$8,000; Fleischmann & Cohn, $176; S. Straus, Bros. & Co., $8,500; Free- William Ward Peck, of Brooklyn, New York, claims for goods lost.. [24] *Thomas Emery's Sons, of Cincinnati, for merchandise lost. The Metropolitan Insurance Company of New York claims, as in- $63,453 00 1,091 68 1,308 98 415 91 2,906 92 198 00 3,534 30 1,700 00 The Sun Mutual Insurance Company of New York claim damages by loss of Crown Point, as insurers of merchandise subrogated to Steinway & Sons, for. And J. M. & J. N. Plumb, all of New York. $375 00 5,244 00 In all.. 5,619 00 Of Curtis Peabody, on vessel.. The Columbian Insurance Company of New York claim, as insurers of freight of Henry Cook... Van Winkle & Dunn, of New York, claim for merchandise lost. ! Lysander Button, of New York, assignee of Robert Blake, of the same 34,559 00 $168 77 2,906 92 7,378 59 1, 137 25 5,590 43 2,500 00 On re-insurance of Manufacturers' Insurance Company. 22,500 00 John Young Wallach, Miles B. Carpenter, Henry C. Parker, and Christian 3,000 00 1,772 14 David Nichols Hawley, Walter Nichols Hawley, and George Thomas Hawley, of San Francisco, claim for goods lost.. The California Mutual Marine Insurance Company, of San Francisco, claim, as insurers of goods lost, and as assignees of Camerons, Whittier & Co.. And J. R. Coghill & Co... John Wesley Britton, Alexander Dunbar, McDonald Kimball, and C. Eldridge, of San Francisco, claim for goods lost..... 6,255 03 2,491 57 3,398 30 350 00 D. J. Oliver.. H. Cohen & Co., of San Francisco, claim for merchandise lost. Abraham S. Rosenbaum, Joseph Brandenstein, of New York, and Moses Joseph Pollock, of New York, and Leopold Pollock, of San Francisco, claim for goods destroyed.. 6,637 00 932 28 6,758 20 5,685 74 384 00 David Alexander Scrmisen, Robert Seckin Scrmisen, and Daniel Bussier William Heller, of New York, Louis Sachs and Martin Sachs, of San Francisco, California, claim for goods lost... 9,604 61 307 00 The American schooner Aldebaran, of 1894 tons burden, duly enrolled at the port of Brookhaven, and afterward registered at the port of New York, whereof Nehemiah Hand and Robert W. Hand, of Setauket, New York, were the sole owners, and the said Robert W. Hand master, sailed from New York February 27, 1863, laden with a general cargo, and bound for Maranham, and was captured March 13, 1863, about latitude 29° 16′ north, longitude 51° 10′ west, by the Florida, plundered, and burned. The cargo was certified to belong to Packenham & Beattie, English merchants at Maranham, and was insured in London. The ship Southend Cross, of Boston, whereof Benjamin P. Howes was master, sailed from Bella Vista, Mazatlan, in the Gulf of Čalifornia, on the 2d March, 1863, [25] *laden with a cargo for New York. On the 6th June, 1863, she was plundered and burned by the Florida. The New England Mutual Marine Insurance Company claim, as insurers of Baker & Morrell, on ship $30,000 00 The brig William C. Clark, of Boston, of 328 tons burden, whereof Benjamin R. Redman was master, sailed on June 3, 1864, from Machias, bound, with cargo, for Matanzas. On the 17th of June, 1864, in latitude 30° 5' north, longitude 64° 30′ west, she was captured by the Florida. The New England Mutual Insurance Company claim, as insurers on said brig, of Pendleton & Rose $5,000 00 The schooner Rienzi, of Provincetown, Massachusetts, whereof Gideon Bowley and Joshua E. Bowley, of Provincetown, were owners, sailed from Provincetown June 1, 1863, on a whaling voyage in the Atlantic, and was captured by the Florida, on July 8, 1863, about seventy miles south west of Martha's Vineyard, and burned, with twenty barrels of oil on board. For which vessel, stores, and oil the owners claim damages. $8,487 00 The bark Lapwing, of New York, of 590 tons burden, duly registered at the port of Boston, Massachusetts, whereof Ében Bacon and William B. Bacon, of West Roxbury, Massachusetts, and Daniel G. Bacon, of New York City, were the sole owners, and James Bolger master, sailed from Boston, March 9, 1863, laden with coal, provisions, and other merchandise, for Batavia and Singapore. On the 28th March, 1863, about latitude 31° 31′ north, longitude 32° 30' west, was captured by the Florida, and became a total loss. The Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company, of New York, claim, as insurers and assignees of D. G. & W. B. Bacon And on 35999 of certain merchandise belonging to the same parties 75 $30,000 00 25,000 00 Making in all. GEORGIA. 55, 000 00 The following is an abstract of claims filed in the Department of State for the capture and destruction of duly registered and documented vessels of the United States, by the owners, mariners, freighters, and insurers of such vessels, and of the cargoes thereof, or otherwise interested in such cargoes, or in charter-parties for the service of such ships, which ships and cargoes were captured and appropriated or destroyed by the officers and crew of the Georgia, formerly called the Japan, a British vessel, fitted out and manned in British ports. 95 The Constitution, of 99788 tons, a ship registered in the port of Philadelphia, whereof Joseph Welsford, of New York City, was sole owner, and Joseph Webster master, sailed from Philadelphia April 27, 1863, laden with coal and bread for Shanghai, China; was captured June 25, 1863, near the island of Trinidad, in latitude 20° 30′ south, longitude 29° 16' west, plundered and kept by the captors. The Mercantile Mutual Insurance Company, of New York, claim, as insurers upon the said ship and upon freight.. The Columbian Insurance Company, of New York, as insurers upon ship and freight.... As insurers of Joseph Webster on cargo.. $12,500 00 10, 000 00 3,500 00 The ship Bold Hunter, of 7978 tons burden, registered at the port of Charlestown and Boston, whereof Paul Sears and Reuben Hopkins, of Boston; Rowland H. Crosby, of West Cambridge; James Smith, of Cambridgeport; Alexander H. Childs, of Barnstable; Solomon Taylor, of Yarmouth; and William M. Batson, of New Orleans, were owners; Rowland H. Crosby, master, sailed from Dundee September, 10, 1863, laden with coals, and bound for Calcutta; was captured October 9, 1863, about latitude 190 north, longitude 20° 35' west, pillaged, and burned. The owners of fifteen-sixteenths of the ship claim, for the value of their interest The Washington Insurance Company, of Boston, as insurers of Grace Batson, on ship. The Sun Mutual Insurance Company, of New York, as insurers of ship and freight... The Columbian Insurance Company, of New York, as insurers upon ship.. $50, 625 00 3,000 00 7,000 00 16, 000 00 The ship Dictator, of 1,293 tons burden, registered at New York, whereof Charles R. Given was sole owner, sailed from Liverpool April 6, 1863, bound to Hong[26] *Kong, China; was captured and burned April 25, 1863, in latitude 25° north, longitude 21° 50′ west. The owners claim, for value of ship and outfit. For value of freight... $90, 390 00 17, 180 00 GOOD HOPE. Jasigi Goddard & Co., of Boston, claim, for the destruction of the bark Good Hope, the value of the vessel, outfit, and cargo, and damages for breaking up of voyage.. No. 2. $110,000 00 Lord Stanley to Sir F. Bruce. FOREIGN OFFICE, November 30, 1866. SIR: I transmit to you herewith copy of a note which I have received from the United States minister at this court,1 inclosing copy of a dispatch from Mr. Seward, in which he again brings before Her Majesty's government the claims of United States citizens against Great Britain, on account of losses inflicted on American commerce by cruisers of the so-called Confederate States during the late civil war. In regard to the date of this note, it is necessary that I should explain that, on its receipt, I stated verbally to Mr. Adams the impossibility of replying to it without consulting my colleagues, and the consequent probability that my answer must be delayed for some weeks. The claims in question are now, for the first time, brought under the notice of Her Majesty's present advisers; and the length of time which has elapsed since the termination of the civil war justifies the hope that they may be dispassionately considered on both sides. It is, therefore, with no desire to revive a controversy which has been carried on at great length, and in which every argument bearing on the subject has been advanced and discussed, but with a view to facilitate the impartial examination of the grounds on which these claims are based, that Her Majesty's government feel bound to notice expressions and statements in Mr. Seward's dispatch which they consider unsupported by evidence, and which, in justice to their predecessors in power and to the honor of the country, they cannot allow to pass unexamined. And, first, in regard to the assertion made at the commencement of 1 No. 1. the dispatch, that "the Sumter, the Alabama, the Florida, the Shenandoah, and other ships of war were built, manned, armed, equipped, and fitted out in British ports, and dispatched therefrom by or through the agency of British subjects," and "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." It can scarcely be necessary, after the protracted controversy that has taken place on this subject, to enter minutely into the history of the several vessels mentioned. It must have escaped Mr. Seward's recollection that the Sumter did not proceed from a British port, but was an American vessel, and commenced her career by escaping from the Mississippi. With regard to the Alabama, the Florida, the Shenandoah, and the Georgia, (the other vessels mentioned in the schedule of claims,) they were, undoubtedly, of British origin. But the United States Government will hardly contend that the mere fact of a vessel having been built in the port of a foreign power, or having been originally dispatched therefrom, can of itself render the government of that country responsible for the use which may be made of such vessel after it has passed from their control. The Alabama was, when she escaped from England, wholly unarmed and unequipped as a vessel of war. She received her armament and warlike equipment, her commander and crew, in Angra Bay, Azores, a possession of the Crown of Portugal, where the British Government could not have exercised any jurisdiction or control over her proceedings, even if they had had the opportunity of so doing. The Florida, under her original name of Oreto, left England unarmed and unequipped; but suspicion having attached to her, she was seized, and proceedings were instituted against her in the British admiralty court at Nassau, which failed for want of proof, and she was eventually equipped as a confederate cruiser in the port of Mobile, at that time in the occupation of the confederates. [27] 1 The Shenandoah left England unobserved, and therefore unquestioned, and, for * anything that had transpired, on a legitimate voyage, and was only armed, equipped, and manned as a vessel of war off Funchal, a possession of the Crown of Portugal. The first intimation which was received of her proceedings was from Her Majesty's consul at Teneriffe, reporting the transfer of crew and armament to her from the Laurel, at the Desertas, off Funchal. Mr. Adams's letter on the subject was dated the 18th of November, 1864, at which time she had already commenced her depredations. This fact appears from the dispatch from the United States consul at Rio de Janeiro, of which a copy was forwarded to Earl Russell by Mr. Adams on the 7th of April, 1865. The Georgia escaped inquiry in a similar manner, and was equipped, manned, and armed off the coast of France, and presumably in French waters, but unquestionably not within the jurisdiction of the British Crown. She sailed from the Clyde on the 2d of April, 1863, having cleared for Alderney; Mr. Adams's letter, stating that she was intended for a cruiser, was not received until the 8th of April, the very day on which, as was subsequently shown, she was receiving her armament off the French coast. Instructions were sent to the governor of Guernsey, but she proceeded to Cherbourg without touching at the Channel Islands. As regards the reception of these vessels in British ports, it must, be remembered that when they appeared in those ports they did so in the character of properly commissioned cruisers of the government of the so-styled Confederate States, and that they received no more shelter, provision, or facilities than were due to them in that character. For á recognized belligerent has a right to expect in the ports of a neutral power the same degree of hospitality as is conceded to its antagonist, subject to such restrictions as may be indifferently imposed on both; and it has never been alleged that greater freedom of intercourse was allowed to, or that less restrictions were imposed on, the cruisers of the confederate than on those of the United States in British ports in any quarter of the globe. The instructions issued by the British Government to its civil, naval, and military authorities, with which the Government of the United States are well acquainted, sufficiently establish this fact. Nor can it be said that those instructions were drawn up in an unfavorable spirit to the United States. The prohibition to bring prizes into British ports, and the limit placed on the supply of coal, told principally against the confederate ships, and prevented them from using British ports as their basis of operation. The treatment of these vessels was therefore no more than the legitimate consequence of the state of civil war which existed in America, and which was recognized by Her Majesty in her proclamation of neutrality. On the subject of this proclamation, Mr. Seward proceeds to make remarks which Her Majesty's Government cannot admit to be justified by the facts. They have never as yet met with any refutation of the statement contained in the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, and already quoted by Lord Russell in his note to Mr. Adams of May 4, 1865, that "this greatest of civil wars was not gradually developed by popular commotion, tumultuous assemblies, or local unorganized insurrections. However long may have been its previous conception, it nevertheless sprang forth suddenly from the parent brain, a Minerva in the full panoply of war. The President was bound to meet it in the shape it presented itself, without waiting for Congress to baptize it with a name, and no name given to it by him or them could change the fact." Her Majesty's government cannot understand how, in the face of such a conclusion declared by the highest judicial authority of his country, and in direct contradiction with the action of the government of which he is a member, Mr. Seward can characterize a contest, which he has at the commencement of his dispatch termed “a civil war," as "a domestic disturbance, which, although it had severe peculiarities, yet was, in fact, only such a seditious insurrection as is incidental to national progress in every state." 66 Her Majesty's Government find it also laid down in the judgment above quoted, that "the proclamation of blockade is itself official and conclusive evidence to the court that a state of war existed which demanded and authorized a recourse to such a measure under the circumstances peculiar to the case. Again, in the judgment of the District court of Columbia on the Tropic Wind, given June 17, 1861, it was ruled that the facts of the secession of the Southern States, as set forth by the President, with the assertion of the right of blockade, amount to a declaration that civil war exists; that blockade itself is a belligerent right, and can only legally have place in a state of war." Her Majesty's government are therefore at a loss to conceive how the term "intervention" can be applied to a proclamation which did no more than acknowledge a state of war first recognized by the President of the United States himself, and which was issued with the express |