Her Majesty's government will ask the tribunal to suppose the case reversed that the vessels of the Confederate States had been allowed the indulgences which were shown to those of the United States, and that United States vessels had been subjected to precautions such as were often enforced against confederate cruisers. A moment's reflection will show that, if complaints and claims are to be made on such grounds, the United States would have had much more reason to make them on such a supposition than they have under the circumstances as they really stand.

[119] *Her Majesty's government regrets to have been compelled to lay before the tribunal in this section a number of details which have so slight a bearing on the questions referred to it, and many of which are so trivial in themselves. But it was due to the arbitrators, as well as to the United States, that this long series of accusations should not be left unanswered.

other countries.

COURSE PURSUED BY OTHER COUNTRIES.

Before quitting this subject, it may be well to notice briefly the course Course pursued by which was pursued under similar circumstances by other governments, whose conduct the United States have placed in contrast with that of Great Britain, and against whom they declare that they have no serious cause of complaint.1

Holland.

1. To instance, in the first place, the conduct of the Netherlands. The Sumter twice visited the ports of Dutch possessions in the East Indies within the space of six weeks; that of Saint Anne's, Curaçoa, on the 13th July, 1861; that of Paramaribo on the 19th August. On the first occasion she remained eight days in port; on the second, eleven days. In both instances she took in more than 100 tons of coal. At the British port of Trinidad the Sumter remained only six days and took in only 80 tons of coal. The United States Government addressed, as Mr. Seward said, 66 very serious remonstrances" to the Netherlands government on the subject. The essence of those remonstrances was, that the Sumter was not merely a privateer. but a pirate. The Netherlands government, on the other hand, maintained that she was a ship of war. It decided, however, to issue orders that no armed vessel of either belligerent should be allowed to remain. more than forty-eight hours in Dutch ports, or to take in more coal than would be sufficient for twenty-four hours' consumption. Although the United States Government was expressly warned that this restriction must apply to vessels of their Navy, as well as to those of their opponents, the regulation was accepted as satisfactory, until applied to a United States ship, the Iroquois, which touched at Curaçoa in November, 1861. On learning the restrictions placed upon his visit, the commander of the Iroquois declined to enter the port upon such terms, and in this decision he was sustained by his Government, who called for a repeal of the obnoxious regulation. The Netherlands government, it appears, had already revoked the regulation, at the instance of the governor of Curaçoa, and they explained that no restrictions would in future be placed on the stay or supplies of American men-of-war in Dutch ports.3 The United States Government, however, were not satisfied. In February. 1862, Mr. Seward again directed the United States minister at The Hague to call attention to the "subject of the intrusion of piratical 1 Case of the United States, p. 462.

American vessels seeking shelter in the ports of the Netherlands and their colonies.”

If [he said] you cannot obtain a decree excluding them altogether, it is thought that the government will have no hesitation in restoring the restrictive policy which was adopted by it under the representation of its foreign affairs by Baron Van Zuylen.'

The Netherlands minister for foreign affairs replied, in a long and able note, in which he once more justified the attitude of his country, and declined to return to the former policy of restriction.

In this regard [he wrote] I permit myself to observe to you, that I could not understand how your government could desire the re-establishment of measures which actually were, and would again, be applicable to both parties, and which were at the time the cause why the Union ship Iroquois would not enter the port of Curaçoa under the rule of the said restrictive measures. If the instructions given before the month of December, 1861, were now returned to, the government of the Netherlands might not only be taxed, with good reason, with trifling, but would hurt its own interests, as well as those of the Union, considering that the consequence of the said instructions would be, as has been remarked in the communication of Baron de Zuylen, dated October 29, 1861, that the vessels of war of the United States, also, could no longer be able to sojourn in the Netherland West Indian ports more than twice twentyfour hours, nor supply themselves with coal for a run of more than twenty-four hours.

It is difficult to understand on what ground Great Britain is to be held liable for the acts of the Sumter, while the course pursued by Holland is considered to give the United States no serious cause of complaint. On looking for the reasons assigned, they are found to be as follows:

[120] *The government of the Netherlands forbade privateers to enter its ports, and warned the inhabitants of the Netherlands and the King's subjects abroad not to accept letters of marque. The United States have no knowledge that these orders were disobeyed.3

Her Majesty's government are not aware that, among the numerous charges brought against Great Britain in the Case of the United States, it is anywhere alleged that a privateer of either party entered a British port, or that any British subject accepted a letter of marque during the war. It is indeed true that in official correspondence and in other documents and speeches during the war, it was the common practice of the Government and the citizens of the United States to apply to the confederate cruisers the denomination of "privateers" as well as that of "pirates;" but it is certain that none of these cruisers were privateers in the legal and only proper sense of that term.

Brazil.

2. Let us now turn to the course adopted by Brazil. The Sumter, after leaving Paramaribo, touched at the port of San Juan de Maranham, where she remained ten days, and took in 100 tons of coal. The United States consul at that port addressed a protest to the governor, but the latter replied that the Sumter must be regarded as a belligerent vessel, and as such allowed to supply herself with coal. A long correspondence followed between the Brazilian government and the United States minister, who denounced the conduct of the president of the province of Maranham as "an unfriendly act toward the United States, and a gross breach of neutrality," but. the Brazilian government maintained that their officer had been right, that the Confederate States must be regarded as belligerents, and the Sumter as a ship of war. When, in June, 1862, after more than seven months' discussion, the Marquis d'Abrantes, who had recently become Brazilian minister for foreign affairs, wrote to terminate the controversy,

4

and observed that nothing had resulted to alter the relations of friendship and good understanding between the two countries, the United States minister at once replied in a note, of which he stated the sole object to be, "to point out that, so far from nothing having occurred to disturb the good feeling upon which are based the friendly relations between the United States and Brazil, the whole course of your predecessor in relation to the visits of the pirate Sumter to Maranham, and the present attitude of Brazil toward the piratical vessels belonging to the rebel States and to our own national vessels, is considered by the Government of Washington untenable, unjust, and intolerable." In a dispatch which had already been communicated to the Brazilian government, Mr. Seward had urged that further restrictions should be placed on the stay of confederate cruisers in Brazilian ports. The passage to this effect, which the United States minister again brought to the notice of the Brazilian government, was as follows:

In the mean time it is proper to remark that every maritime power which has recognized the insurgents as a belligerent, except Brazil, has, on the other hand, adopted stringent means to prevent the entrance of piratical vessels into their harbors, except in distress, and has forbidden them remaining there more than twenty-four hours, or receiving supplies which would enable them to renew depredations upon our com

merce.

The United States do not say that such measures on the part of Brazil would be satisfactory, nor can they consent to ask Brazil for less than the absolute exclusion of pirates from her harbors. Yet such measures, if adopted, would bring Brazil upon the same ground in relation to the United States which is occupied by other maritime powers, and thus would mitigate the discontent which you are authorized to express.' With this request the government of Brazil did not think fit to comply. The regulations issued by it in August, 1861, did not restrict the stay of belligerent vessels in Brazilian ports, unless they came in with prizes. The regulations also permitted the taking in of victuals and naval provisions, indispensable for the continuation of the voyage, without placing any specific limit on such provisions, or fixing any period within which a fresh supply should not be granted. The Brazilian minister for foreign affairs called the attention of the United States minister to the principles of neutrality laid down in these regulations as "being perfectly identical with those which are adopted and followed by other maritime powers."2

In April and May, 1863, the Florida, Georgia, and Alabama visited different ports of Brazil, and remained there for some time coaling and repairing. The Alabama, having made captures within the territorial waters of Brazil, in the neighborhood of the island of Fernando de Noronha, was ordered by the president of Pernambuco, on the 27th of

April, to put to sea within twenty-four hours, and left accord[121] ingly. She re-appeared, however, in the harbor of Bahia on the

11th of May, and remained there fourteen days. These proceedings gave rise to further remonstrances on the part of the United States minister, who protested against any of the three vessels being admitted into Brazilian ports, and maintained that the Alabama should have been seized and detained at Bahia. The Brazilian government replied that the course pursued toward these vessels had been right; that they must be received on the same terms as cruisers of the United States; and that the president of Bahia could not do otherwise than receive the Alabama in that port in the absence of positive evidence of her having infringed the neutrality of Brazil. This, it was stated, was not forthcoming at the time, the investigation of the subject being still in progress.

Appendix to British Case, vol. vi, p. 40. 2 Ibid., p. 42.

Instructions were, however, issued by the government of Brazil, in June, 1863, defining the construction to be placed on the regulations of August, 1861, and the precautions to be taken for their observance.. With regard to the limitation of supplies to such as were necessary for the continuation of the voyage, it was stated that this provision presupposed that the vessel was bound for some port. Such presupposition would not hold good if the same vessel should seek to enter a port repeatedly, or if, after having procured supplies in one port, she should enter another immediately afterward under the same pretext, except in the case of overruling necessity. Any vessel committing a violation of neutrality was to be at once compelled to leave the waters of Brazil ; and the Alabama, having been guilty of acts of this nature, was not again to be received in any port of the empire.

The Florida, against which no such breach of neutrality had been charged, returned to Brazil in August, 1864, and at Bahia was again received as a vessel of war.

It will be seen, then, that the principles on which the regulations of the Brazilian government were framed were the same in substance as those applied by Great Britain. It was considered that confederate vessels must be received on the same footing as those of the United States; that they must be allowed the supplies necessary for the voyage on which they were engaged; that the seizure or detention of such a vessel would be a breach of neutrality; and that, to justify even her dismissal from a Brazilian port, evidence of a violation of Brazilian neutrality committed by her as a belligerent vessel must first be obtained. On these conditions the Sumter, Florida, Georgia, and Alabama, were admitted to Brazilian ports. The last-named vessel having captured and burnt prizes within the waters of Brazil, instructions were issued to exclude her for the future. A similar prohibition was issued against the Shenandoah, not from any doubt as to her status as a ship of war, but on the ground that her commander had violated the seal of the Brazilian consulate. In neither case, however, did any occasion occur for enforcing the prohibition, as the Alabama did not return to the coast of Brazil after she left Bahia, nor did the Shenandoah ever visit a Brazilian port.

3. "The Russian government," it is said by the United States, "ordered that even the flag of men-of-war belonging to the seceded States must not be saluted."1

Russia.

Her Majesty's government itself issued similar orders addressed to all governors of British colonies.2 These orders were as follows:

[Circular.]

DOWNING STREET, January 11, 1864.

SIR: Her Majesty's government have had occasion to consider whether salutes can properly be exchanged between the forts in Her Majesty's colonies and vessels of war of the Confederate States.

I have to instruct you that, in case the commander of any such vessel should offer you a salute, it will be your duty to decline it; and that if the salute should be fired without having been previously offered, it should not be returned.

In each case the commander of the vessel should be informed that the reason for declining to receive or return such salutes is, that the Confederate States have not been acknowledged by this country otherwise than as belligerents.

I have, &c.,
(Signed)

Case of the United States, p. 464.

Appendix to British Case, vol. v, p. 129.

NEWCASTLE.

The incident which gave occasion to this is stated in the Case of Great Britain, page 70.

France.

4. The French authorities received the Sumter, Florida, Alabama, and Georgia in French ports on the footing of men-of-war, and allowed them to take in supplies of coals and provisions. The Florida and Georgia were allowed to remain several months at Brest and Cherbourg repairing. When the United States minister at Paris protested against the Florida receiving repairs of her machinery, [122] on the ground that she was a good sailer, M. Drouyn de Lhuys

replied that "if she were deprived of her machinery she would be pro tanto disabled, crippled, and liable, like a duck with its wings cut, to be at once caught by the United States steamers. He said it would be no fair answer to say the duck had legs, and could walk or swim.' He further justified the permission given to her to repair in a government dock, there being no commercial dock at Brest. The Florida having discharged seventy or seventy-five men after she came into Brest, the French government decided not to issue any order prohibiting an accession to her crew while in port, inasmuch as such accession was necessary to her navigation.2

Attention has been called in the Case of the United States to the treatment of the Rappahannock at Calais, as forming a contrast The Rappahannock. to the reception of confederate vessels in British ports. This vessel, an old dispatch-boat, originally called the Victor, had been sold out of the British Navy as worn out and unserviceable. She appears to have passed from the hands of her purchasers into those of agents of the Confederate States, who, fearing discovery, hurriedly carried her off in a condition unfit for sea, and took her into the harbor of Calais as a confederate ship of war, though neither equipped, manned, nor armed. The United States minister at Paris urged that this was an exceptional case, and such in fact it was. Writing to M. Drouyn de Lhuys on the 4th December, 1863, he said:

It is quite evident that this vessel occupies a position which differs from either the Florida or Georgia. She has left her port on the other side of the channel voluntarily, without papers, and ran directly across to a neighboring port, within which she hopes to be protected until her equipment is completed, and her officers and crew ready. On this statement of facts no argument is necessary to show that permission from the French authorities to carry out her purpose would be a violation of neutrality."

The French government replied that the Rappahannock appeared to have been compelled, by unforeseen circumstances, to take refuge in French waters; that she could not therefore be refused an asylum, but that the facilities accorded to her would be limited strictly to what was required for the equipment and seaworthiness of an ordinary vessel of commerce. The United States minister continued to urge the excep tional nature of the case, and, in deference to his representations, special precautions were taken to prevent any warlike equipment of the vessel. It was decided that she should not be allowed to depart without first obtaining permission, and, in order to guard against any attempt of such a kind, a gun-boat was stationed to watch her. The repairs were proceeded with, and changes were made among the crew, without adding to their number, for some time. Subsequently, however, it was discovered that her crew had been nearly doubled, and the permission for her

1 British Case, p. 71.

Appendix to British Case, vol. vi, p. 136.

3 Case of the United States, pp. 292, 293.

Papers relating to Foreign Affairs, 1863–64, vol. iii, pp. 4, 19, 21, 23, 235, 41, 44, 51, 53, 57, 81.