It cannot be supposed the Tioga was ever afterward detached from Admiral Lardner's squadron or sent in the actual pursuit of any of the confederate cruisers, (all then on the other side of the Atlantic,) since on the 24th March, 1864, she was off Elbow Light, (Bahamas,) and it may be assumed she was within the limits assigned to her by her orders until the claim on her account ceased, viz, 27th June, 1864.1 All the other vessels stated to have composed this squadron had, at different times, been previously withdrawn, and were afterward to be found attached to blockading squadrons. The words "stated to have composed" are used intentionally, as it is impossible to reconcile the dates given in the abstract of the claims with those given elsewhere; for instance, in the case of the Juniata, as already shown, there is an error of nearly five months; in the Navy Register for January, 1863, the Gemsbok and the Oneida are shown as attached to blockading squadrons, and in that for January, 1864, the Tioga is named as attached to the East Gulf blockading squadron-duties palpably inconsistent with the pursuit of the confederate cruisers. The claim on account of the Oneida commences on the very day (16th January, 1860) that she allowed the Florida to escape from Mobile. It is believed that after that date she continued to be employed in the blockade of that port, as she is stated in the Navy Register for 1863 to have been attached to the West Gulf squadron on the 1st February, 1863. MISCELLANEOUS CASES, Not affecting the claims considered by the admiralty committee as admissible (upon the hypothesis explained by them) for arbitration. VANDERBILT. It should be borne in mind that, notwithstanding her superior speed and armament, the Vanderbilt was an unfit vessel to send in pursuit of the Alabama, since she was wholly dependent on her steam-power; hence, after making a passage, if she could not replenish her coal, she was powerless; this explains parts of her proceedings." 2 On her way to the Cape she, in obedience to her orders, went to Fernando Noronha, Pernambuco, and Rio, there coaled, and notwithstanding she was in pursuit of an enemy remained in port nineteen days. As a matter of fact, if she had staid there about five or six days and sailed on the 20th July direct for the Cape, (as she was ordered,) she would, instead of never meeting the Alabama, have found her in Table Bay. From Rio she, however, went to St. Helena, there took all the coals she could get, (400 tons,) but on her arrival at Simon's Bay (where it was not known that she had been at St. Helena) she was again allowed to coal, taking nearly 1,000 tons.3 After remaining eight days "painting ship," (so Semmes says in "My Adventures," page 668,) she again put to sea and went to Mauritius, where she was again allowed to coal, (though under what circumstances, or what representations her captain made to the governor, it is nowhere stated,) but there is another unaccountable delay in port of seventeen days; she returned to Table Bay, 4 1 United States Navy Report, December, 1865, p. 485; Appendix to Case of the United. States, vol. i, p. 360. 2 United States Navy Report, December, 1863, p. xxiv. 3Appendix to British Case, vol. v, pp. 228, 234. Ibid., p. 233. and made arrangements to coal before obtaining permission; this was of course refused, and her coaling stopped, but not until she had taken nineteen tons on board. Then hearing, doubtless, that there was coal at Angra Pequeña, her captain went there and took possession of it, saying "he must have coal," and with this supply he went to St. Helena and Bahia, where doubtless he obtained a further supply, thence to Barbados and to the United States. These facts prove: 1st. That the Vanderbilt was not fitted for the pursuit to such distant regions, where supplies of coal were limited, owing to her having no sail-power. 2d. That in addition to deviating from her orders she exhibited no haste in quitting some of the ports she touched at to carry on her pursuit. SAN JACINTO. Of this vessel's proceedings there are more full details than of those of any of the other United States cruisers, given in a letter of the Secretary of the Navy of 30th August, 1871, Appendix to Case of the United States, vol. vi, p. 345. Semmes describes her as having a more powerful battery and double the crew, but that the Alabama had the "speed of her;" however, it may be assumed she was not an unsuitable vessel to have been sent in the pursuit; she was, as will be subsequently shown, withdrawn after being about two and one-half months on this service, and was afterward attached to the eastern blockading squadron. If the arbitrators consider that she is proved, as stated at p. 138 of the British Counter Case, to have been remiss in allowing the Alabama to escape from Martinique, a question would then arise whether any portion of the claim made in her behalf was admissible, and whether such claim (if any) could be carried beyond the date of the Alabama's escape. AUGUSTA. Nothing is known of her cruise, which only lasted ten weeks, and consequently, though she was a suitable vessel for the service, she must necessarily have performed it in a very perfunctory manner. She does not appear to have called at Bermuda or any of the British West India Islands. She was afterward employed in the North Atlantic blockading squadron.2 DACOTAH. Also a suitable vessel; was withdrawn after but one month's service, and for the same service. NIAGARA. It may possibly be thought unnecessary to accumulate further proofs as to what was the actual employment of this ship, since the postscript to the admiralty report, and the United States official documents therein mentioned, will, it may be considered, have proved conclusively that she 1 See "Correspondence respecting the capture of the Saxon by the United States ship Vanderbilt," laid before Parliament, (North America, No. 2, 1864,) pp. 1, 7, 12. 2 See Navy Register, 1863; also, Navy report, December, 1863, p. 56, and Synopsis of Orders. was not sent to Europe in pursuit of any of the Confederate vessels named in the United States Case, but to watch the vessels then being constructed for the Confederates in French ports. The claim, however, for this ship is so vast in amount, ($648,234,) that it is thought better, at the risk of being prolix, to give other quotations from United States sources which have been met with, and which are very pertinent to the contention that she never was engaged in pursuing the Alabama or Florida. True it is that on the 28th April, 1864, Mr. Adams informed Mr. Seward that the Alabama was "reported at Cape Town, and about to come to France;" and as the Niagara left the United States the end of the following month, it might be not unnaturally inferred that she was dispatched to Europe in consequence of these tidings, and hence that she was sent in pursuit of the Alabama; but a dispatch from Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams of the 28th May, when that of the 28th April must have been received, effectually disposes of this hypothesis. "The Niagara," Mr. Seward stated, "will go to Europe on Wednesday next. * * * We have adopted this policy, not alone on account of the naval expeditions with which we are threatened from British ports, but also because we have not been able to procure entirely satisfactory assurances from the French Government," &c., about the vessels building at Bordeaux. Mr. Adams had, two days before, (26th,) written to Mr. Seward to this effect: "My impression is that hereafter the base will be substantially transferred to the other side of the Channel," and he also refers to the four vessels in process of construction in France.3 Attention has been already called by the committee to the Niagara being "without orders." Mr. Harvey, the United States minister at Lisbon, writing to Mr. Seward on the 29th November, 1864, confirmed this curious and important fact in these terms: "In saying that I refer to the fact that the Niagara has been practically tied up for several months at Flushing, Antwerp, and the British colonies," (query, Channel,) "and, as is understood, waiting for orders which are to regulate her further movements."4 Can it still, in the face of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, be seriously contended that from 30th May, 1864, to the 20th September, 1865, the Niagara "was cruising in the North Atlantic in search of the Alabama and Florida ?" MONEY CLAIMS-FURTHER ABATEMENTS SUGGESTED. Where none are suggested the cruisers are not named. TUSCARORA. It has been already shown that she never went to the West Indies in pursuit of the Alabama and Florida, and consequently the amounts which were considered admissible, upon the hypothesis of the admiralty report, under the belief that she had carried out her orders, should be abated as follows: 1 Diplomatic Correspondence, 1864-'65, Part i, p. 641. 2 Ibid., part ii., p. 60. At this time the only Confederate cruiser in a British port of the whole of those named in the United States Case was the Georgia, then dismantled, and known to be for sale; consequently, the "naval expeditions" which Mr. Seward was apprehensive of could not have consisted of any of the Confederate cruisers, which, by any possibility, could be considered to come within the purview of the treaty of Washington. 3 Ibid., Part ii, p. 29. Ibid., Part iv, p. 325. Amount considered hypothetically admissible by the Committee There would still remain a sum considered hypothetically to $89,765 58 $32,736 29 65, 472 58 24, 293 00 SAN JACINTO. Reference has already been made to a letter from the Secretary of the Navy, giving details of this ship's proceedings; but it is by no means a full report, as no mention is made of her visit to Martinique, when the Alabama escaped from her, nor does it mention the fact that after this escape the San Jacinto was no longer employed in pursuit of the Alabama, but was attached, during a part of the period for which claims are made, to the East Gulf blockading squadron. This is shown in the Navy Register, where, on the 1st January, as well as on the 1st February, 1863, she is named as attached to this squadron, though the precise date at which she was withdrawn from the pursuit is not given. If the official Navy Register needed confirmation, it would be found in a correspondence from Key West of the 15th January, 1863, published in the New York Herald of January 27, which stated that "she (the San Jacinto) comes from St. Thomas for supplies, and will, I understand, be temporarily attached to the Eastern Gulf blockading squadron." Taking, however, the date given in the Navy Register, viz, 1st January, 1863, as the date of her withdrawal from the pursuit, the claims on her account would stand thus: Amount considered hypothetically admissible by the Admiralty Committee Proportion now shown to be inadmissible... Amount that may now be considered hypothetically admissible.... MOHICAN. $65,421 43 16, 183 20 49, 238 23 It has been already shown why this ship should be considered to have been performing the ordinary duties on a foreign station1 until the 9th May, 1863, when she left the Cape de Verdes for the Brazils, and may be assumed to have commenced her pursuit of the Alabama. She eventually arrived at Table Bay on the 11th December, 1863.2 Here, without waiting to ascertain where the Alabama had gone, which she might have done (if he could not remain at the Cape) by proceeding to Bourbon or to the Mauritius, her captain, like the commander of the Vanderbilt, gave up the pursuit, and on the 19th December turned his ship's head homeward, where he arrived in April, 1864. Although a very suitable ship for the pursuit, and although when she arrived in the United States the Florida, Alabama, and Georgia were on the high seas, she was withdrawn from this special service, and was afterward employed on the North Atlantic blockading squadron. It is therefore clear, on these premises, that the (hypothetically) admissible claim on account of this ship could not extend beyond the That the Cape de Verdes was the foreign station to which the Mohican was proceeding in the performance of an ordinary duty when she called at Bermuda may be fairly inferred from her being there on the 21st December, 1862; 22d January, 1863; 20th February, 1863; 21st March, 1863; 22d April, 1863; leaving on the 9th May, 1863, for the Brazils. 2 Appendix to British Case, vol. v, p. 228. period embraced between the 9th May, 1863, when she may be con- Proportion now shown to be inadmissible......................... $258,310 32: 151,863 76. Amount that may now be considered hypothetically admissible.... 106, 446 56 Second cruise: WACHUSETT. She was, as before stated, a suitable vessel, and her cruising-ground well chosen to intercept the Alabama when returning to Europe or again going south. Although she actually captured the Florida in Bahia, the Admiralty Committee considered itself justified, by the synopsis of her orders, in considering her as in search of the Alabama only; but, on the supposition that she was cruising near the line and making only occasional visits to Brazilian ports, it was of opinion that the claim was admissible up to the 19th September, thus allowing her three months to learn the fate of the Alabama. It turns out, however, as before stated, that the Wachusett spent a large portion of her time in port. The news of the sinking of the Alabama on the 19th June, 1864, was taken to the Brazils by the French packet which left Bordeaux on the 24th June and arrived at Rio de Janeiro on the 18th July, at which date the Wachusett must have learned the news, as she arrived at Rio de Janeiro on the 7th July, and did not leave until the 3d of the following month, when she sailed for Bahia and arrived there on the 12th August. Hence the claim on her account for the pursuit of the Alabama would cease on the 18th July. The fact of her remaining in port sixteen days after the news arrived and then going on to Bahia is a further proof that the Florida was not a special object with her. The claim on account of the Wachusett would stand thus: Amount considered hypothetically admissible by the Admiralty Commit- Proportion now shown to be inadmissible... $145, 936 66 38,666 98 Amount that may now be considered hypothetically admissible.... 107,269 68 RHODE ISLAND. This case is precisely the same as that of the De Soto, and although she did not happen to take as many prizes as that vessel, yet her actual positions from time to time can be sufficiently traced to prove that she never went in pursuit of the Alabama, but was continuously employed on the same kind of service as Admiral Wilkes's squadron, in the immediate vicinity of the Bahamas. In the Navy Register for 1st January,. 1864, she is given as belonging to the West Indian squadron, and she was withdrawn from the service before the sinking of the Alabama,. showing that her employment was not dependent on the Alabama's career or movements. The Rhode Island's 12th May, 1863.... 21st-23d May, 1863. 30th May, 1863... 16th August, 1863 positions on the following days were: ...... Hog Island, Bahamas. Eleuthera, Bahamas. .Latitude 270 N., longitude 76° W., (where she captured steamer Cronstadt;value, $301,940.)1 1Appendix to British Case, vol. v, p. 225; United States Navy Report, December, 1863, pp. 557, 567; Diplomatic Correspondence, 1864-'65, part ii, pp. 412 et seq. |