6 order for it?" He also instructed them that "to 'equip' is 'to furnish with arms;"""in the case of a ship, especially, it is to furnish and complete with arms;" that "equip,' 'furnish,''fit out,' or arm,' all mean precisely the same thing;" and he closed that branch of the in- [259] structions by saying, " the question is whether you think that this vessel was fitted. Armed she certainly was not, but was there an intention that she should be finished, fitted, or equipped, in Liverpool? Because, gentlemen, I must say, it seems to me that the Alabama sailed away from Liverpool without any arms at all; merely a ship in ballast, unfurnished, unequipped, unprepared; and her arms were put in at Terceira, not a port in Her Majesty's Dominions. The Foreign Enlistment Act is no more violated by that than by any other indifferent matter that might happen about a boat of any kind whatever." The jury gave a verdict without delay for the gun-boat. An appeal on this construction of the statute was taken to a higher court. The rulings of the judge on the trial were not reversed, and the decision stood as the law of England until and after the close of the rebellion, and still stands as the judicial construction of the act of 1819. The rulings in the Alexandra ee lated the Foreign Enlistment Act. Thus, after the political branch of Her Majesty's Government had announced its purpose of limiting its duties to the enforcement of the Foreign Enlistment Act, and had practically stripped that act of all features except those relating to the prose cution of offenders as criminals, the judicial branch of that Government emasculated it by a ruling *which openly authorized the [200] construction of new Alabamas and of new Floridas. Contracts were also made, some time in the year 1862, for the construction, at Glasgow, of a formidable vessel, known as the Pampero. Mr. Dudley reported that the cost of the construction was to be something over £300,000.2 This vessel was seized at Glasgow for an alleged violation of the Foreign Enlistment Act. On the trial, which took place in 1864, it appeared that the Scottish courts were not disposed to follow the English courts in depriving the Foreign Enlistment Act of all force. The insurgents, therefore, abandoned the attempt to use the Pampero as a cruiser, and ceased to contract for the construction or fitting out of vessels within the Scottish Kingdom. A similar course in the English courts might have produced similar results in England. rams. About the same time the arrangements were made with the Lairds for Lairds iron-clad the construction, at Birkenhead, opposite Liverpool, of the two iron-clads which were afterward known as "Lairds' ironclads," or "Lairds' rams." The keel of one of them, as has been already said, was laid in the same stocks from which the Alabama was launched. These vessels were most formidable, and were "pushed [261] forward with all possible dispatch. The men were at work night and day upon them." The machinery and guns were made simultaneously with the hull, and it was reported that "by the time she is launched they will be ready to be placed in her." Their construction was originally ordered from Richmond, and they were superintended by Captain Bullock," who was at that time in frequent correspondence with Mr. Mallory "about building the two abovenamed and other war vessels in England," "and about the money to pay for the same."5 "The drawings for them were in the office of Fraser, Trenholm & Co., as early as June, 1862, in Captain Bullock's Vel. V, page 129. 3 Dudley to Seward, Vol. II, page 315. 2 Dudley to Seward, Vol. II, page 201. 4 Dudley to Seward, Vol. II, page 316. hands." By the early part of April, 1863, "the hulls were complete, and the sides were covered with slabs of teak-wood about twelve inches thick." Early in June, 1863, one of the vessels had begun to receive her iron armor plates, "about four inches thick." "The deck of each vessel was prepared to receive two turrets.” "Each ram had a stem, made of wrought iron, about eight inches thick, projecting about five feet under the water line, and obviously intended for the pur[262] pose of penetrating and destroying other vessels." These facts, and others, were communicated by Mr. Adams to Earl Russell in a note dated July 11, 1863.3 Commenting upon them Mr. Adams said: "A war has thus been practically conducted by a portion of her people against a Government with which Her Majesty is under the most solemn of all national engagements to preserve a lasting and durable peace." On the 16th of July, Mr. Adams sent to Lord Russell further evidence of the character of these vessels. On the 25th of July, he again wrote him on the subject, with fresh proof of their purposes. On the 14th of August he again wrote to Earl Russell with "further information;" said that he regretted to see "that the preparation * * is not intermitted;" and added: "It is difficult for me to give to your Lordship an adequate idea of the uneasiness and anxiety created in the different ports of the United States by the idea that instruments of injury, of so formidable a character, continue to threaten their safety, as issuing from the ports of Great Britain, a country with which the people of the United States are at peace." 976 On the 3d of September Mr. Adams again earn[263] estly returned to the subject. He wrote to Earl Russell, inclosing copies of further depositions relating to the launching and other preparation of the second of the two vessels of war from the yard of Messrs. Laird, at Birkenhead." He said that he believed there was "not any reasonable ground for doubt that these vessels, if permitted to leave the port of Liverpool, will be at once devoted to the object of carrying on war against the United States of America," and he closed by saying that he had been directed "to describe the grave nature of the situation in which both countries must be placed, in the event of an act of aggression committed against the Government and the people of the United States by either of these formidable vessels." The new evidence inclosed in this letter related only to the fact that the second ram was launched, and cannot be said to have strengthened the case as previously presented. Again, on the 4th of September, Mr. Adams sent to the Foreign Office evidence to show the preparation for immediate departure of one of these vessels. Late in the afternoon of the 4th, after the note had been dispatched to Earl Russell and a copy of it sent to Mr. Seward, Mr. Adams received from Earl 66 Russell a note, dated the 1st of September, saying that *" Her Ma[264) jesty's Government are advised that they cannot interfere in any way with these vessels." On the 5th Mr. Adams replied, expressing his "profound regret at the conclusion to which Her Majesty's Government have arrived;" and added: "It would be superfluous in me to 1 Younge's deposition, Vol. II, page 331. 6 Vol. II, page 346-27. 7 Adams to Russell, Vol. II, page 353. 8 Adams to Russell, September 4, 1863, Vol. II, p. 358. 9 Russell to Adams, Vol. II, page 360. point out to your Lordship that this is war." On the 8th of September Mr. Adams received a short note, written in the third person, in which it was said "instructions have been issued which will prevent the departure of the two iron-clad vessels from Liverpool." It would appear from the British Blue Book that the instructions for their detention "had scarcely been sent" when Mr. Adams's note of the 3d of Septem ber was received at the Foreign Office.3 Their detention not the lax construction of the duties of a neutral There was little in all this transaction to lead the United States to hope for a returning and better sense of justice in the British andonment of Government. For they could not but observe, when comparing the dates of the receipt of the several notes which passed between Lord Russell and Mr. Adams, that when Her Majesty's Government, after a delay of six weeks, answered that it could not interfere with these vessels, it was in possession of convincing evidence of their character and destina*tion, which was not [265] materially, if at all, strengthened by the evidence contained in Mr. Adams's letter of the 3d of September. They were therefore forced to conclude that, in detaining the vessels, Her Majesty's Government was influenced, not by change in their opinion as to the force or effect of the Foreign Enlistment Act, or as to the duty of Great Britain toward the United States, but solely by a desire to avoid, in the interest of peace, what Mr. Adams called "the grave nature of the situation in which both countries must be placed, in the event of an act of aggression committed against the Government and people of the United States by either of these formidable vessels." The United States fully and earnestly shared this desire with Great Britain, and they were relieved from a state of painful suspense when the dangers which Mr. Adams pointed out were averted. But they would have felt a still greater relief could they have received at that time the assurance, or could they have seen in the transaction any evidence from, which they could assume that the Executive Branch of the British Government was no longer of the opinion expressed in Lord Russell's note of September 1, as to its duties in regard to evidence such as that inclosed in Mr. Adams's previous notes and no longer intended to regard the Foreign Enlistment. *Act, as expounded by the court in the Alexandra case, as the [266] measure of its international duties. Armon for the con struction of vessels in France. Extensive as were the arrangements made from Liverpool by the inThe contracts with Surgent agents, at that time, for the construction in Great Britain of vessels of war intended to carry on war against the United States, their operations were not confined to Great Britain. Captain Bullock, without shifting his office from Liverpool, signed an agreement, "for the account of his principals," on the 16th of April, 1863, with Lucien Arman, ship-builder at Bordeaux, whereby Mr. Arman engaged "to construct four steamers of 400 horse-power, and arranged for the reception of an armament of from ten to twelve cannon." As it was necessary in France to obtain the consent of the Government to the armament of such vessels within the limits of the Empire, Mr. Arman informed the Government that these vessels were "intended to establish a regular communication between Shanghai, Yedo, and San Francisco, passing the strait of Van Dieman, and also that they are to be fitted out, should the opportunity present itself, for sale to the Chinese or Japanese Empire." On this representation permission was given to arm them, the armament of two to be supplied by 1 Adams to Russell, Vol. II, page 365. Mr. Arman at Bordeaux, and that of the other two by Mr. Vorus at Nantes. [267] *On the 16th of July, 1863, another agreement was made in Bordeaux between Mr. Arman and Mr. Bullock, "acting for the account of principals." Arman agreed to construct two screw steamships of wood and iron, with iron turrets, of 300 horse-power. Bullock was to supply the armament; the ships were to be finished in six months; one-fifth of the price was to be paid in advance. Under these contracts Bullock is said to have paid Arman 5,280,000 francs. But one of the vessels ever went into the possession of the insurgents, and that by fraud. It may interest the Tribunal of Arbitration to learn, in a few words, the result of these contracts and the course pursued by the French Government. The authorization which had been obtained for Mr. Arman and Mr. Vorus to arm the four vessels, under the contract of the 15th Conduct of the of April, and the doings of Mr. Arman under the contract of French Government. the 16th of July, were unknown to the minister of foreign affairs. When they were brought to Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys' attention by the minis[268] ter of the United States at Paris, he took immediate *steps to pre vent a violation of the neutrality of France. He wrote to Mr. Dayton, (October 22, 1863,) “Que M. le ministre de la marine vient de notifier à M. Vorus le retrait de l'autorisation qu'il avait obtenue pour l'armement de quatre navires en construction à Nantes et à Bordeaux. Il en a été donné également avis à M. Arman, dont l'attention a été en même temps apelée sur la responsabilité qu'il pourrait encourir par des actes en opposition avec la déclaration du 11 juin 1861." Mr. Arman made many efforts to remove the injunctions of the Government, but without success. He was finally forced to sell to the Prussian Government two of the clippers constructed at Bordeaux under the contract of April 15. Two other clippers, constructed at Nantes under that contract, were sold to the Peruvian Government. Of the two ironclads constructed under the contract of July 16, one was sold to Prussia for 2,075,000 francs. A contract was made for the sale of the other to Denmark, which was then at war, and it was sent, under the Danish name of Stoerkodder, to Copenhagen. It arrived there after the time agreed upon for the delivery and after the war was over, and the Danish Government refused to accept it. The person in charge of the vessel in Copenhagen held at once the power of attorney of M. Arman and [269] of Mr. Bul*lock; and in one capacity he delivered the vessel to himself in the other capacity, and took her to the Isle of Houat, off the French coast, where she was met by a steamer from England with an armament. Taking this on board, she crossed the Atlantic, stopping in Spain and Portugal on the way. In the port of Havana news was received of the suppression of the insurrection, and she was delivered to the authorities of the United States. The course Contrast between pursued by France toward these vessels is in striking con- the conduct of Free trast with Great Britain's conduct in the cases of the Florida and the Alabama. and of Great Britain. Bullock's operations in this way called for a great deal of money. On the 22d of May, 1863, a "navy warrant on Messrs. Fraser, Trenholm & Co. for £300,000" was sent to him. On the 25th of June, 1863, "drafts for 1 Mr. Morean, counsel for the United States, in a suit pending before the cour d'appel de Paris, growing out of these transactions, so states: "Il nous reste maintenant à indiquer à la cour ce que fit M. Arman, et des navires qu'il construisait et des capitaux qu'il avait reçus de M. Bullock, capitaux dont le montaut, suivant le dire de M. Árman lui-même, ne s'élève pas à moins de 5,280,000 francs." Bullock to Ellmore, July 3, 1863, Vol. VI, page 129. £26,000 and £38,962 13s. 4d., in favor of Commander James D. Bullock, on the C. S. Depositary in Liverpool, were forwarded to him." Other funds were sent that the United States are not able to trace. In September, 1863, his contracts had been so heavy that he was low in funds. Maflitt sent to him at Liverpool a number of "men, discharged from the Florida, with their accounts and discharges." He could *not pay them, and the men "began to get restive." Mallory [270] made an effort to send him further funds, and asked Memminger to instruct" the Depositary at Liverpool" to countersign certain cotton certificates "on the application of Commander Bullock." In this, or in some other way, the fitnds were replenished, and large sums were spent after that time. While these extensive preparations for a fleet were going on in England and France, an event took place at the Cape of Good Hope which tested afresh the purpose of Her Majesty's Government to maintain British neutrality and enforce the Queen's Proclamation. the Cape of Good Hope. On the 5th of August, 1863, the Alabama arrived in Table Bay and The Tuscaloosa at gave information that the Tuscaloosa, a prize that had been captured off Brazil, would soon arrive in the character of 4 tender. On the Sth that vessel arrived in Simon's Bay, having her original cargo of wool on board. She lay in port about a week, and while there "overtures were made by some parties in Cape Town to purchase the cargo of wool." The wool was disposed of to a Cape Town merchant, on condition that he should send it to Europe for sale, and two-thirds of the price should be paid into the insurgent treasury; and it was landed for that purpose by the Tuscaloosa, on a wild [171] spot, called Angra Pequena, outside of British jurisdiction. When the Tuscaloosa made her appearance at Cape Town, Rear-Admiral Sir Baldwin Walker wrote to the Governor, desiring to know "whether this vessel ought still to be looked upon in the light of a prize, she never having been condemned in a prize court."6 He was instructed to admit the vessel. The practical experience of the honest sailor rebelled at this decision, and he replied, "I apprehend that to bring a captured vessel under the denomination of a vessel of war, she must be fitted for warlike purposes, and not merely have a few men and a few small guns put on board her, (in fact nothing but a prize crew,) in order to disguise her real character as a prize. Now, this vessel has her original cargo of wool still on board, which cannot be required for warlike purposes, and her armament and number of her crew are quite insufficient for any services other than those of slight defense. Viewing all the circumstances of the case, they afford room for the supposition that the vessel is styled a tender, with the object of avoiding the prohibition against her entrance as a prize into our ports, where, if the captors wished, arrangements *could [272] be made for the disposal of her valuable cargo." The Governor replied that the Attorney General was of opinion that "if the vessel received the two guns from the Alabama or ngainst the advice of other Confederate vessel of war, or if the person in command Sir Baldwin Walker, of her has a commission of war, * there will be a She is released * sufficient setting forth as a vessel of war to justify her being held to be 1 Mallory to Elmore, June 25, 1863, Vol. VI, page 126. 2 Maffitt to Bullock, September 3, 1863, Vol. II, page 639. 3 Mallory to Memminger, September 12, 1863, Vol. VI, page 132. Walker to the Secretary of the Admiralty, Vol. IV, page 216; Vol. VI, page 456. Mountague Bernard's Neutrality of Great Britain, &c., page 421, note 1. 6 Vol. IV, page 217; Vol. VI, page 458. 7 Walker to Wodehouse, Vol. IV, page 218; Vol. VI, page 459. |