Before this Case is finished it will be seen how thoroughly this determination was disregarded as to the "so-styled Confederate States." If it should be thought that the habitually insincere neutrality of Great Britain, as already detailed, did not constitute such a violation of the duties of a neutral as would entail responsibility for the acts of all the insurgent cruisers, (which the United States, with confidence, maintain that it did,) it is clear that the Sumter was furnished with an excessive supply of coal at Trinidad, which supply enabled her to inflict the subsequent injuries on the commerce of the United States. It is not contended that at that time there were any precedents which settled absolutely the quantity of coal which might be furnished to a bellige rent steam man-of-war by a neutral. When the proclamation of neutrality was issued, it seemed to be the opinion of leading members of the House of Lords, (Lords Brougham and Kingsdown, for [325] instance,) that coal for the use of vessels of war *might be regarded as contraband of war. The instructions issued by Her Majesty's Government a few months later permitted this article to be furnished, provided the supply should be measured by the capacity of the vessel to consume it, and should be limited to what might be necessary to take it to the nearest port of its own country, or to some nearer destination. This rule, as subsequently modified by the United States,2 appears to be a just medium between the excessive supply furnished to the Sumter in Trinidad and the absolute refusal to permit the United States to supply itself. Under this rule the Sumter would have been entitled to receive only what would be necessary to take her to New Orleans or to Galveston. 2. The Sumter was in the port of Gibraltar when the instructions of January 16, 1862, (Vol. IV, p. 175,) were published there,3 on the 11th February. By their terms they were to go into effect six days after that date. Under those instructions the Sumter, having been rec[326] ognized as a man-of-war, ought to have been required to leave the port of Gibraltar within twenty-four hours, or, if without coal, within twenty-four hours after getting a supply of coal. Instead of that she was allowed to remain there for twelve months, while Lord Russell's instructions were rigidly enforced against the vessels of the United States. The reason for this partiality may be easily gathered from the correspondence of the United States Consul at Gibraltar. The vessels of war of the United States were on her track, and had the instructions of Earl Russell been complied with, the well-laid schemes of the United States officers for her destruction would have been successful. But the Tribunal will observe that the instructions, which were so offensively enforced against the United States vessels Connecticut and Honduras, were ignored as to the insurgent vessel Sumter. 3. The sale of the Sumter was palpably an evasion. She went into the hands of Fraser, Trenholm & Co.; and, knowing the connection between that firm and the insurgents, it is not too much to ask the Tribunal to assume as a probability that there was never any change of ownership. But if it should be thought that the transaction was made bona fide, then there is an equal proabability that the money found its 1 Vol. IV, pp. 486-491. The President's Proclamation of October 8, 1870, issued during the Franco-German war, limited the supply of coal to the war vessels or privateers of the belligerents to 80 much as might be sufficient, if without sail-power, to carry the vessel to the nearest European port of its own country; if with sail-power, to half that quantity. Vol. II, pages 502, 503. *Sprague to Adams, Vol. II, pages 502, 503, 506, 507. way to the credit of the insurgents in their Liverpool trans- [327] actions. By reason of these repeated acts of insincere neutrality, or of actual disregard of the duties of a neutral, the United States were great sufferers. Before arriving at Trinidad the Sumter captured eleven American vessels. After leaving that port, and before arriving at Gibraltar, she captured six other vessels belonging to citizens of the United States. The injury did not stop there. The United States made diligent efforts to capture this vessel which was destroying their commerce. For this purpose they dispatched across the Atlantic two of their men-of-war, the Kearsarge and the Tuscarora. These vessels followed on the track of the Sumter, and the plans of the United States would have been successful had Earl Russell's instructions of January 31, 1862, been carried out toward the Sumter in the port of Gibraltar, as they were carried out toward the vessels of the United States in all the colonial ports of Great Britain. Under these circumstances, the United States ask the Tribunal to find and certify as to the Sumter that Great Britain, by the acts or omissions hereinbefore recited or referred to, failed to fulfill the duties set forth in the three rules in Article *VI of the Treaty of Washing [328] ton, or recognized by the principles of International Law not inconsistent with such rules. Should the Tribunal exercise the power conferred upon it by Article VII of the Treaty, to award a sum in gross to be paid to the United States, they will ask that, in considering the amount so to be awarded, the losses of individuals in the destruction of their vessels and cargoes by the Sumter, and also the expense to which the United States were put in the pursuit of that vessel, may be taken into account. The Nashville. THE NASHVILLE. The Nashville, a large paddle-wheel steamer, formerly engaged on the New York and Charleston line, lightened to diminish her draught, armed with two guns, and commanded by an officer who had been in the Navy of the United States, ran out from Charleston on the night of the 26th of October, 1861.2 She arrived at the British port of St. George, Bermuda, on the afternoon of the 30th3 of the same month, having been about three and a half days making the passage. She took on board there, by the permission of the Governor, six hundred tons of coal, and this act was approved by Her Majesty's prin- [329] cipal Secretary of State for the Colonies. This approval seems to have been elicited by the complaints which had been made to the Governor by the Consul of the United States at that port. It may also be that Her Majesty's Government preferred to have the question settled, before it could be made the subject of diplomatic representation on the part of the United States. In view of the rule as to supplies of coal which was soon after adopted by Her Majesty's Government, the United States insist, as they have already insisted in regard to the Sumter, that a supply of six hundred 1 Bernard to Seward, Vol. II, page 485. 2 Bernard's Neutrality of Great Britain, page 267. 3 Wells to Seward, Vol. II, page 538. 4 Governor Ord to the Duke of Newcastle, Vol. II, page 557. • Wells to Ord, Vol. II, page 539. tons was greatly in excess of the needs of the Nashville. There are no meaus of knowing whether she had any coal on board at the time she arrived in the port of St. George. Assuming that she had none, the utmost she should have received was enough to take her back to Charleston, from which port she had just come in three days and a half. Instead of that, she received more than a supply for a voyage to Southampton. She left Bermuda on the afternoon of the 5th of November,1 and anchored in Southampton waters on the morning of the 21st [330] of the same month, having destroyed at sea the United States merchant-ship Harvey Birch on the passage. A correspondence ensued between Earl Russell and Mr. Adams as to the character of this vessel, in which Lord Russell said, "The Nashville appears to be a Confederate vessel of war." She was received as such, was "taken into dock for calking and other repairs," and "received one hundred and fifty tons of coal" on the 10th of January. On the 25th "Captain Patey, of Her Majesty's Navy, reported the Nashville coaled and necessary repairs completed.”5 On the 4th of the following February the Nashville left Southampton and proceeded to Bermuda, where she arrived on the evening of the 20th. On the day previous to that (the 19th) the Consul had received from the Governor the official notice already alluded to, that the Government of Her Britannic Majesty had determined not to allow the formation, in any British Colony, of a coal depot for the use of the vessels of war of the United States. The Government of the United States was, therefore, not a little astonished to learn from the Consul at Bermuda that the Nashville had taken on board one hundred [331] *and fifty tons of coal at that place, and that she left "under the escort of Her Majesty's steamer Spiteful." These circumstances, in accordance with the principles hereinbefore stated, justify the United States in asking the Tribunal of Arbitration as to this vessel, to find and certify that Great Britain, by the acts or omissions hereinbefore recited or referred to, failed to fulfill the duties set forth in the three rules in Article VI of the Treaty of Washington or recognized by the principles of International Law not inconsistent with such rules. Should the Tribunal exercise the power conferred upon it by Article VII of the Treaty, to award a sum in gross to be paid to the United States, they will ask that, in considering the amount so to be awarded, the losses of individuals in the destruction of their Vessels and cargoes by the Nashville, and also the expenses to which the United States were put in the pursuit of that vessel, may be taken into account. [332] *THE FLORIDA, AND HER TENDERS, THE CLARENCE, THE TACONY, AND THE ARCHER. The Florida, originally known as the Oreto, was an iron-screw gunboat, of about seven hu. red tons burden, bark-rigged, and The Florida and had two smoke-stacks and three masts. The contract for her tenders. Wells to Seward, vol. II, page 540. Captain Patey to the Secretary of the Admiralty, Vol. II, pages 543, 544. 3 Russell to Adams, Vol. II, page 555. 4 Vol. II, page 587. 5 Ord to Allen, Vol. II, page 590. Adams to Seward, Vol. II, page 542. "Allen to Seward, Vol. II, page 591. Dudley to Adams, Vol. II, page 594. her construction was made with Fawcett, Preston & Co., of Liverpool, by Bullock, soon after he came to England in the summer of 1861. He was introduced to them by Prioleau, of the firm of Fraser, Trenholm & Co., in order that he might make the contract.1 It was pretended, for form's sake, that she was constructed for the Italian Government; but it was a shallow pretense, and deceived only those who wished to be deceived. The Italian Consul at Liverpool disclaimed all knowledge of her,2 and people at that port who were familiar with ship-building understood from the first that she was-being built for the Southern insurgents.3 The precise date of the making of the contract cannot be given by the United States. The *range of time within which it [333] must have been made can be determined. Bullock left England in the autumn of 1861, at or about the time that the Bermuda sailed with Huse's first shipment of stores; and returned in March on the Annie Childs, which ran the blockade from Wilmington. The contract was made before he left, and the Florida was constructed during his absence. The contract for the construction of the hull was sub let by Fawcett, Preston & Co., to Miller & Sons, of Liverpool.5 The payments to Miller & Sons were made by Fawcett, Preston & Co.; the payments to Fawcett, Preston & Co. were made by Fraser, Trenholm & Co. By the 4th of February the Florida was taking in her coal, and appearances indicated that she would soon leave without her armament. She made her trial trip on the 17th of February. By the 1st of March she had taken in her provisions, "a very large quantity, enough for a long cruise," and was "getting as many Southern sailors" as possible. She was registered as an English vessel. Although apparently ready to sail, she lingered about Liverpool, which gave rise to some speculations in the minds of the people of that town. It was [334] said that she had "injured herself and was undergoing repairs."9 The mystery was solved by the arrival, on the 11th of March, in the Mersey, of the Annie Childs from Wilmington, bringing as passengers Captain Bullock" and four other insurgent naval officers, who came on board of her "some twenty miles down the river from Wilmington," and who were to take commands on the vessels which were contracted for in Liverpool. As soon as they arrived they went on board the Florida, and were entertained there that evening. 12 On the 22d of March the Florida took her final departure from the Mersey, with "a crew of fifty-two men, all British, with the exception of three or four, one of whom only was an American." She was consigned by Bullock to Heyliger. Another account says that she was consigned to Adderly & Co. 1 Prioleau's evidence, Vol. VI, page 181. 2 Dudley to Seward, Vol. II, page 592. 13 3 See Mr. Dudley's dispatches of January 24 and 31, and of February 4, 12, 17, 19, 21, 22, 26, and 27, and of March 1, 5, 12, 15, 19, and 22, in the year 1862, Vol. VI, page 214, et seq. Dudley to Seward, March 12, 1862, Vol. VI, page 223. Same to same, February 12, 1862, Vol. VI, page 215. 6 Dudley to Seward, Vol. II, page 592; Vol. VI, page 215. Same to same, Vol. II, page 596; Vol. VI, page 220. 8 Same to same, Vol. II, page 597; Vol. VI, page 221. 9 Dudley to Seward, March 7, 1862, Vol. VI, page 222. 10 Same to same, March 22, 1862, Vol. VI, page 224. 11 Dudley to Adams, Vol. II, page 601. 12 Vol. II, page 601. 13 Vol. II, page 604. 14 Customs Report, Vol. II, page 605; Vol. VI, page 231. Simultaneously with these proceedings, shipments were being made at Hartlepool, on the eastern coast of England, of cannon, rifles, shot, shells, &c., intended for the Florida. They were sent from Liverpool to Hartlepool by rail, and there put on board the steamer Bahama for Nassau. [335] It was a matter of public notoriety that this was going on." All the facts about the Florida, and about the hostile expedition it was proposed to make against the United States, were open and notorious at Liverpool. Mr. Dudley's correspondence, already cited, was full of it. The means of intelligence were as accessible to British authorities as to the consular officers of the United States. Nevertheless, it was esteemed to be the duty of the officers of the United States to lay what had come to their knowledge before Her Majesty's Government. Mr. Dudley, the Consul at Liverpool, wrote to Mr. Adams that he had information from many different sources as to the Oreto, "all of which goes to show that she is intended for the Southern Confederacy." Mr. Adams transmitted the intelligence to Earl Russell, and said that he "entertained little doubt that the intention was precisely that indicated in the letter of the Consul, the carrying on war against the United States." * He added, "Should further evidence to sustain the allegations respecting the Oreto be held necessary to effect the object of securing the interposition of Her Majesty's Government, I will make an effort to procure it in a more formal manner.”3 [336] The United States ask the Tribunal to observe *that, notwith * standing this offer, no objection was taken as to the form of the information submitted by Mr. Adams, nor was he asked by Earl Russell for further particulars. Lord Russell, however, in reply, transmitted to Mr. Adams a report of the British Commssioners of Customs, in which it was stated that the Oreto was a vessel of war, "pierced for four guns;" that she was "built by Miller & Sons for Fawcett, Preston & Co.," and was "intended for the use of Messrs. Thomas Brothers, of Palermo;" that she had been handed over to Messrs. Fawcett & Preston; that Miller & Son stated their belief that the destination was Palermo;" and that "the examiners had every reason to believe that the vessel was destined for the Italian Government."4 Further representations being made by Mr. Adams, the same officers subsequently reported that, having received directions "to inquire into the further allegations made in regard to the Oreto," they found "that the vessel in question was registered on the 3d of March in the name of John Henry Thomas, of Liverpool, as sole owner; that she cleared on the following day for Palermo and Jamaica, in ballast, but did not sail until the 224, * * having a crew of fifty-two men, all British, [337] with the exception of *three or four, one of whom only was an American."5 * The Tribunal of Arbitration will observe that even from the reports of these British officers it is established that the Florida was a vessel of war, "pierced for four guns ;" and also that notwithstanding their alleged belief that she was intended for the King of Italy, she was allowed to clear for Jamaica in ballast. Attention is also invited to the easy credulity of these officials, who, to the first charges of Mr. Adams, replied by putting forward the "belief" of the builders as to the destination See Mr. Dudley's dispatches of March 7, 12, and 15, Vols. II and VI. 4 Vol. II, pages 595, 96; Vol. VI, page 218. Vol. II, page 605; Vol. VI, page 231. |