[Inclosure 40 in No. 9.] Mr. Blanchard to Governor Sir C. Darling. CONSULATE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SIR: Having already forwarded to your excellency various affidavits taken before me relative to the Sea King, alias Shenandoah, in support of the protests I have had the honor to make to you, I now respectfully offer to your consideration the following summary of facts derived from that testimony, with my view of the law applicable thereto. In October last the Sea King cleared from England, ostensibly for Bombay, loaded with coal; and, further, equipped with guns, sails, stores, &c., for a long voyage, crew ample, and, besides the regular officers of such a vessel, a lieutenant in the socalled confederate service. Proceeding upon her cruise, she, after a few days, by a preconcerted arrangement, falls in with the Laurel, also from England, and receives from her, upon the [76] high seas, a *further armament, munitions, &c., and the remainder of her officers. This being done, the Sea King hauls down the British flag, and hoists that of the so-called confederacy, assumes a new name, and commences more active hostilities upon the commerce of the United States. Continuing her cruise after the destruction of several vessels, she enters this port, the first one since clearing from England, and drops anchor in Hobson's Bay, flying the so-called confederate flag, and styling herself the Shenandoah, a confederate vessel of war. This voyage divides itself into two parts, yet all one cruise and one vessel; the former part rather a transport or store-ship, still well capable of seizing unarmed vessels; the latter part rather an armed cruiser, yet with much to be done to render her really efficient. The vessel cleared from England really with the intent to be employed against the United States, and was equipped in England to that end. Immediately upon leaving she began the designed hostile cruise, equipped at the start, fully in some respects, (as with coals, two cannon, cordage, sails, extra propeller, &c., and an officer of the socalled Confederate States,) but rather as a store-ship or transport, but in nearly all the cruise fully equipped to effect the intent with which she left England, and with that intent practically and repeatedly executed. This vessel equipped in England with the intent as stated, the intent absolutely perfected in the hostile cruise, (still in progress, and only here interrupted to make it more effective hereafter,) now lies in reach of British law. Is she an offender against the law? This case differs in some respects from all the reported cases. A vessel has not been built for, nor (as we know) been sold to the so-called confederate government. The difficulties which existed in the minds of two of the judges in the Alexandra case do not appear in this. The facts here bring this vessel within the condemnatory opinion of all the judges in that case. In that the charge of "transport or store-ship " was stricken off, and the only remaining one was, substantially," equipped with intent, &c." The arrest was made too soon to make the intent quite sure. A new hull, with only two or three things argumentatively pointed at as consistent only with a guilty design. The chief baron had committed himself by his direction to the jury in that case, and yet he only insisted (the transport charge not applying) upon some equipment which would render this vessel more or less effective in a hostile cruise. Baron Bramwell agreed, substantially, not going so far, while Barons Channell and Pigot found against the Alexandra. 66 66 The facts, then, in this case condemn the Sea King (Shenandoah,) upon the law even of the Alexandra case, as laid down by all the judges. Here we find a "fitting out,” an equipment" of a vessel, with "intent" to be employed as a "transport" or storeship," and to cruise or commit hostilities against a friendly power. The "intent," the "fitting out," formed, done, in England, the vessel in completement of the intent actually fitted out and equipped, sailed from England; first, rather as a store-ship or transport," to furnish a more warlike cruiser with guns, coals, cordage, sails, &c., for a long cruise; and second, more fully equipped and officered, with a new name, destroying the commerce of the United States. The original equipment, thus augmented, done in completement of the same design and as part therefor. The original and more complete subsequent equipment, one act in completement of the one intent and one purpose, began in England and perfected there to a certain and sufficient (but afterward to a more complete) extent, even yet not fully perfected, and here designed to be accomplished. Thus, then, the "intent," "to be employed," &c., is actually carried out, and the offense in all its parts of purpose and execution repeatedly committed; and now from this port, and with increased power, sought to be further repeated. The law applicable to this offense extends to all parts of Her Majesty's dominions. Her Majesty's officers of customs, &c., are duly armed with power to enforce it against the offending vessel. Proceedings may be in personam or in rem, or in both. be pun The offense, though committed in one part of Her Majesty's dominions, may ished in another part. The nature of the misdemeanor, if it could be punished only in the place of the offense, the law would be nearly nugatory. Is it possible that an act declared to be unlawful when done in any part of Her Majesty's dominions, can only be inquired into in the jurisdiction of the place of the offense? If a vessel be fitted out against the law in Sydney, must the authorities at Melbourne refuse to move when the offender comes to this port? Are criminals escaping from England not liable tofarrest here? The act authorizes, in the same terms, officers of excise, customs, [77] and officers of *Her Majesty's navy, in all parts of Her Majesty's dominions, to execute the law upon persons and things. Is it to be said that, although the offense has been committed, the offenders and vessel are to go without challenge in all parts of Her Majesty's dominions, except in the particular jurisdiction of the original offense? Upon what rule of law can such a strange doctrine be maintained, disregarding even the plain directions and most certain intentions of the act? For a crime inaugurated and continued, is a perpetual offense, wrong from the beginning, wrong whereon in the prosecution of the wrong, each new departure a new offense with aggravation. This vessel is not a legal cruiser of the so-styled confederacy. She is invested with no immunity, entitled to no consideration by her false assumption. She is not to enjoy the advantage of her own wrong. Entering here, as everywhere in British ports, she is a wrong-doer continuing and aggravating the original offense. Her entering here, intending to continue her illegal cruise, is, as against this jurisdiction, a new offense, which renders her amenable to the local jurisdiction. Whether, then, we interpret the foreign-enlistment act in the manner which its obvious intentions almost absolutely require, or in the manner suggested to me by the Crown law-officers in a recent interview, in either case this vessel should be detained. For if it be granted that the evidence presented would doubtless be sufficient to that end in England, then that evidence should be held sufficient to the same purpose here, because, upon the principle above referred to, this vessel, cruising into this port upon an illegal expedition against the United States, and intending to continue that cruise, is an offender here. Having gained no immunity by her pretended claim, she simply remains, by British law, an illegal and criminal rover of the sea, everywhere an offender against that law, and in every new port committing, as to the new jurisdiction, a new offense. Your excellency will observe that in the foregoing I have confined myself to a view wholly taken from imperial law. I have urged nothing from a consideration of the law of nations, nor from the obligations of treaties. These, indeed, doubtless Her Majesty's proclamation of neutrality and the foreign-enlistment act only illustrate and enforce. Nor can they be interpreted apart without manifest injustice. I trust, therefore, that, upon further reflection, your excellency will reconsider your decision regarding this vessel, against which I have felt constrained to protest so earnestly. I have, &c., WM. BLANCHARD. [Inclosure 41 in No. 9.] Mr. Lyttleton to Mr. Blanchard. POLICE DEPARTMENT, SUPERINTENDENT'S OFFICE, SIR: I have the honor to inform you that I arrested four men last night who were making their escape from the ship Shenandoah. They are now in the watch-house at Williamstown, and I shall feel obliged by your sending Madden or some other person who may possibly be able to identify them. I have, &c., Mr. Blanchard to Governor Sir C. Darling. CONSULATE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SIR: I received information yesterday from Mr. J. McFarlane, emigration officer, in H. Ex. 282, vol. iii-42 reply to an inquiry, that the Shenandoah was taking in 300 tons of coal in addition to the quantity she had on board when she came into this port, which, I learn, was about 400 tons, from the ship then alongside of her in the bay. The Shenandoah is a full-rigged sailing-vessel-steam is only auxiliary with herand I cannot believe your excellency is aware of the large amount of coal now being furnished said vessel. I have, &c., WM. BLANCHARD. [78] *[Inclosure 43 in No. 9.] Statement of Michael Cashmore. I, Michael Cashmore, of Melbourne, do solemnly declare : That on or about the 2d day of this mouth (February) I went, in company with Mr. Lawrence Cohen, of the firm of Cohen Brothers, of this city, on board the confederate steamship Shenandoah, lying in Hobson's Bay; that while walking in the between decks I was hailed by name by a man in the uniform of the ship, who was sitting with other sailors taking soup. I recognized the man to be a late digger at Scarsdale. I asked him, "Hallo, how came you here?" He said, "I joined them this morning." I asked him if he thought it a better game than gold-digging. He replied, "The pay is nothing to boast of, but there is a chance of making a good deal in the shape of prizemoney." I said, "It is a great change," and wondered how he would be able to stand it. He said it was nothing new, as he had been many years on board a British_manof-war. I have known this man several years, and believe him a Cornishman. I do not know his name, but I can readily identify him. Mr. Lawrence Cohen was near me during this interview, and can, no doubt, confirm this my statement. MELBOURNE, February 16, 1865. I, John B. Lydserff, master of the brig Spree, of Melbourne, now in Hobson's Bay, do solemnly declare: That about fourteen days ago I went on board the Shenandoah with a view to purchase a chronometer; that I inquired if the commanding officer was on board, and if he had any chronometers for sale; that I was then directed to a person in the uniform of an officer, who said he had. That said officer gave me choice of five or six; that I selected one numbered 960, Fletcher, Pentonville, London, for which I paid £15 sterling. That I paid the purchase-money to a person in the uniform of an officer of said Shenandoah, in the cabin of said ship; that I have a bill and receipt, but not with me at present. (Signed) J. B. LYDSERFF. Subscribed in duplicate before me, this 15th day of February, 1865, as witness my hand and seal of office. (Signed) WM. BLANCHARD, United States Consul, Melbourne. [Inclosure 45 in No. 9.] Mr. Blanchard to Governor Sir C. Darling. CONSULATE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SIR: I beg leave to call your excellency's attention to the affidavits of John Williams, Walter J. Madden, Hermann Wicke, and Charles Bebrucke, the four impressed seamen from the Shenandoah, heretofore forwarded to you, showing that there have been shipped some ten or twenty persons on board said Shenandoah while in this harbor. I also forwarded yesterday to the honorable the attorney-general a solemn declaration of Michael Cashmore, a highly respectable citizen of this place, showing that some fifteen days ago he was hailed by name by a person in uniform on board said vessel; that said person who hailed him was a late digger at Scarsdale, in this colony; that said person informed him he had joined that day, and that said person was taking his meals on board with the other sailors. Mr. Cashmore has informed me that neither of the four men who were arrested while escaping from said Shenandoah was the man who hailed him while on board said ship. I also left the attorney-general a solemn declaration of John B. Lydserff, master of the brig Spree, of Melbourne, now lying in Hobson's Bay, showing the sale of [79] *chronometers by the officers of said vessel while in this port, said chronometers being "prize," and the sale in violation of Her Majesty's proclamation. I am compelled to protest against said vessel being allowed to depart with men furnished her in this port, whether the men are British subjects or others. And I again protest against the aid and comfort now being extended to said vessel in this port. I have, &c., WM. BLANCHARD. [Inclosure 46 in No. 9.] Testimony of Andrew Forbes. I, Andrew Forbes, residing in Murphy's Cottages, Sandridge, do declare on oath : That about 4 o'clock this day, while on the railway-pier at Sandridge, I saw Thomas Evans, Robert Dunning, Charles Bird, William Green, and, little Sam, all inhabitants of Williamstown, most, if not all of them, British subjects, standing on the pier dressed better than usual; that I said to Thomas Evans, "What are you all doing over here ?” That after some further conversation, said Thomas Evans said, "I suppose I need not be frightened to tell you." Said Evans then told me that he was going on board the bark Maria Ross, (then lying in the bay ready for sea,) with the others in his company, to join the Shenandoah, when said Shenandoah got outside the Heads; that the boats from the Maria Ross were to come to take them on board at 5 o'clock. He also said that there were many more beside his party going the same way. (Signed) ANDREW FORBES. Subscribed and sworn to in duplicate before me, this 17th day of February, 1865, as witness my hand and seal of office. (Signed) WM. BLANCHARD. United States Consul, Melbourne. [Inclosure 47 in No. 9.] Mr. Blanchard to Governor Sir C. Darling. CONSULATE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Melbourne, February 18, 1865. SIR: I have the honor to inclose to your excellency the affidavit of Andrew Forbes, relative to the intending departure from this port of certain persons named therein to join the Sea King, alias Shenandoah, in violation of Her Majesty's neutrality proclamation. Mr. Forbes came to my office at about 5 o'clock, p. m. yesterday. Seeing the necessity of immediate action in the matter, I took him at once to the Crown law-officers to lay information before the Crown solicitor, to whom I had previously been directed in a communication from the office of the attorney-general of the 11th of February, 1865, to take a witness. It is with regret that I have to call your excellency's attention to the fact that while there, in my official capacity, I was most grossly insulted, by language and manner, by Mr. Gurner, Crown solicitor, who positively refused to receive the information I was prepared to lay before that department of the Crown. In consequence the ends of justice have been defeated, and the neutrality of this port violated. It is hardly necessary to acquaint you that I deem it my duty to send my Government a copy of this dispatch. I have, &c., WM. BLANCHARD. [80] *[Inclosure 48 in No. 9.] Mr. Warde to Mr. Blanchard. PRIVATE SECRETARY'S OFFICE, February 17, 1865. SIR: İ am directed by his excellency the governor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of this date, and to acquaint in reply that a ship of war of either belligerent is, under Her Majesty's instructions, allowed to take in coal sufficient to carry such vessel to the nearest port of her own country or to some nearer destination. I have, &c., H. L. WARDE, Private Secretary. [Inclosure 49 in No. 9.] Mr. Blanchard to Mr. McPherson, vice-consul, Hobart Town. UNITED STATES CONSULATE, DEAR COLLEAGUE: I have received reliable information that the Shenandoah, who has just left this port, is about to visit some of the quiet bays in your island. The officers of said vessel have been searching for a pilot who is acquainted with your coasts and bays. My opinion is that she intends coming there with a view to complete her equipment, she having much yet to do to make her formidable. She cannot fight the guns she has on board. Be therefore on the alert. Yours respectfully, WM. BLANCHARD. [Inclosure 50 in No. 9.] Mr. Warde to Mr. Blanchard. PRIVATE SECRETARY'S OFFICE, SIR: I am directed by his excellency the governor to acknowledge your letter of the 15th, and to inform you that his excellency is advised that it furnishes no ground for an alteration of the views respecting the presumed character of the ship Shenandoah which have been already communicated to you. I have, &c., H. L. WARDF, [Inclosure 51 in No. 9.] Mr. Blanchard to Mr. Lord. MELBOURNE, February 20, 1865. SIR: Will you please give me in writing an account of my interview held in your presence with the Crown solicitor, Mr. Gurner, on Friday last? Yours truly, WM. BLANCHARD. [Inclosure 52 in No. 9.]] MELBOURNE, February 20, 1865. DEAR SIR: Yours of this date is received, requesting me "to give you an account of an interview held in my presence between you and Mr. Gurner, Crown solicitor, on Friday last." In reply, you must allow me to state the whole occurrences of the afternoon in connection with the affair of shipping men for the Shenandoah, which were simply these: While in your office, about 5 o'clock p. m., a man came in out of breath, asking to |