Nassau. It is obvious that there is no real similarity between the two cases. At Nassau there was a special prohibition against the admission of belligerent vessels of war; at Bermuda there was no such prohibition. The Florida, moreover, was declared by her commander to be in need of repairs. No such reason was alleged by the commander of the Honduras for his application. The latter vessel had been sent to the Bahamas to assist the crew of the San Jacinto, which had been wrecked off the Abaco Islands, a group of the Bahamas to the north of New Providence. She was there allowed permission to anchor by the authorities for the purpose of her visit, and from thence she proceeded to Nassau in order to obtain specie for the payment of salvage money to the inhabitants of Abaco who had been instrumental in saving the wreck. The governor did not consider that the emergency was sufficient to justify his granting special permission to the Honduras to anchor. The captain came on shore to urge a reconsideration of this decision, but the governor did not see grounds for altering it; and he suggested that the captain might take back the specie at once, or, if that were impossible, the consul might undertake to forward it to Abaco. The captain returned to his vessel, but, in defiance of the quarantine regulations, as well as of the spirit of the governor's decision, he and some other officers of the Honduras landed the next morning, called at the United States consulate, purchased some stores, and returned to the vessel. The governor took notice of this by addressing a very temperate remonstrance to the consul; he acted rightly in doing so; and Earl Russell expressed this opinion when the matter was brought to his notice by Mr. Adams.' "Nassau," he said, "is a position from which, on the one hand, confederate privateers might have greatly annoyed the commerce of the United States, and which, on the other hand, might have been a convenient base of operations for the United States Navy. It was thought right, therefore, by Her Majesty's government to forbid the resort of men-of-war of either of the two parties to the port of Nassau. "Governor Rawson, who has been exceedingly strict in compelling the confederate vessels to comply with the rules which he was ordered to enforce, has, no doubt, conceived it to be his duty to require equal compliance with those rules from the United States vessels of war. Her Majesty's government, if the case had been referred to them, might, in all probability, have dispensed with the observance of these rules in the peculiar case of the Honduras; but Her Majesty's government cannot be surprised that an inferior officer should not have conceived himself at liberty, upon his own responsibility, to dispense with rules laid down by Her Majesty for his guidance. I have to observe, moreover, that the landing of the captain of the Honduras and his officers was persisted in not only in contraversion of the express dissent of the governor, and in violation of the rules which the governor had been ordered to cause to be observed, but in contravention, also, of the quarantine laws of the colony. This is a proceeding which Mr. Seward, I conceive, will surely not consider to have been justifiable." It is, however, alleged generally, in the case of the United States, that the special permission to anchor in the port of Nassau was "lavishly given to every insurgent cruiser, but was granted churlishly, if at all, to the vessels of the United States."2 Elsewhere it is said that "an order more unfriendly to the United States" than that of the 31st of January, 1862, "could not have been made. Under the construction practically put upon it, the vessels of war of the United States were excluded from the harbor (of Nassau) for any purpose." It will, perhaps, be a matter of some little surprise to the tribunal to learn that, whereas on two occasions only did vessels visit the port of Nassau as confederate cruisers, there are no less than thirty-four visits of United States ships of war to the Bahama Islands recorded during the time that the [110] regulation *was in force. On four occasions, at least, vessels of the United States exceeded the twenty-four hours limit, and took in coal by permission; one of them also received permission to repair; several were engaged in pursuit of vessels suspected of being blockaderunners, and did not every instance relinquish the chase within British limits. Two prizes appear, indeed, to have been captured by them, one within a mile of the shore, the other almost in port.1 The use made of the waters of the Bahamas by Federal cruisers, for the purpose of watching and intercepting vessels supposed to be freighted with cargoes for confederate ports, was so persistent as to induce the governor on one occasion, when granting permission to coal to the commander of the Dacotah, to accompany it with the condition that the vessel should not, within the next ten days, be cruising within five miles of any of the Bahama Islands. On this subject there is some comment in the case. of the United States. The application was for permission to ship, not twenty tons of coal, as there represented, but sixty; and no limitation of the amount was imposed by the governor, though the captain of the Dacotah chose only to take the smaller quantity, which was sufficient to carry him to the coaling-depot of the United States Navy at Key West. The condition exacted on this occasion by the governor was not countenanced by Her Majesty's government, nor was it required on subsequent occasions, although Earl Russell had, in June, 1864, to complain of the frequent visits of the United States gun-boat Tioga to the out islands of the Bahamas for the purpose of obtaining supplies, and of the manner in which the commander of that vessel set the regulations at defiance by anchoring in the roadstead of Bimini without permission.3 It has been said that only two vessels of war of the Confederate States are known to have visited the harbor of Nassau as such, the Florida and the Retribution; two other vessels, the Nashville and the Tallahassee, which had acted as cruisers, entered the harbor, but they did so after they had ceased to bear that character, as merchant-ships and under other names. Of the visit of the Retribution there is little to be said. She entered the harbor of Nassau as being in distress, in February, 1863, where she was condemned as unseaworthy, dismantled and sold, and registered as a British merchant-ship under the name of the Etta. The Florida was the only other confederate ship of war which received the permission of the governor to anchor in the port of Nassau, which is said in the case of the United States to have been so "lavishly given," to such vessels. Florida at THE FLORIDA AT NASSAU. The reception of the Florida at Nassau was in no way more favorable than that generally accorded to Federal men-of-war visiting the colony. Indeed, it was rather less so. She came into the harbor of Nassau on the morning of the 26th January, 1863, with The Nassau. 1 See return of visits of United States vessels to British colonies, Appendix to British Case, vol. v, p. 224. 2 Appendix to British Case, vol. i, p. 79. Appendix to Case of the United States, vol. vi, p. 98. 3 Appendix to British case, vol. i, p. 360. 4 Appendix to British Case, vol. v, pp. 21, 196. The regulation prohibiting the entry of belligerent vessels into British ports for the purpose of being dismantled and sold was only issued in September, 1864, more than a year afterward. (See Appendix to British Case, vol. i, p. 467.) out previously asking permission, her commander being, as he explained, ignorant of the regulation which rendered such a course necessary. The fort-adjutant, as he had done in the case of the United States vessel Stars and Stripes some months before, came on board to ask for an explanation; and he took the commander of the Forida on shore in his boat, as he had on the former occasion taken, the commander of the Stars and Stripes, in order that application might be at once made for the necessary permission. Captain Maffit addressed a letter to the governor, stating that his vessel was in distress for want of coal, and requesting permission to anchor for the purpose of obtaining it. The governor granted the permission, stating that he did so as thereby according to a confederate steamer the same privileges which he had formerly granted to Federal steamers. But he desired that the irregularity in delaying to make the request should be pointed out, and that the pilot should be called on to explain how he admitted the Florida without permission.1 In the case of the Stars and Stripes, the governor had, without any written application given leave to take in coal for a much larger amount than her commander required, and the United States consul wrote to thank him for "the permission so graciously accorded." [111] *The Florida remained in the harbor about twenty-six hours, (not thirty-six, as stated in the case of the United States,3) leaving not later than noon of the 27th of January. Of the exact amount of coal taken on board no record has been found; but it could not have been such an amount as is assumed by the United States. The quantity of coal which the Florida was capable of stowing was but 130 tons;1 her consumption at full speed was estimated by British officers appointed to investigate the matter at Bermuda, as 15 cwt. an hour, or 18 tons a day. She could not possibly, therefore, have taken on board a three months' supply, as is alleged. This is further proved by the statement, which afterward appears in the case of the United States, that "by the middle of the following month her coal was getting low;" and this when we are told that "she ordinarily sailed under canvas," and only used steam in the pursuit and capture of vessels.5 Her Britannic Majesty's government thinks that enough has been said to show that the partiality alleged to have been shown to confederate vessels of war by the authorities of Nassau had no real existence. The United States have alluded, in their case, to the absence of any but official relations between those authorities and the United States consul. Her Majesty's government is unwilling to dwell upon the reasons (which were not political) for that state of things. It was, undoubtedly, a source of embarrassment to the governor; and it appears to have created a feeling on Mr. Whiting's part, which colored all his reports to his Government, and render them far from an accurate representation of the real state of affairs in the colony. The following extract from a dispatch of the governor shows that there was no indisposition to show hospitality and civility to officers of the United States when he could properly do so: So far from having shown too much sympathy with the South, I believe I might justly be suspected of not having shown enough. I know that I have seen and received more northern than southern visitors at Government House during the last season; and that whereas I had invited several northern officers to dinner, the only Southern officer who called I did not invite. 3 Ibid., vol. v, pp. 31, 32. Appendix to British Case, vol. i, p. 79. See also extract from Bahama Herald, Appendix to Case of the United States, vol. vi, p. 334. * See report of British naval officers at Bermuda, Appendix to British Case, vol. v, p. 11. Case of the United States, p. 352. EXECUTION OF THE RULES OF JANUARY 31, 1862, IN OTHER COLONIES. Execution of the 1862, in other colo nies. Having thus shown the conduct of the authorities at Nassau under the special regulations applicable to that colony, Her Brirules of January 31. tannic Majesty's government proceeds to notice the alleged disregard of the general regulations in the case of visits of confederate cruisers to other British ports. According to those regulations, no vessel of war of either belligerent was to be allowed to remain in a British port more than twenty-four hours, except in case of stress of weather, or of her requiring repairs or supplies necessary for the subsistence of her crew. No coal was to be supplied to such a vessel beyond the amount sufficient to carry her to the nearest port of her own country; nor was coal to be again supplied to her in any British port, without special permission, within three months after she had last received such a supply in a British port. It has been already explained that the case of the Nashville, at Bermuda, in February, 1862, did not come within these rules, which had not at the time reached the colony. The first, and, indeed, the only instance, in which special permission to coal was obtained within three months after a previous supply at a British port was that of the Florida, at Barbados. The Florida at Barbados. THE FLORIDA AT BARBADOS. The Florida arrived at Barbados on the 24th February, 1863. Her commander represented to the governor that his vessel had recently gone through severe weather; that his stock of coal had, in consequence, been entirely exhausted; and that, unless he could ship some more, and have some lumber to repair the damages his vessel had suffered, he could not go to sea, and would be obliged to land his men and strip the ship. The governor granted the permission, limiting the amount to ninety tons, which was certainly not an excessive quantity, considering the distance from the ports of the Southern States.1 In so doing, he was under the impression that he was only granting similar facilities to those previously accorded to the United States vessel San Jacinto, whose commander had also asked for special permission to ship fuel and articles for repairs. The governor took the [112] *further precaution of writing to the governors of neighboring British colonies, stating the date at which the Florida had coaled. All this he explained to Admiral Wilkes, who visited the island shortly afterward, and who, after receiving these explanations, made use of them to write him a long letter of complaint. The matter was reported by the governor to Her Britannic Majesty's government, and was also represented by Mr. Seward to Lord Lyons. While acquitting the gov ernor of any intentional disregard of his instructions, the government were of opinion that, in regard both to the San Jacinto and the Florida, too much latitude had been used in giving the "special permission" contemplated in the regulations; and a dispatch was addressed to Barbados, and to other British colonies in the West Indies, defining the circumstances under which such "special permission" might properly be granted. It was pointed out at the same time that an unauthorized concession to one belligerent was not likely to be accepted, by those to whom it was made, as a justification of a similar concession in the opposite direction.2 Appendix to British Case, vol. 1, p. 92. It is now asserted by the Government of the United States that the case of the San Jacinto, referred to by the governor of Barbados, was not parallel to that of the Florida, inasmuch as the San Jacinto, though she had touched at Bermuda shortly before her arrival at Barbados, had not taken in any coal at the former colony. Her Majesty's government does not dispute this fact, although not aware of it before. But such a circumstance, recently ascertained, as it appears, from the records of the United States Navy, does not in any way affect the fact that the governor was, at the time, under the impression that the two cases were similar. It cannot be admitted, as urged by the United States, that the burden is upon Great Britain to establish that a high officer of Her Majesty acted "innocently" on this occasion, or that his explanation was a truthful one. These are matters which clearly ought to be taken for granted, unless there is positive evidence to the contrary, and the more so when, as on the present occasion, every attendant circumstance combines to show that the officer acted in good faith. Still less can it be allowed that "the act, whether done innocently or designedly, was a violation of the duties of a neutral," or that it furnished the United States with any real "cause of complaint against Great Britain." At most, it amounted to no more than a somewhat too broad interpretation placed by the authorities of a distant colony on a rule which had been made, not in compliance with any requirement of international law, but as a matter of convenience; and measures were at once taken to prevent the recurrence of a similar mistake. The instructions sent to the governor on this occasion enjoined on him a strict adherence to the regulations, "without any arbitrary concession to either belligerent," as the best means of avoiding misunderstanding and complaints of partiality for the future. The anxiety of the governor to comply with this direction led to a misunderstanding, of which mention has been made in the case of the United States. The United States vessel of war Connecticut touched at Barbados in April, 1865, and her commander, Captain Boggs, wrote to the governor: "I find it necessary to remain a few days for the purpose of overhauling the piston and feed-pump of the engine, and I trust that no objections can be made." It will be seen that the application was rather loosely worded as regards the necessity of the repair. The governor, in consequence, replied that Captain Boggs knew, of course, the instructions under which they both acted, and that, before giving his sanction, he must request a definite assurance of the inability of the Connecticut to proceed to sea at the expiration of twenty-four hours, and as to the period within which it would be possible to execute the necessary repairs. This was, in fact, no more than a request for a formal application from the commander of the Connecticut such as would bring that vessel within the letter of the regulations. Captain Boggs, however, somewhat unreasonably interpreted it otherwise. He replied that it virtually refused the permission requested, and that "he could not give such an assurance as was required, inasmuch as an American ship of war could always go to sea in some manner." He left the port, accordingly, without repairing. The governor reported the matter home at the time, saying that he thought Captain Boggs had placed an ungenerous construction on his letter, but that he did not see how he could have acted otherwise; and, in a dispatch lately received, he repeats the Same explanation. The commodore," he says, "knew perfectly well what my instructions were; and if my words had any meaning at all, 66 Case of the United States, p. 356 Appendix to same, vol. vi, p. 345. |
