Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

man, but had no reason to doubt his identity or the truth of his story; nor was there, indeed, any circumstance to suggest a doubt. Some words casually let fall by a drunken seaman after the supposed master had left the island, (which he did by another vessel, leaving the Hanover under the command of the mate,) first gave rise to a suspicion that he had been passing under a name which was not his own; but there was no reason

to suspect that the vessel had been a prize. No intimation of the [105] circumstances ever *reached the colonial government till the 11th

March, 1863. A person residing at Nassau, as agent of American underwriters, then addressed a letter to the governor, stating that the Hanover had been captured by the Retribution; and that the person who had represented himself to be Case was, in reality, one Locke, otherwise Parker, the captain of the Retribution.1

It is obvious that these facts, assuming them to be true, impose no liability on Her Majesty's government. If the orders of 1st June, 1861, which forbade prizes to be brought into British ports, had not been issued, the Hanover might have been openly brought in and her cargo sold in the Bahamas, and the United States would have had no right to complain. The captain of a confederate ship contrived, by forgery and fraudulent personation, to violate these orders, and by so doing rendered himself amenable to British law. Locke was afterward twice arrested at Nassau for this offense. On the first occasion he forfeited his bail and left the island; on the second he was brought to trial, but was acquitted for want of evidence. Proof of the facts which it was necessary to establish could only be given by some one who had been on board of the Hanover, or of the Retribution, at the time when the capture took place; and although the agent of the American underwriters, acting at the instance of the attorney-general, sent to the United States to endeavor to secure the attendance of the master or some of the crew of the Hanover, no such testimony could be obtained.2

It may be added that, while Locke was in prison awaiting his trial, an application was made by the Government of the United States for his extradition, on a charge of his having been concerned in an alleged act of piracy, having no connection with the case of the Hanover. Earl Russell wrote in reply:

It appears to Her Majesty's government that the United States Government are not entitled to obtain the extradition of Locke until he shall have been tried for the offenses alleged to have been committed by him against British law, and, if convicted, shall have undergone any sentence which may be passed upon him But Her Majesty's government are unwilling that, in consequence of any delay on this account in the extradition of Vernon Locke, the means of supporting the graver charge against him should be weakened; and I have, therefore, to state to you that Her Majesty's government will waive their right to prosecute Locke for the offenses of conspiracy and forgery, if the evidence upon the charges arising out of the seizure of the Chesapeake shall prove to be sufficient to justify extradition by the government of the Bahamas.3 It does not appear that the Government of the United States made any attempt to produce the evidence which is required by law to support a demand for extradition.

Of the case of the Emily Fisher, Her Majesty's government now hears for the first time, although it is said to have happened nearly nine years ago. No complaint appears to have been made to the colonial government about this vessel; and no intimation that anything illegal had occurred in relation to her seems to have been given to the attorneygeneral or any official connected with the administration of criminal

[blocks in formation]

law in the colony, although the agent for American underwriters, whose duty it would have been to bring forward the case, was, during the year 1863, in constant communication with the attorney-general in reference to that of the Hanover. The then collector at the port of Long Cay is now dead; and the time is past when authentic information of the facts could be obtained.1 Evidence produced under such circumstances ought not (if received at all) to be accepted without very close scrutiny. The evidence offered by the United States is that of the owners of the ship, (who were not present, and could have no personal knowledge of the matter;) of one, Sampson, who represents himself as having been employed at that time as a "detective" in the Bahamas by the American Government; and of the master of the Emily Fisher. Sampson swears that all the facts alleged respecting the capture of the Emily Fisher and the subsequent transactions are true "within his personal knowledge," and that he testified to them in 1866, in a case tried before a court in New Jersey. On reference to the published proceedings of that case, it will appear that he gave no such evidence, although it would have been extremely material. He then swore only that he had seen the Retribution at Long Cay, lying outside of the Emily Fisher, and had been introduced by an acting magistrate at Long Cay" to her officers, with whom he had had "a general talk about the difficulty with the North and South."3 That he should have had personal knowledge of circumstances which are stated to have occurred at a great

2

distance before the two vessels arrived at Long Cay, where he [106] was, is obviously impossible; and the American Government is

well aware that such testimony would be at once rejected in an American court as it would be in a court of Great Britain. The evidence, therefore, reduces itself to that of Staples, the master. Staples alleges in effect that he was captured off an islet called Castle Island, nearly two days before he arrived at Long Cay; that his captor was in league with some wreckers, (persons whose trade it is to make profit by saving vessels abandoned or in distress,) and ran the ship aground, when the wreckers took possession of her; that she was afterward taken to Long Cay, in company with the Retribution; and that "he (the master) was not able, when there, to obtain possession of the brig until after he had bargained with the wreckers to pay them 50 per cent. on the cargo and 33 per cent. on the vessel; when, after making affidavit of his being the master, he was placed in possession by the collector, and went on board." He adds that "he was told by the captain of the Retribution that the wreckers were to pay him something handsome, and the deponent believes they did so;" and that he "was obliged to accept the wreckers' terms at the port of entry, because the brig lay under the guns of the privateer, and the authorities declared their inability to protect him." He was "told by the authorities that, though the law would not allow the privateer to touch the brig, if he wished to do so they had no means of preventing him."4 What is here alleged, and may be true, is a conspiracy between the captain of the Retribution and the wreckers to represent the Emily Fisher not as a prize to the Retribution, but as having run aground and been got off by the latter, and thus to enable the wreckers to extort a large salvage, for which they were to pay a sum of money to Locke. Locke would thus be enabled to make profit by a prize which he would otherwise have

1 Appendix to British Case, pp. 17, 23.

2 Appendix to Case of the United States, vol. vi, p. 736.

3 Appendix to British Case, vol. v, p. 196.

4 Appendix to Case of the United States vol. vi, p. 738.

been obliged to release or destroy; and the fact of his having recourse to this circuitous and fraudulent transaction proves that he did not venture to attempt an actual sale of the ship or cargo even in this remote and unfrequented spot. Nothing is said about "the presence of a magistrate." Nor is anything said (which might have been expected) about a "protest" by the master; probably he was afraid to make one while his vessel was under the guns of the Retribution, against which the "authorities," apparently the local revenue officer, told him it would be impossible to protect him, the port being a very small place in a remote island. It is not even stated that he ever told the authorities what had occurred before his arrival at Long Cay. He paid the salvage demanded, regained his ship and part of his cargo, part having been stolen or wasted, and left the island.

It is possible that, on these facts, supposing them to be true, the owners of the ship and cargo may have been entitled to legal redress against the persons concerned in defrauding them of their property; and, if so, they might probably have obtained such redress if they had taken the necessary steps at that time. They took no steps, however; they did not even make complaint or give notice of what had occurred to the colonial government; and now, nearly nine years afterward, when authentic information cannot be obtained, the United States bring forward this case, not as a ground for making compensation to the owners of the Emily Fisher and her cargo, but in support of the grave charges against the British government which they allege before this tribunal, and of a claim to hold Great Britain liable for all the acts of the Retribution. Her Majesty's government denies that the facts, if proved, argue any failure of international duty on the part of Great Britain, or furnish any evidence of such a failure.

[107]

*PART IX.

RECEPTION OF CONFEDERATE CRUISERS IN BRITISH PORTS.

PART IX.-Recepcruisers in British ports.

It has been thought best to treat collectively the various complaints scattered throughout the Case of the United States, as to tion of confederate the "excessive hospitality" which is alleged to have been extended in British ports to the vessels of war of the Confederate States, in comparison with the "discourtesy" with which vessels of the United States are said to have been treated under similar circumstances. These complaints may be divided under three heads: (1) the amount of supplies granted to confederate cruisers before any limitation was placed on such supplies by the regulations issued by the British government on the 31st of January, 1862; (2) the alleged disregard of those regulations in the case of confederate vessels; and (3) their alleged rigid enforcement against vessels of war of the United States.

Nashville.

As regards the first question, there were but two vessels of war of the Confederate States which visited British ports before the issue of the regulations of January 31, 1862-the Sumter and the Nashville. The facts as to these two vessels have already been stated, and it is only necessary to add a few words to show how their proceedings, coupled with those of the United States ships, and the representations of the United States Government, led to the adoption of the regulations. The reception of the Sumter in the ports of Brazil, and of the neighThe Sumter and boring possessions of Great Britain and the Netherlands, in the summer and autumn of 1861, had given rise to warm remonstrances on the part of the United States, and they had urged on each of the three powers the expediency of placing restrictions on the hospitality to be accorded to what they termed the "piratical" vessels of the insurgents. The governments of Brazil and of the Netherlands, no less than that of Great Britain, had maintained that the Sumter must be regarded as a vessel of war of a belligerent power, and that whatever restrictions might be placed on the stay of such vessels in their ports must be applied equally to the vessels of war of the United States. Mr. Seward, however, continued to press the suggestion. Lord Russell expressly stated to Mr. Adams on the 19th December, 1861, that the reason why no such limitation had hitherto been enforced by Great Britain was that it might have seemed churlish toward vessels of the United States Navy.1

On the 24th January, 1862, Mr. Adams wrote to his Government, announcing that the Sumter, after repairing at Cadiz, had gone into the port of Gibraltar; and he added, "This tendency to take refuge in British ports is becoming so annoying to the government here, that I shall not be supprised if the limit of twenty-four hours' stay be soon adopted."

1 Appendix to Case of the United States, vol. i, p. 344.

2 Executive Documents, 1861-'62, No. 104, p. 70.

News had about the same time been received of the attempt to form a coal-depot for the United States Navy at Nassau, and of the presence at that port of a vessel of war of the United States, which, by having its steam up, constantly ready to start, kept all the shipping in the port in alarm. The Nashville, which had been in the harbor of Southampton since the 21st November, had refitted, and was ready for sea. She was closely watched by the United States steamer Tuscarora, whose commander was pursuing the same course as the captain of the Flambeau at Nassau, and, by keeping his steam up and having slips on his cable, was virtually keeping the Nashville blockaded in a neutral port.1 Under these circumstances, the British government determined that the Nashville and Tuscarora should be desired to leave British waters at a date to be fixed, with an interval of twenty-four hours between their respective departures; and a few days afterwards, on the 31st January, general rules were issued to provide for such cases in future. Captain Craven, of the Tuscarora, after some altercation with the

authorities, quitted the port of Southampton, but returned again [108] to British waters in its vicinity just as the Nashville *was leav

ing. He was warned that he was not to sail again until twentyfour hours after her departure, and complied, though complaining that 66 a just and rigid impartiality did not appear to have been extended towards him."2 In a dispatch dated the 7th February, 1862, and published by the Government of the United States at the time, but of which only a short extract is given in the collection now appended to their Case, Mr. Adams remarked:

The impression here is that he (Captain Craven) allowed himself to be completely outwitted. He will doubtless lay the blame on the action of the people and government of this country; my own opinion is, that if he had been a little more cool and quiet, he would have fared better.3

Mr. Adams's anticipations were correct, as will appear from Captain Craven's report to his Government, now printed in the Appendix to the Case of the United States, where he complains bitterly that the new regulations deprive him of "the ability of cruising on this (the British) coast," and speaks of the measures taken to preserve the neutrality of British waters as "collusion on the part of the authorities, to effect the escape of the privateer."

It may be as well to mention at once that the Nashville arrived at Bermuda, on the return voyage from Southampton, before the receipt in that colony of the regulations of January 31, 1862. There was at the time only a monthly mail to Bermuda; the regulations could not be forwarded until the latter half of the month of February, and were received there on the 5th March, some time after the Nashville had left. The statement, therefore, in the Case of the United States, that the permission given to the Nashville to take on board a supply of coal was an infraction of these regulations, is erroneous. They were, according to their terms, only to take effect six days after their notification in each colony, and the governor was not even aware of their existence at the time of the Nashville's visit.

From Southampton the Tuscarora proceeded to Gibraltar, for the purpose of watching the Sumter; and there Captain Craven involved himself in a dispute with the authorities. The Sumter had arrived in that port on the 18th of January, 1862, before any limitation had been

1 Appendix to British Case, vol. i, p. 114.
Appendix to British Case, vol. ii, pp. 124, 125.

3 Executive Documents, 1861-62, No. 104, p. 38.
4 Vol. vi, p. 59.

5 Page 316.

« ZurückWeiter »