against such sale being allowed in the port, stating, among other things, that it was being "made for the purpose of avoiding a capture by the cruisers of the United States." It seemed to the commander of the United States war-vessel Kearsarge that "the sale of so-called Confederate war-vessels in British ports is an act as unfriendly and hostile to our [his] Government, as the purchase of war-vessels in their ports by the same party." He therefore advised the consul to enter his protest against the sale. On the 19th, the form of a sale was gone through with, but the nominal purchaser was M. G. Klingender, intimately connected with the firm of Frazer, Trenholm & Co.3 She afterward received a At Liverpool. British registry, and went to Liverpool under British colors, and from that time was used as an insurgent transport. On the 14th of October, 1863, the following significant letter was written by Prioleau, of the firm of Frazer, Trenholm & Co., at Liverpool, to Major Huse, which explains itself: Touching the Gibraltar, formerly Sumter, did you not advise the government that you had taken her for the war department? They do not understand it out there, and you must come here and settle it somehow as early as you conveniently can. I will adopt either of three courses which you may prefer: To ignore our ownership altogether, and consider her always the property of the government. 2d. To sell her to the government at a fair valuation on her leaving here. 3d. To keep her as our own from the time of purchase in Gibraltar, and charge you the regular rate of freight for the voyage to Wilmington, say £60 per ton. The first is the best plan, I think. Certainly for the government it is. Of course you know that it was not she that was snuk in this harbor. She was at Wilmington lately, and before she is lost or returns here, the matter ought to be arranged.* As has been seen, the sale of the Georgia was afterward permitted in the port of Liverpool. After that, but not until the 9th of September, 1864, an order was promulgated by Her Majesty's Government, that "for the future no ship of war belonging to either of the belligerent powers of North America shall be allowed to enter, or to remain, or be in any of Her Majesty's ports, for the purpose of being dismantled or sold."5 When this order was made the insurgents had no armed ship of war to be dismantled or sold. THE NASHVILLE. New York and Charleston. This vessel, like her predecessor, the Sumter, had, previous to the outbreak of the rebellion, been employed in the merchant The Nashville. service of the United States as a packet running between She passed the blockade at the latter port, on the night of the 26th of August, having been lightened for that purpose, and arrived at the port of St. George, in the island of Bermuda, on the 30th, a little more than three days after leaving her home port. At Bermuda. She presented herself at Bermuda as a vessel of war. Governor Ord, in his report to the Duke of Newcastle, says: "I have 1 Brit. Case, p. 18. 2 Am. App., vol. ii, 3 Ibid., p. 515. p. 510. 4 Am. App., vol. vii, p. 71. 5 Brit. App., vol. iii, p. 20. 7 Brit. Case, p. 20. 1 the honor to acquaint your excellency that these islands were visited, on the 30th ultimo, by the Confederate States paddle-wheel steamer Nashville, commanded by Lieutenant Peagram." The Duke of Newcastle, in sending this report to the Foreign Office, describes her as the "Confederate States steam-vessel Nashville.” 2 In point of fact her character as a ship of war is conceded in the British Case, as on page 20 it is stated that she was commissioned as a ship of war," and that "her commander applied for leave to draw a supply of coals," &c. And in the letter of Earl Russell to Mr. Adams, replying to the claim by Mr. Adams, that she was not a vessel of war, found on page 21, it is said, "The undersigned has to state that the Nashville appears to be a Confederate vessel of war; her commander and officers have commissions in the so-styled Confederate Navy." She was allowed to coal at Bermuda, and it was known to Governor Ord, when he saw her taking on coal, as he did, that, when she left Charleston, "it was intended to coal at Bermuda." He also knew that she was a vessel of war, and that she was on her way to England, for he says, "She has every chance of reaching England unmolested by the United States vessels of war." 4 She could not run the blockade with a full supply of coal, as she had been compelled to diminish her draught for that purpose; therefore, she was short of effective power as a vessel of war when she left her home port. An increase of her supply of coal, beyond what she had originally on leaving Charleston, would augment her naval force, and if she left her home port with the intention of thus augmenting her power when she arrived at Bermuda, and the Governor, with a knowledge of that intention, allowed it to be done, he did suffer the insurgents to make use of that port of Her Majesty's dominions as a base of naval operations against the United States. The run from Charleston to Bermuda, as has been seen, occupied but little more than three days. On arrival, her supply of coal was exhausted. Her voyage from Bermuda to Southampton lasted from the 4th to the 21st of November, or between seventeen and eighteen days. To enable her to make that voyage, she had permission to take on board six hundred tons of coal. It now appears she only took four hundred and forty-two and a half, or four hundred and seventy-two and a half tons; but it matters little whether this was the true amount, or that which was originally supposed and reported by the Governor. Either was sufficient to enable her to reach and destroy the Harvey Birch on the 19th, within two days' run of Southampton. Without this supply that capture could not have been made. In the British Counter Case it is said, "No act appears to have been done by the Governor, and no permission asked or granted.”7 Therefore, it is claimed there was no permission given to coal. At the same time it is admitted the Governor suffered the taking on of an unlimited supply. At Southampton. After leaving Nassau, and after the destruction of the Harvey Birch, she arrived at Southampton, and was permitted to repair and coal. On her way from Southampton to a port of the insurgents, she stopped again at Bermuda from the 20th to the 24th of February, and took on coal from the British ship Mohawk. 5 Gov. Ord to Duke of Newcastle, Brit. App., vol. ii, p. 87· Brit. App., Counter Case, vol. v, p. 13. 7 Page 70. Brit. App., vol. ii, p. 128. This was only a few days after the Governor had informed the Consul of the United States that it had been "decided not to allow the formation, in any British colony, of a coal depot for the use of" the vessels of war of the insurgents or the United States.1 After leaving Bermuda, and before attempting to enter any port of the insurgents, she destroyed one vessel. From this it will be seen that the Nashville received her entire supplies, during her career as a vessel of war, from the ports of Great Britain. THE RETRIBUTION. This was a sailing vessel of about one hundred tons measurement, with one small gun on deck," which, early in the year 1863, The Retribution. cruised for a short time about the Bahama Bauks. Her first officer was Vernon Locke, who either had been, or afterwards became, a clerk for Adderley & Co., at Nassau.* It does not appear, from the evidence furnished by either of the Governments, when or where she was armed or commissioned. She was originally a steam-tug, and employed at Buffalo, in the State of New York, upon Lake Erie. Just before the outbreak of the rebellion, she was taken into the service of the United States and brought to the Atlantic coast. Being driven by stress of weather into Cape Fear River, she was, just previous to the attack on Fort Sumter, seized by the insurgents. The United States have no knowledge of the use made of her after that time, until she appeared upon her cruise. About the 28th of January, 1863, she captured the schooner Hanover, which was taken by Locke, the first officer of the Retribution (as is supposed) to Long Cay, a small island of the Bahamas. She was accompanied to that island by the schooner Brothers, owned by the Messrs. Farrington, doing business at that place. Locke, on his arrival, assumed the name of the master of the Hanover, consigned, as it appeared upon her papers, to Mr. Richard Farrington." His object was to sell the cargo, and he made a statement of the reasons which induced him to come into port, which Farrington said he “doubted," but "did not see any impropriety in his acting as the captain's agent," "inasmuch as the captain came to him properly documented." A part of the cargo was sold at Long Cay, and a part was shipped on the schooner Brothers to Nassau, and there placed in charge of James T. Farrington, esq., sen., one of the magistrates of Fortune Island, (Long Cay.) The Hanover was at the same time loaded with salt and sailed for one of the ports of the insurgents.9 Complaint as to these transactions was made to the Governor of the Bahamas on the 11th of March, and he requested the advice of the Attorney-General as to "what steps ought to be taken." The AttorneyGeneral replied, on the 16th, "that the collector of the revenue, if he had any cause to suspect the character of the vessel and cargo, should at once have arrested both." On the 20th of April, a Mr. Burnside, a magistrate of Inagua, made a statement of facts, as he had ascertained them upon an inquiry instituted for that purpose.12 This statement was Am. App., vol. vi, p. 213. 11 2 Brit. App., Counter Case, vol. v, p. 193. 3 Ibid., p. 190. 4 Ibid., p. 196. 5 Am. App., vol. vi, p. 736. 6 Brit. App., Counter Case, vol. v, p. 168. laid before Mr. Seward by Lord Lyons, and, on the 24th of June, Mr. Seward took occasion to say to his lordship, that "the information thus communicated is acceptable, so far as it goes, but is not deemed altogether conclusive. There still remains a painful doubt on the mind of this Government whether the authorities and others at Long Cay were, as Mr. Burnside thinks, ignorant that the Hanover was a prize to the Retribution. I shall be happy if the inquiry shall be prosecuted so far as may be necessary to show that the undoubted just intentions of Her Majesty's Government have been obeyed." Lord Lyons, on the 30th of June, informed Mr. Seward that he should "lose no time in communicating this request to Her Majesty's Government and to the governor of the Bahamas." 2 The inquiry does not, however, seem to have been prosecuted, or, if it was, the United States have not been advised of the result. * In May the Attorney-General caused Locke to be arrested for the offense committed by his personation of the master of the Hanover, and, upon a preliminary examination of the charge before a police magistrate, about the 26th of July, it appeared that the business at the customs at Long Cay was transacted principally by Mr. Richard Farrington, who was the agent or consignee, and who, when examined and confronted by the defendant, "could not swear to his being the person who represented himself as the master of the schooner but believed him to be the person."3 The police justice, in reporting upon the case, at the request of the colonial secretary, on the 10th of March, 1864, says Farrington "would" not swear to the identity. After this the accused was let to bail, in the sum of £100, for his appearance at court for trial. He was tried in the following May at Nassau, but acquitted, as the evidence was not sufficient to satisfy a jury, selected from that locality, of his identity. An examination of the testimony, however, as it is found reported in the British Appendix, Counter Case, vol. v, pp. 188 et seq., will, we think, hardly satisfy the minds of the Arbitrators that "the authorities and others at Long Cay were ignorant that the Hanover was a prize to the Retribution." It may, however, show why it was that the inquiry suggested by Mr. Seward had not ben prosecuted. On the 19th of February the American brig Emily Fisher, on a voyage from Guantonomo, Cuba, to New York, while near Castle Island, one of the Bahamas, and in British waters, was boarded by the British wrecking-schooner Emily Adderley. What then occurred is told in the affidavit of the master of the brig, as follows: That having questioned the captain of the said vessel [Emily Adderley] closely, he was told that there were no privateers, or steamers, in the passage; that soon afterward the schooner hauled down the British flag and then hoisted it again; that at the same time he saw a schooner coming out from under the land, but was told that she was a wrecking-schooner; that soon after this said schooner came under the lee of the brig and sent a shot across her bows, at the same time running up the rebel flag; that she then sent a boat with eight men well armed on board, and ordered him on board the schooner with all his papers; that on arriving on board, the captain, after examining his papers, told him that he was a prize to the confederate schooner Retribution, and ordered him and his crew to be put into irons, which was done; that at noon the irons were removed from himself and the first officer, and they were allowed the privilege of the cabin; that all this time the brig was working up under the land, where five British wrecking-schooners were anchored; that the privateer anchored about one and one-half miles from the shore, when, at about 3 p. m., a wrecker's boat came alongside; that after some conversation with the crew in a loud voice, the captain of the privateer told them in an undertone to have two vessels alongside the brig that night; that at about 5 p. m. they ran the brig on shore, and ten or twelve wreckers' boats went alongside of her; that at 6 p. m. Mr. Grey, the officer in charge of the brig, came on board the privateer, and the deponent was then told he could have his boat to go on board the brig and take what personal property Mr. Price might see fit to give him; that he found two wrecking-schooners alongside and about one hundred men on board the brig; that having taken the personal effects into the boat he landed on Acklin's Island, made a tent, and passed the night; that the next day the wreckers were still alongside; that he went on board the brig, she being then afloat, and made a claim on the wreckers for the brig and cargo. He was told he could not have her, and that if the anchor was lifted the privateer would sink her; that he then protested against removing any more of the cargo, as the brig was afloat and was in British waters, but the protest was disregarded; that the next day the wreckers had an interview with the captain of the privateer, and at 1 p. m. sent him word that they were going to a port of entry and that the deponent and his crew could go with them; that at 2 p. m. the privateer, the brig, and all the wreckers started for Long Cay, and arrived there about 8 p. m. the same day; that the wrecker, on board which were deponent and his crews, was anchored under the guns of the privateer, which kept a guard all night, while Mr. Grey and Mr. Price, two officers, went over to town; that on Monday, 23d, the deponent went also to town, and after making inquiry, found that the captain of the privateer would not allow him to go on board the brig; and that the deponent 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; that the deponent was not able to obtain possession of the brig until after he had bargained with the wreckers to pay them 50 per cent. on the cargo, and 334 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; that he found the hull, spars, and rigging in good order, but everything movable, on and under deck, stolen; that on the next day, 24th, he commenced receiving sugar from the wreckers, and on the 25th found on board eighty-three hogsheads, five tierces, and four barrels, the balance of cargo having been taken ashore by the wreckers; that the wreckers stove hogsheads and barrels, and passed the sugar into their boats, and landed it on the beach; that the captain of the privateer told him, the deponent, that he had given the cargo to the wreckers, as he wanted the brig; that he was going to put his guns on board of her, and destroy his schooner; that he further told the deponent that the wreckers were to pay him something handsome, and that the deponent believes they did so; that deponent 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. And the deponent further says, that the capture of his vessel and the destruction of her cargo were brought about by and with the connivance and assistance of the captains and crews of the British wrecking-schooners, and within the jurisdiction of the British government, where he was entitled to protection, but could not obtain it until he had submitted to the terms of the wreckers, all of whom were British subjects, through whose connivance the vessel had been stranded and the cargo destroyed.1 After this, (the 19th of February,) and before the 8th of March, the Retribution entered the port of Nassau as an insurgent vessel of war. The "special leave" called for by the regulations of the British Government, under date of January 31st, 1862,3 seems never to have been asked for or granted. Her commander was not even called upon for his commission. All that occurred upon her arrival is thus stated by the pilot: She had a small gun on deck. The captain told me he was from Long Cay. I asked the captain where he was fiom. He answered, "Long Cay." I saw from the look of the vessel and the appearance of the crew, their clothing, that she was likely to be an armed vessel. I then asked him if she was a vessel of war. I begged him to excuse my being so particular, as I was instructed to do so, to put such questions. He told me she was an armed vessel." 4 On the 3d of March, which was eight days before the complaint was made to the Governor on account of the capture of the Hanover, and two weeks after the transactions with the Emily Fisher, in which the "wrecking schooner Emily Adderley" took so prominent a part, Henry Adderley & Co. sold, or pretended to sell, the Retribution, in the port of Nassau, at public sale, to C. R. Perpall & Co., for £250. On the 26th Brit. App., Counter Case, vol. v, p. 190. 2 Brit. App., Counter Case, vol. v, p. 196. 3 Ante, p. 296. 4 Am. App. ,vol. vi. p. 738. |