[1] *CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING BRITISH AND AMERICAN CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE LATE CIVIL WAR IN THE UNITED STATES. No. 1. Mr. Adams to Lord Stanley. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, London, September 17, 1866. (Received September 18.) MY LORD: I have the honor to transmit to your lordship a copy of a note addressed to me by the Secretary of State of the United States, together with a summary therein referred to, which I have been instructed to present to you for the consideration of Her Majesty's govern SIR: You will herewith receive a summary of claims of citizens of the United States against Great Britain for damages which were suffered by them during the period of our late civil war, and some months thereafter, by means of depredations upon our commercial marine, committed on the high seas by the Sumter, the Alabama, the Florida, the Shenandoah, and other ships of war, which were built, manned, armed, equipped, and fitted out in British ports, and dispatched therefrom by or through the agency of British subjects, and which were harbored, sheltered, provided, and furnished as occasion required, during their devastating career, in ports of the realm, or in ports of British colonies in nearly all parts of the globe. The table is not supposed to be complete, but it presents such a recapitulation of the claims as the evidence thus far received in this Department enables me to furnish. Deficiencies will be supplied hereafter. Most of the claims have been, from time to time, brought by yourself, as the President directed, to the notice of Her Majesty's government, and made the subject of earnest and continued appeal. That appeal was intermitted only when Her Majesty's government, after elaborate discussions, refused either to allow the claims, or to refer them to a joint claims commission, or to submit the question of liability therein to any form of arbitration. The United States, on the other hand, have all the time insisted upon the claims as just and valid. This attitude has been, and doubtlessly continues to be, well understood by Her Majesty's government. The considerations which inclined this Government to suspend for a time the pressure of the claims upon the attention of Great Britain were these: The political excitements in Great Britain, which arose during the progress of the war, and which did not immediately subside at its conclusion, seemed to render that period somewhat unfavorable to a deliberate examination of the very grave questions which the claims involve. The attention of this Government was, during the same period, largely engrossed by questions, at home or abroad, of peculiar interest and urgency. The British government has seemed to us to have been similarly engaged. These circumstances have now passed away, and a time has arrived when it is believed that the subject may receive just attention in both countries. The principles upon which the claims are asserted by the United States have been explained by yourself in an elaborate correspondence with Earl Russell and Lord Clarendon. In this respect there seems to be no deficiency to be supplied by this De partment. Thus, if it should be the pleasure of Her Majesty's government to re[2] vert to the subject in a friendly spirit, the materials for any new discussion on *your part will be found in the records of your legation, properly and duly prepared for use by your own hand. It is the President's desire that you now call the attention of Lord Stanley to the claims in a respectful but earnest manner, and inform him that, in the President's judgment, a settlement of them has become urgently necessary to a re-establishment of entirely friendly relations between the United States and Great Britain. This Government, while it thus insists upon these particular claims, is neither desirous nor willing to assume an attitude unkind or unconciliatory toward Great Britain. If, on her part, there are claims, either of a commercial character, or of boundary, or of commercial or judicial regulation, which Her Majesty's government esteem important to bring under examination at the present time, the United States would, in such case, be not unwilling to take them into consideration in connection with the claims which are now presented on their part, and with a view to remove at one time, and by one comprehensive settlement, all existing causes of misunderstanding. In asking an early attention to the subject, it is supposed that you may, with propriety, dwell upon some of its important features, which, although they have heretofore been indicated by you, may, nevertheless, not hitherto have sufficiently engaged the attention of the British government. In the beginning of the year 1861 the people of the United States had, by means of commercial enterprise at home and abroad, built up and realized the enjoyment of a foreign trade, second only among the nations, and but little inferior to that of Great Britain. They had habitually refrained from wars, and especially from intervention in the political affairs of other nations. Mutual recollections of ancient conflicts which for three-fourths of a century had held the two countries in a state of partial alienation and irritation had subsided, and what was supposed to be a lasting friendship had been established between the United States and Great Britain; at this moment a domestic disturbance arose in our country, which, although it had severe peculiarities, yet was, in fact, only such a seditious insurrection as is incidental to national progress in every state. In its incipient stage, it was foreseen here that the insurgents would, as in all cases insurgents must, appeal to foreign states for intervention. It was supposed that their appeal, if successful anywhere, would be successful in Great Britain, popularly regarded in both countries, in one sense, as a kindred nation, in another sense as a rival, and in a third, by reason of great expansion of manufacture, a dependent upon the cotton-planting interest of the Southern States, which were to become the theater of the insurrection. It was foreseen that British intervention, even though stopping many degrees short of actual alliance, or even of recognition of the insurgents as a political power, must nevertheless inevitably protract the apprehended civil war, and aggravate its evils and sufferings on the land, while it must materially injure, if not altogether destroy, our national commerce. When the insurrection began, the United States believed themselves to hold a position and prestige equal in consideration and influence to that of any other nation; and it was foreseen that foreign intervention in behalf of the insurgents, even to the extent only of recognizing them as a belligerent, must directly, and more or less completely, derogate from the just and habitual influence of the Republic. It was foreseen that, should the insurgents receive countenance, aid, and support, in any degree, from Great Britain, the insurrection might be ripened under such influences into a social war, which would involve the life of the nation itself. The United States did not fail to give warning to Her Majesty's government that the American people could not be expected to submit without resistance to the endurance of any of these great evils, through the means of any failure of Great Britain to preserve the established relations of peace, amity, and good neighborhood with the United States. The earnest remonstrances thus made seem to the United States to have failed to receive just and adequate consideration. While as yet the civil war was undeveloped, and the insurgents were without any organized military force or a treasury, and long before they pretended to have a flag, or to put either an armed ship or even a merchantvessel upon the sea, Her Majesty's government, acting precipitately as we have always complained, proclaimed the insurgents a belligerent power, and conceded to them the advantages and privileges of that character, and thus raised them, in regard to the prosecution of an unlawful armed insurrection, to an equality with the United States. This Government has not denied that it was within the sovereign authority of [3] Great Britain to assume this attitude; but, *on the other hand, it insisted in the beginning, and has continually insisted, that the assumption of that attitude, unnecessarily and prematurely, would be an injurious proceeding for which Great Britain would immediately come under a full responsibility to justify it, or to render redress and indemnity. The United States remain of the opinion that the proclamation referred to has not been justified on any ground of either necessity or moral right, and that, therefore, it was an act of wrongful intervention, a departure from the obligations of existing treaties, and without sanction of the law of nations. Upon a candid review of the history of the rebellion it is believed that Great Britain will not deny that a very large number of the Queen's subjects combined themselves and operated as active allies with the insurgents, aided them with supplies, arms, munitions, men, and many ships of war. The chief reply which Her Majesty's government has made to this complaint has been that they apprehended inconveniences from being involved in the contest, unless they should declare themselves neutrals; and, further, that they did, in fact, put forth all the efforts to prevent such aggressions by British subjects which the laws of Great Britain permitted. Without descending on this occasion so far as to insist, as we always have insisted, that there was a deficiency of energy in the respect adverted to, you may remind Lord Stanley that, in the view which we have taken of the subject, the misconduct of the aggressors was a direct and legitimate fruit of the premature and injurious proclamation of belligerency against which we had protested, and that the failure of Her Majesty's government to prevent or counteract the aggressions of British subjects was equally traceable to the same unfortunate cause. When the municipal laws of Great Britain proved, in practical application, to be inadequate to the emergency, the British nation omitted, for various reasons which seemed to us insufficient, to revise these laws, and the United States were left to maintain a conflict with a domestic enemy which British sympathy, aid, and assistance had rendered formidable, and in which British subjects continued throughout to be active allies, without any effective interposition by Her Majesty's government. The claims upon which we insist are of large amount. They affect the interest of many thousand citizens of the United States in various parts of the Republic. The justice of the claims is sustained by the universal sentiment of the people of the United States. Her Majesty's government, we think, cannot reasonably expect that the Government of the United States can consent, under such circumstances, to forego their prosecution to some reasonable and satisfactory conclusion. This aspect of the case is, however, less serious than that which I have next to present. A disregard of the obligations of treaties, and of international law, manifested by one state, so injurious to another as to awaken a general spirit of discontent and dissatisfaction among its people, is sure, sooner or later, to oblige that people, in a spirit of self-defense, if not of retaliation, in the absence of any other remedy, to conform their own principles and policy, in conducting their intercourse with the offending state, to that of the party from whom the injury proceeds. Subsequently to the time when Her Majesty's government disallowed the claims in question, and determined to exclude them from consideration, a part of the British realm, and certain of the British North American provinces, became the scenes of sedition, threatening insurrection and revolution against the government of Great Britain. Native-born British subjects residing here, some of whom have been naturalized, and more of whom have not been naturalized in the United States, sympathizing in those revolutionary movements, attempted to organize on our soil, and within our jurisdiction, auxiliary land and naval forces for invasions of Ireland and Canada. The Government of the United States, without waiting for remonstrances, appeals, or protests from Her Majesty's government, effectively put their municipal laws into execution, and prevented the threatened invasions. Thus we have seen ruinous British warlike expeditions against the United States practically allowed and tolerated by Her Majesty's government, notwithstanding remonstrance; and we have seen similar unlawful attempts in this country against Great Britain disallowed and defeated by the direct and unprompted action of the Government of the United States. Her Majesty's government, we think, cannot reasonably object to acknowledge our claims, and to adopt such measures as will assure the American people *that [4] their friendly policy of non-intervention in the domestic controversies of Great Britain will be made reciprocal and equal. I observe, finally, that the United States and Great Britain are two of the leading national powers in this age. The events of the last five years have conclusively proved that harmony between them is indispensable to the welfare of each. That harmony has been, as we think, unnecessarily broken through the fault of Great Britain; nor does there exist, the least probability that it can ever be completely renewed and restored, unless the serious complaint which you are now again to bring to the notice of the British government shall be amicably and satisfactorily adjusted. Such an adjustment would be acceptable, we think, to the friends of peace, progress, and humanity throughout the world; while the benignant principles upon which it shall be based, being conformable to the law of nations, will constitute a guide for the conduct of commercial states in their mutual intercourse, which will everywhere be conducive to international peace, harmony, and concord. I am, &c., WILLIAM H. SEWARD. [Inclosure 2 in No. 1.] Summary of claims of citizens of the United States against Great Britain. The following is an abstract of the claims filed in the Department of State by American citizens, native and naturalized, for damages sustained by them as the owners, mariners, freighters, or insurers of duly documented ships, captured and destroyed, or appropriated, by the officers and crew of the steamer Alabama; and as owners, insurers, or otherwise interested in the cargoes of such ships, or in charter-parties, for the services of such ships. The several insurance companies named as claimants are corporations organized and doing business under the laws of the several States in which they are respectively located. The ship Lafayette, (No. 1,) of 94568 tons burden, registered at Portland, Maine, whereof Clement H. Soule, Enos Soule, Francis B. Soule, deceased, and Alfred T. Small, of Freeport, Maine, and Hinchman S. Soule, deceased, of New Haven, Connecticut, were the sole owners, and the said Alfred T. Small was master-sailed from New York October 20, 1862, with a cargo of corn, wheat, and lard, bound for Belfast, Ireland; was captured on the 25th October, 1862, and burned, with her cargo and stores, the Alabama wearing British colors at the time of the capture. The owners claim for the value of the ship and freight.... B. E. Clark, W. B. Astor, and J. B. Hart, constituting the firm of B. E. Clark $98,978 68 513 25 4,496 70 The bark Elisha Dunbar, registered at New Bedford, Massachusetts, whereof William Watkins, Edward C. Jones, Caleb Anthony, George A. Dunbar, Ann H. Dunbar, and George A. Watkins, of New Bedford, and Benjamin Ellis, of Fairhaven, Massachusetts, were owners-sailed from New Bedford, August 25, 1862, with outfit for a whaling-voyage of forty months in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. After taking sixty-five barrels of spermaceti oil she was captured and burned September 18, 1862, at or near latitude 39° 50′ north, longitude 35° 20′ west. The owners claim for the value of the bark, outfit, and cargo, and for the loss of prospective catchings.. They admit that they have received upon policies of insurance of their respective interests... (Which may be claimed by the insurers, but they insist that their claim is not impaired or diminished by their assignments to the underwriters.) $128,295 00 21,375 00 The bark Parker Cook, of Boston, 136 tons burden, whereof Edward Habich was sole owner, and Thomas M. Fulton was master, sailed from Boston November 13, 1862, laden with a general cargo, belonging to the said Habich, and bound for Aux Cayes, captured and burned November 17, 1862, off the east end of St. Domingo, bearing south-southeast about twenty miles distant. Damages claimed by the Manufacturers' Insurance Company, of Boston, as assignees of Habich and Fulton, for value of vessel For value of cargo at Aux Cayes. For freight-list of the bark Expense of master and crew for subsistence and passage home.. Charts, books, &c., lost by master... $9,493 35 14,280 94 1,625 29 180 00 485 00 The claims of the owner and master were assigned to said insurance company on the 26th January, 1862, in consideration of $17,100. [5] *The ship Virginia, of 3463 tons burden, registered at New Bedford, Massachusetts, of which William Hathaway, jr., Joseph Wing, William R. Wing, and Mary C. Lace, the executors of Matthew Lace, deceased, viz, William Hathaway, jr., Edward W. Howland, and William Penn Howland, all of New Bedford; Richard C. Nichols, of Boston; Richard G. Luce, of Tilbury; Lorenzo Smith and Benjamin C. Cromwell, also of Tilbury; S. W. Carey, administrator of Le Roy M. Yule, late of New York; Henry Barling and Abram H. Davis, of New York; and Edward D. Mandell, of New Bedford, executors of Edward Mott Robinson, late of New York, were owners, sailed from New Bedford, August 26, 1862, on a whaling voyage, and was captured near latitude 39° north, longitude 34° west. The owners claim for value of bark and outfits, and of the fair and reasonable cargo which might have been taken $153,950 00 Subject to deduction for amount received upon policies of insurance, $13,500, for which the insurers are entitled to claim. The bark Lauretta, 284 tons burden, of Boston, whereof Samuel C. Bailey and Marshall M. Wells, of Bristol, Maine; Samuel Lane, Joseph Teague, and Harriet B. Little, administratrix of Robert M. Little, deceased, and Joel Huston, all of Damariscotta, Maine; and William Ropes, of Boston, were owners, and M. M. Wells was master, sailed from New York October 25, 1862, with a cargo of flour and staves, for Madeira and Messina; was captured and burned, with cargo, October 28, 1862 . The owners claim for value of the bark $15,000 00 The ship Golden Eagle, of New Bedford, 1,120 tons burden, whereof Edward M. Robinson, H. L. Howard, executrix of B. L. Howard, deceased, and John A. McGaw, were owners, and Edward A. Swift was master, sailed from Howland's Island November 23, 1862, with a cargo of guano, bound to Cork for orders; was captured and burned February 21, 1863, near latitude 29° 17′ north, longitude 45° 15' west. The owners claim for the value of the vessel the sum of Making a total of The master, for loss of personal effects, the sum of. $36, 000 00 26,000 00 62,000 00 1,165 00 The Nora, of Boston, whereof George B. Upton and George B. Upton, jr., of Boston, Massachusetts, were owners, and Charles E. Adams was master, sailed from Liverpool for Calcutta February 18, 1863, under charter of W. E. De Matbos, the owners having no other interest in the cargo than their lien for freight; was captured March 29, 1863, in latitude 1° 23′ north, longitude 26° 30′ west, and burned. The owners claim for value of ship and freight The master for one year's salary For clothing, books, charts, &c $80,000 00 1,800 00 1,700 00 The bark Union Jack, of 48287 tons burden, whereof Chas. P. Weaver, of Braintree, Massachusetts, Benj. F. Delano, Frederick Chandler, Charles A. Cousins, Elisha H. Ryder, Maurice M. Pigott, Alfred B. Low, William H. Haskins, Henry Pigeon, Otis C. Howe, John Howe, jr., Samuel Averill, and Edward Johnson, of Boston, Massachusetts; Norton Pratt, of South Braintree, Massachusetts; Luther Robie, of Nashua, New Hampshire; Louisa Wilde, of Boston, and John Atkinson, were owners, and the said Chas. P. Weaver was master, sailed from New York March 28, 1863, with a general cargo, bound for Shanghai, China, on the 3d of May, 1863; in latitude 9° 40′, longitude 32° 30′ west, was captured and burned, with cargo and stores. The owners claim for value of ship the sum of.. $35,000 00 For balance due on charter-party, (with premium on exchange at Shanghai, where payable) 6,000 00 The master, for instruments and personal effects, stores for crew, expense of passage and return to the United States, (with premium on exchange at Shanghai). 2,720 00 857 70 Charles D. Lewis, of New York City, for merchandise destroyed in said ship, (with profits equal to exchange on Shanghai). Franklin Knight, of New York, a passenger, for loss of library, clothing, expenses, and damages Byron Binninger, of New York, also a passenger, with his wife, for passage-money, goods, expenses, and time. Charles H. Platt, of New York, for merchandise lost Geo. A. Potter, of New York, for merchandise, after deduction of amount received from Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company, of New York, the sum of 10, 015 00 1,782 83 739 48 7,584 33 The Sun Mutual Insurance Company, of New York, as insurers and assign- 1,400 00 [6] 1,822 00 *The ship Alert, of 3981 tons burden, registered at New London, Connecticut, whereof Samuel Church was master and part owner, and Moses H. Grinnell and Robert P. Minturn, of the city of New York, Richard H. Chappell, Henry P. Havens, Francis Allyne, Robert Coit, Robert H. Glass, Thomas P. Williams, and John Clark, of New London; Mrs. Harriet P. Williams, of Norwich, Connecticut; Edward Church, James S. Rogers, of Montevideo, all native citizens, were the remaining owners, sailed from New London, August 20, 1862, on a sea-elephant and whaling |