendix to Case of the United States, vol. i, p. 344.
Executive Documents, 1861-62, No. 104, p. 70.

News had about the same time been received of the attempt to form a coal-depot for the United States Navy at Nassau, and of the presence at that port of a vessel of war of the United States, which, by having its steam up, constantly ready to start, kept all the shipping in the port in alarm. The Nashville, which had been in the harbor of Southampton since the 21st November, had refitted, and was ready for sea. She was closely watched by the United States steamer Tuscarora, whose commander was pursuing the same course as the captain of the Flambeau at Nassau, and, by keeping his steam up and having slips on his cable, was virtually keeping the Nashville blockaded in a neutral port.' Under these circumstances, the British government determined that the Nashville and Tuscarora should be desired to leave British waters at a date to be fixed, with an interval of twenty-four hours between their respective departures; and a few days afterward, on the 31st January, general rules were issued to provide for such cases in future. Captain Craven, of the Tuscarora, after some altercation with the

authorities, quitted the port of Southampton, but returned again [108] to British waters in its vicinity just as the Nashville *was leav

ing. He was warned that he was not to sail again until twentyfour hours after her departure, and complied, though complaining that "a just and rigid impartiality did not appear to have been extended toward him." In a dispatch dated the 7th February, 1862, and published by the Government of the United States at the time, but of which only a short extract is given in the collection now appended to their case, Mr. Adams remarked:

The impression here is that he (Captain Craven) allowed himself to be completely outwitted. He will doubtless lay the blame on the action of the people and government of this country; my own opinion is, that if he had been a little more cool and quiet, he would have fared better.3

Mr. Adams's anticipations were correct, as will appear from Captain Craven's report to his Government, now printed in the Appendix to the Case of the United States, where he complains bitterly that the new regulations deprive him of "the ability of cruising on this (the British) coast," and speaks of the measures taken to preserve the neutrality of British waters as "collusion on the part of the authorities, to effect the escape of the privateer."

It may be as well to mention at once that the Nashville arrived at Bermuda, on the return voyage from Southampton, before the receipt in that colony of the regulations of January 31, 1862. There was at the time only a monthly mail to Bermuda; the regulations could not be forwarded until the latter half of the month of February, and were received there on the 5th March, some time after the Nashville had left. The statement, therefore, in the case of the United States,5 that the permission given to the Nashville to take on board a supply of coal was an infraction of these regulations, is erroneous. They were, according to their terms, only to take effect six days after their notification in each colony, and the governor was not even aware of their existence at the time of the Nashville's visit.

From Southampton the Tuscarora proceeded to Gibraltar, for the purpose of watching the Sumter; and there Captain Craven involved himself in a dispute with the authorities. The Sumter had arrived in that port on the 18th of January, 1862, before any limitation had been

[blocks in formation]

placed on the stay of vessels of war of the two belligerents in British ports. The regulations of the 31st of January, restricting the stay of such vessels to twenty-four hours, except in special cases, were received and published by the governor on the 11th of February, coming into force on the 18th. The Tuscarora arrived on the 12th, after the publication of the rules, but before they had come into force. Copies of the rules were sent in identic letters to the commanders of both the Sumter and Tuscarora on the 12th February; but it was the opinion of the governor and that opinion was confirmed by the home governmentthat neither vessel came under the operation of those rules, so far as their stay in the port was concerned. Captain Craven, however, without communicating with the governor on this point, withdrew to the neighboring Spanish anchorage of Algeciras, from whence the boats of the Tuscarora passed backward and forward to Gibraltar, rowing round the Sumter on the way; and he wrote to the governor inquiring why the Sumter was allowed to remain "in undisturbed possession of her anchorage," and protesting, "on behalf of the United States, against what appeared to be a departure from the rules which require that neutrals should be impartial and honest." It could not but be expected that such an imputation should draw an indignant reply from the governor. The latter was, however, instructed to allow the boats of the Tuscarora to come into the port, provided they caused no annoyance to the Sumter. That the Sumter, when she eventually left Gibraltar as a merchant-vessel, in a gale of wind, should have escaped capture by the vessels of war of the United States," is certainly not to be attributed to any undue partiality on the part of the British authorities. Nor can Her Britannic Majesty's government admit that there was any want of proper courtesy or hospitality shown to Captain Craven. The Tuscarora took on board 150 tons of coal at Southampton, on the 10th of January; she received further coal, the amount of which is not known, off Cowes, on the 4th of February. On his return to the English coast, in June, 1862, Captain Craven disregarded the rules of which he had complained, by coaling three times, within two months, at different British ports.

Execution of the rules of

[109] *EXECUTION OF THE RULES OF JANUARY 31, 1862, AT NASSAU. The rules of the 31st January, 1862, contained general limitations as regards the stay of belligerent vessels of war, and the supJanuary plies to be granted to such vessels in British ports. They 31, 1862, at Nassau. also contained special provisions with regard to the Bahama Islands. No vessels of war of either belligerent were to be allowed to enter the port of Nassau, or other ports, roadsteads, or waters of those islands, except by permission of the governor, or under stress of weather. The Bahama Islands were thus placed on an entirely different footing from any other British colony; the treatment of the United States vessels of war there must be considered separately, and cannot, with justice, be contrasted with the reception of confederate cruisers in other colonies, as is done, in one instance, in the case of the United States, (p. 288.) A comparison is there attempted to be drawn between the reception of the Florida at Bermuda, and the refusal of the governor of the Bahamas to allow the Honduras to anchor in the harbor of

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
« PrejšnjaNaprej »