The Retribution. THE RETRIBUTION. Mr. The steam-propeller Uncle Ben, built at Buffalo, in New York, in 1856, was sent to the southern coast of the United States just prior to the attack on Fort Sumter. Entering Cape Fear River in stress of weather, she was seized by the insurgents. Her machinery was taken out, and she was converted into a schooner, and cruised, under the name of the Retribution, about the Bahama Banks. On the 19th day of December, 1862, she captured, near the island of San Domingo, the United States schooner Hanover, and took the prize to Long Cay, (Fortune Island,) Bahamas, and there sold the cargo, "without previous judicial process."1 Representations being made of these facts, an answer was made by the Colonial Authorities, *claiming that they were deceived, and that they supposed that [391] the person making the sale was the master of the vessel.2 Seward replied that this answer was not "deemed altogether conclusive." Subsequently one Vernon Locke was represented as the person who had, "by fraudulent personations and representations, procured the admission of that vessel [the Hanover] to entry at the Revenue Office and effected the sale of her cargo there." Locke was indicted, and bail accepted in the sum of £200. The United States are not aware that he was ever brought to trial. Mr. Seward thought the bail" surprisingly small and insignificant."3 On the 19th of February, 1863, when off Castle Island, one of the Bahamas, she captured the American brig Emily Fisher, freighted with sugar and molasses. This prize also " was taken to Long Cay, one of the Bahama Islands, and notwithstanding the protest of Captain Staples, [the master,] and in the pfesence of a British magistrate, was despoiled of her cargo; a portion of which was landed, and the balance willfully destroyed." The Retribution then went to the harbor of Nassau, where she was sold, assuming the name of the Etta.4 *The United States, with confidence, ask the Tribunal to find [392] and certify as to this vessel, that Great Britain failed to fulfill the duties set forth in the three rules of Article VI of the Treaty, or recognized by the principles of International Law not inconsistent with such rules. They ask this, not only for the general reasons heretofore mentioned as to this class of vessels, but because, in the case of each of the captured vessels above named, the acts complained of were done within Her Majesty's jurisdiction. The Georgia. THE GEORGIA. The Georgia was built for the insurgents at Dumbarton, below Clyde, on the Glasgow. She was launched on the 10th day of January, 1863, at which time, as has already been said, "a Miss North, daughter of a Captain North, of one of the Confederate States, officiated as priestess, and christened the craft Virginia." It was no 1 Mr. Seward to Lord Lyons, Vol. I, page 701. 2 Burnside to Nesbitt, Vol. 1, page 702. 3 Governor Bayley to Duke of Newcastle, Vol. I, page 706. ♦ Affidavit of Thomas Sampson, Vol. VI, page 736. 6 Underwood to Seward, January 16, 1863, Vol. VI, page 593. torious that she was being constructed for this service.1 When finished she was a "screw-steamer of about five hundred tons register, clipper-built; figure-head, fiddle-bow; short thick funnel; with [393] *a number of compartments forward on both sides, from eight to ten feet square, and stronger than a jail, strong doors to them, with hinges about three inches thick, and brass padlocks accordingly, and a strong magazine forward in the bow." On Friday, the 27th of March, she left for Greenock.2 By this time she had parted with her name Virginia, and had the name Japan,, " written in small letters on her bow ;" and it was pretended that her voyage was to be to China. 3 On the evening of Monday, the 30th of March, some seventy or eighty men who had been shipped at Liverpool for this vessel were sent to Greenock. The agreements with this crew were made by the house of Jones & Co., of Liverpool, who advanced money to them." The vessel was registered in the name of Thomas Bold, of Liverpool, a member of the house of Jones & Co., and a near connection of Maury, who afterward commanded her. It remained registered in his name until the 23d day of the following June. When the men arrived in the Clyde from Liverpool, the Japan was "lying in the river opposite Greenock, and they were taken on board in a tug. On [394] the *morning of the 2d of April they ran out toward the sea, but 6 5 returned in the afternoon, and remained near the light-house down the Clyde, taking on board more men and provision from Greenock. They started again, and next morning they were off Castleton, Isle of Man. Here they changed their course, and went into the Atlantic, through the northern passage, between Ireland, and Scotland. On the 6th of April they reached the coast of France. Ushant light was the first place they sighted. Here they turned their steps toward St. Malo, proceeding under slow steam, and in the morning they sighted, off Morleaux, the steamer Alar, with arms, ammunition, and supplies for the Georgia, under charge of Jones, a partner in the Liverpool house of Jones & Co.o It happened that these proceedings were afterward made the subject of judicial investigation before Sir Alexander Cockburn, Lord Chief Justice of England. Highatt and Jones, two of the members of the firm of Jones & Co., were indicted at Liverpool, for a violation of the Foreign Enlistment Act of 1819, in causing these men to be enlisted to serve in a war against the United States. The case came on for trial [395] at the Liverpool Assizes, in *August, 1864. In his address to the jury, after the evidence was in, the Lord Chief Justice said: "There was no doubt that Matthews, Stanley, and Glassbrook did enter themselves and enlist on board the steamer, which was immediately afterward employed as a war-steamer in the Confederate service, for the purpose of waging war against the Northern States of America; and there seemed to be very little doubt that both the defendants had to do with the men's leaving the port of Liverpool, for the purpose of joining the Japan, afterward called the Georgia. Now came the question, whether the defendants had procured the men to be engaged * * * 1 Extracts from London Daily News, February 12 and 17, 1863, Vol. VI, page 503, et seq. 2 Dudley to Seward, Vol. II, page 665; Vol. VI, page 509. 3 Vol. II, page 681; Vol. VI, page 516; Vol. VII, page 88. + Vol. II, page 672; Vol VI, page 512; Vol. VII, page 88. 5 Mr. Adams to Earl Russell, Vol. II, pages 677, 678; Vol. VII, page 88. 6 Mahon's affidavit, Vol. II, page 672; Vol. VI, page 513. 7 Thompson's affidavit, Vol. II, page 671; Vol. VI, page 511. 8 Speech of Thomas Baring, Esq., M. P., Hansard, 3d series, Vol. 175, page 467. in war against a country toward which this country was bound to maintain a strict neutrality. No doubt it was possible that the defendants might have been under a delusion that the ship was engaged for a voyage to China. It was for the jury to say whether they believed that to have been the case. If they believed the witnesses Conolly and Glassbrook, the defendant Jones could not have been of that opinion, because he was on board the small steamer which was an important agent in the transaction; and when he found out what the vessel really was, he manifested no surprise or horror. It was true that the jury had to rely on the evidence of men who had turned *traitors [396] to the people they had sworn to serve, and who had since played the spy upon the persons who, as they alleged, had engaged them. But, on the other hand, there was no attempt to show them that, on the day when these men signed articles at Brest, Mr. Jones was not on board, and if he was on board it was difficult to suppose he could have got there with the innocent intention described by the defense. It seems strange that if they were acting as agents for Mr. Bold, they did not now call upon him to come into court, and state that they were innocently employed, and perfectly unconscious that the vessel was intended to go on a warlike expedition. Although sometimes it was an inconvenience and a hardship that a man, charged as the defendants were, could not be called to give his own evidence, sometimes it was a vast convenience to persons accused that they could not be called, because if they were, they would be constrained to admit, unless they committed perjury, that the truth was on the other side.” The Alar, with her cargo, had cleared at Newhaven for St. Malo. When the two vessels met, the Georgia took the Alar in tow, and they floated about on those waters during the whole day. At night they came to anchor, probably off the island *of Ushant, and the [397] Georgia commenced taking in arms and ammunition and supplies. Three days passed in this way. There were nine breech-loading guns to be mounted on decks, and "guns, shot, shells, rockets, ammunition, rifles, cutlasses, and all sorts of implements of war." All were put on board before Friday, the 10th of April; the insurgents' flag was then hoisted; Maury, the insurgent officer destined for the command, produced his commission; the Japan was changed into the Georgia; fifteen sailors who refused to cruise in her were transferred to the Alar, and the Georgia continued her cruise. On the 8th of April Mr. Adams called Earl Russell's attention to the departure from the Clyde and Newhaven of this hostile expedition, "with intent to depredate on the commerce of the United States," and he stated his belief that the destination of the vessel was the island of Alderney. Earl Russell replied, on the same day, that copies of his letter "were sent, without loss of time, to the Home Department and to the Board of Treasury, with a request that an immediate inquiry might be made into the circumstances stated in it, and that if the result should prove the suspicions to be well founded, the most effective measures [398] might be *taken which_the law admits of for defeating any such at tempts to fit out a belligerent vessel from a British port."4 Had Her Majesty's Government taken the measures which Earl Russell suggested, it is probable that the complaints of the United States, as to this vessel, might not have been necessary. The sailing and the 1 Vol. VI, page 567. 2 Vol. II, page 671; Vol. VI, page 511. 1 destination of the Japan were so notorious as to be the subject of newspaper comment. No time, therefore, was required for that investigation. It could have been very little trouble to ascertain the facts as to the Alar. The answer to a telegram could have been obtained in a few minutes. Men-of-war might have been dispatched on the 8th from Portsmouth and Plymouth, to seize both these violators of British sovereignty. In doing this Her Majesty's Government need only have exercised the same powers which were used against General Saldanha's expedition, arrested at Terceira in 1827, and whose use in that case was sustained by a vote of both Houses of Parliament. The island of Alderney and the other Channel islands were on the route to St. Malo and Brest, and it is not at all probable, scarcely possible, that the [399] Alar and the Georgia *would not have been discovered. The purposes of the latter vessel, thus taken flagrante delicto, would then have been exposed. 2 This was not done. Instead of directing action to be taken by the Navy, Lord Russell caused inquiries to be made by the Home Office and the Treasury, and the Georgia escaped. On the 1st of December, 1863, Mr. Adams called Lord Russell's attention to the fact of "the existence of a regular office in the port of Liverpool for the enlistment and payment of British subjects, for the purpose of carrying on war against the Government and people of the United States;" and he expressed the hope that "the extraordinary character of these proceedings, as well as the hazardous consequence to the future peace of all nations of permitting them to gain any authority under the international law, will not fail to fix the attention of Her Majesty's Government."3 The depositions inclosed in this communication furnished conclusive proof that the members of the firm of Jones & Co. were still engaged at Liverpool in procuring and shipping men for the Georgia, and that the payments of the wages of the crew of that vessel were regularly made through the same firm. It was also proved [400] that Jones had *superintended the shipping of the armament of the Georgia off Brest; that he had been standing by the side of Maury when he assumed command, and that he had told the men, as an inducement to them to remain, that "of course they would get the prize money. On the 11th of January, 1864, Mr. Adams inclosed to Lord Russell copies of papers which he maintained went "most clearly to establish the proof of the agency of Messrs. Jones & Co. in enlisting and paying British subjects in this Kingdom to carry on war against the United States." Proceedings were taked against Jones & Highatt, as has already been shown. They were convicted, and were fined but fifty pounds each-manifestly a punishment not calculated to deter them from a repetition of the offense." 1 Vol. II, page 668. "Hansard, new series, Vols. XXIII and XXIV; Annual Register, History, &c., A. D. 1829, Vol. LXXII, page 187. 3 Vol. II, page 682; Vol. VI, page 519. 4 Vol, II, pages 683, 684, 686, 689, &c. 5 Stanley's affidavit, Vol. II, page 684; Vol. VI, page 522. See also Charles Thompson's affidavit, Vol. III, page 87. Vol. II, page 698; Vol. VI, page 534. 7"Five prosecutions were instituted at different times against persons charged with having enlisted or engaged men for the naval service of the Confederate States. Of these, three wore successful. Five of the accused were convicted or pleaded guilty. * No prosecution appears to have been instituted against Bullock himself.” (Bernard's Neutrality, pages 361-2.) This is a terribly small record, considering the magnitude of the offenses committed, and considering the zeal shown in repressing en * After all this information was before Lord Rus* sell, the Geor- [401] gia, on the 1st day of May, 1864, reappeared in the port of Liverpool. During her absence she had been busy in destroying such of the commerce of the United States in the Atlantic as had escaped the depredations of the Florida and the Alabama. She had been to the Western Islands, and from thence to the Brazilian port of Bahia. From thence she went to the Cape of Good Hope. On the way she fell in with the Constitution, a merchant-vessel of the United States, laden with coal. "We filled our vessel with coal from her," says one of the witnesses. In a few days after that she entered Simon's Bay, Cape of Good Hope. There she staid a fortnight, having repairs done and getting more coal. She left Simon's Bay on the 29th of August. It is not probable that the supply from the Constitution was exhausted at that time.1 She then worked her way to Cherbourg, and in a short time after came again into the port of Liverpool. Her career and character were rapidly but forcibly sketched by Thomas Baring, Esq., in a speech in the House of Commons on the 13th of May, 1864. He said: "At the time of her departure the Georgia was registered as the property of a Liverpool merchant, a partner of the firm which shipped the crew. She remained the property of *this person until the 23d of June, when the register [402] was canceled, he notifying the Collector of her sale to foreign owners. During this period, namely, from the 1st of April to the 23d of June, the Georgia being still registered in the name of a Liverpool merchant, and thus his property, was carrying on war against the United States, with whom we were in alliance. It was while still a British vessel that she captured and burned the Dictator, and captured and released, under bond, the Griswold, the same vessel which had brought corn to the Lancashire sufferers. The crew of the Georgia were paid through the same Liverpool firm. A copy of an advance note used is to be found in the Diplomatic Correspondence. The same firm.continued to act in this capacity throughout the cruise of the Georgia. After cruising in the Atlantic, and burning and bonding a number of vessels, the Georgia made for Cherbourg, where she arrived on the 28th of Octoer. There was, at the time, much discontent among the crew; many deserted, leave of absence was given to others, and their wages were paid all along by the same Liverpool firm. In order to get the Georgia to sea again, the Liverpool firm enlisted in Liverpool some twenty seamen, and sent them to Brest. The Georgia left Cherbourg on a second cruise, but having no success she returned to that *port, [403] and thence to Liverpool, where her crew have been paid off without any concealment, and the vessel is now laid up. Here, then, is the case of a vessel, clandestinely built, fraudulently leaving the port of her construction, taking Englishmen on board as her crew, and waging war against the United States, an ally of ours, without once having entered a port of the power the commission of which she bears, but being, for some time, the property of an English subject. She has now returned to Liverpool-and has returned, I am told, with a British crew on board, who, having enlisted in war against an ally of ours, have committed a misdemeanor in the sight of the law."2 The Attorney General, Sir Roundell Palmer, replied on behalf of the listments for the service of the United States. (Sec Vol. IV, page 547, and Vol. IV, page 540.) It is to be observed, too, that Mr. Adams furnished Lord Russell with evidence to sustain a prosecution against Bullock. (Mr. Adams to Earl Russell, March 30, 1863, Vol, III, page 130.) 1 See the affidavits in Vol. II, page 684, et seq. 2 Hansard, third series, Vol. 175, page 467; Vol. V, page 577. |