desire to make or construct arms of war for the use of ships of commerce shall previously obtain authorization from our minister secretary of state for the department of war and from our minister secretary of state for the department of marine and of the colonies, so far as relates to cannon and munitions.

(279)

*Practically these provisions of the ordinance, which seem to be applicable only to our commercial marine, have been extended to the manufacture and delivery of implements of war for foreign com

merce.

In order to obtain the authorizations always required in such cases and to provide for the delivery to the confederates of the armaments of war which they had engaged to furnish them, Messrs. Arman and Voruz addressed their demands to the ministers of marine and of war.

The authorizations have been accorded them; they have even obtained permission to visit the government establishments, in order to profit by the improvements there effected. It is in view of these authorizations, which he declared seemed to him sufficient, that the diplomatic agent of the confederates ratifies, on the 6th of June, 1863, the treaty concluded the 15th of April preceding between Messrs. Arman and Bullock.

But, as we have seen in the letter addressed by Arman to the minister of marine on the 1st of June, it was only by willfully deceiving the minister with regard to the destination of the armaments with which they desired to supply the four ships constructed at Bordeaux and at Nantes, that these gentlemen caused to be accorded them the authorizations which they unduly solicited.

[230] *Such authorization, surreptitiously obtained, ought then to be considered as null and of no effect. Messrs. Arman, Voruz, and their accomplices are then in violation of the law of the 24th of May, 1834, and liable to the correctional penalties which it decrees. The crime and misdemeanor resulting from the violation of article 84 of the penal code, and of the law of 1834, constitute Messrs. Arman and Voruz, and those interested with them, offenders against the prohibitions and recommendations contained in the imperial declaration of the 10th of June, and should be, as declared in that declaration, prosecuted conformably to the provisions of the law.

The acts which ought to give rise to these legal prosecutions have been committed to the prejudice and against the security of the Government of the United States.

This Government has the undoubted right, as has every foreign gov ernment, to demand before the French tribunals the repression and the reparation of acts committed in France which are prejudicial to it.

Here the prejudice is incontestable, because, independently of the deIvery of the ships and of their armaments of war, the notorious fact of construction and armament in France, under the apparent authorization

of the French government, of ships of war destined for the con[281] federates, was in itself, for the latter, a powerful encouragement to sustain the struggle, and thus an incalculable prejudice was offered to the Federal Government.

It remains for the undersigned to indicate to the Government of the United States what judicial means may be resorted to to obtain from the offenders the satisfaction due from them, and what tris satisfaction should be.

The Government of the United States can prosecute before the French tribunals on account of the acts whose criminality has just been estabEshed, and especially on account of the crime provided for by article 84 of the penal code. This complaint should be intrusted either to the dili

gence of a special authorized agent, or upon prosecution by the minister plenipotentiary of the United States to the procureur impérial.

Conformably to the provisions of articles 63 and 64 of the code of criminal instructions, complaint may be made, either before the magistrate of the place where the crime or offense has been committed, or before the magistrate of the residence of the criminal.

As there are several accomplices and agents incriminated by the acts, the judge of the residence of one of them is competent to receive the complaint, and all the accomplices will be called before him by reason of the connection of the acts denounced. Messrs. Bullock and Slidell, agents of the confederates, are, although foreigners, legally responsible before the French tribunals by reason of the criminal acts which they have instigated, or in which they have participated upon French soil. The complaint should set forth the criminal acts, and should be supported by justificative documents.

To obtain the decree of satisfaction which it is proposed to demand, the American Government should by its special agent declare that it intends to constitute itself a civil party; that is to say, that it intends to

sustain the prosecution concurrently with the public minister. [282] *In constituting itself a civil party, the Government of the United States should be informed that it may be held to furnish a guarantee judicatum solvi, according to the terms of article 166 of the code of civil procedure, thus conceived:

All foreign claimants, principals, or attorneys will be held, if the defendant requires it, without exception, to furnish guarantee to pay expenses and penalties to which they may be condemned.

Finally, it should be observed that one of the persons against whom the complaint should be collectively made is a member of the Corps Législatif, and that, by reason of his position, before making complaint, the public minister must demand of the assembly authorization to prosecute, conformably to article 11 of the decree of February, 1852.

In case it should be desired to prosecute only for the violation of the law of the 24th of May, 1834, and of the ordinance of 1847, instead of submitting the complaint to the juge d'instruction or of lodging it with the procureur impérial, the action should be brought before a correctional

tribunal; the American Government may then proceed by direct [283] citation, and may bring before the correctional judge its demand for civil satisfaction, damages, and interest.

Finally, in case the Government of the United States should renounce its intention, by reason of the facts in question, to prosecute criminally by way of complaint, or by simple correctional action, it may separate the civil from the public action, and proceed against those who have acted to its prejudice, in an action before the civil tribunals, reserving to the public minister the right of public action for repression of crimes and offenses, if he shall judge proper.

Before the civil tribunal, the Government of the United States has only to appeal in judicial proceedings for the acts from which it has suffered to the provisions of article 1382 of the civil code, where it is written:

Every act whatsoever of a man which causes loss to another, obliges him, by whose fault it has been committed, to repair the loss.

As a reparation of the crime or offense committed against it, the Federal Government will demand, under the title of indemnity, the confiscation of the objects constructed and the manufactures made to its prejudice. It may even, after having commenced the process, [284] demand, as a *protective measure, authorization to seize provision

ally, and at its own risk and peril, all the objects constructed and manufactured, being elements of the criminal acts, which reparation may be ordered before the provisions of the penal laws shall have received their application before the competent jurisdiction. Pronounced at Paris, the 12th of November, 1863.

BERRYER,

Ancien Bâtonnier de l'Ordre des Avocats de Paris

[285]

*F.

CORRESPONDENCE RELATIVE TO ARMAN RAMS.

Mr. Dayton, United States minister, to Mr. Seward, Secretary of State. PARIS, September 18, 1863. SIR: I have this morning called the attention of Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys to the evidence showing that at least four, if not five, ships are being built in the ship-yards at Bordeaux and Nantes for the confederates. This evidence is the same as that sent to you from the Paris consulate, and which I referred to in my dispatch No. 344. It is conclusive, I think, as to the facts charged. Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys expressed himself as greatly surprised, and I doubt not he was so. He assured ne he had no knowledge of anything of the kind, and that the government would maintain its neutrality. He thanks me for calling his attention promptly to this matter, the importance of which he fully recognized. He requested copies of the original papers; said that he would at once investigate the facts and the French legislation bearing on the question, and then let me know what would be done.

[286]

*It seems to me that their action on this subject is likely to afford a pretty good test of their future intentions. As to what the law may be, it does not, I apprehend, much matter; if they mean that good relations with our country shall be preserved, they will stop the building of these ships, or at least the arming and delivering of them; if they mean to break with us, they will let them go on.

I am, sir, your obedient servant,

Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD,

Secretary of State, &c.

WM. L. DAYTON.

Mr. Dayton, United States minister, to Mr. Seward, Secretary of State.

PARIS, October 8, 1863.

SIR: The minister of marine has been absent some days recently, and this has been assigned to me by Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys as a reason why my communication as to the rebel ships now being built at Bordeaux and Nantes had not been definitetly answered.

I left some additional evidence with him this morning, to wit: copy of contract between Arman and Bullock for building two iron-clads, [287] dated *16th July last; copy of letter from Emile Erlanger to Voruz, sr., dated 9th June last; copy of letter from Mazeline & Co. to

Voruz, sr., dated 23d June last; copy of letter from O. B. Tollet, and L. Babin, and E. Dubigeon and fils, to Voruz, 10th June last; copy of agreement between Bullock and Voruz, dated September 17, 1863, increasing the number of cannon contracted for from forty-eight to fiftysix, and the number of shells from five thousand to twelve thousand.

Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys did not intimate any doubt as to the facts charged, and the minister of marine, he said, had informed him that in granting the authorization to build and arm these vessels he did it as a matter of course, as he had done in like cases before, supposing that the representation in the application, that they were intended for the China sea, &c., was true. But Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys said that he, the minister of marine, entirely agreed with him that no violation of the neutrality of France should be permitted, and he (Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys) said I might be assured that it would not be.

I am, sir, your obedient servant,

Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD,

Secretary of State.

WILLIAM L. DAYTON.

[288] *Mr. de Lhuys, minister of foreign affairs, to Mr. Dayton, United States minister.

[Translation.]

PARIS, October 15, 1863.

SIR: You have done me the honor to write to me, to call my attention to agreements entered into (marchés passés) in France, according to information which you have communicated to me, for the construction and delivery to the seceded States of several vessels armed for war. You have expressed the desire that the official authorization accorded for the armament of these vessels might be withdrawn, and that the government of the Emperor might take measures which it should judge proper, to prevent the completion and delivery of the vessels themselves. I hastened to speak of this matter to my colleague of the department of the marine, recommending it very particularly to his examination. I do not believe that I can do better than to transmit to you, sir, a copy of the answer which he has just addressed to me. The only information which the department of the marine had directly received concerning

*

the operation in question attributed to them, as you will see, is of [289] such a character that, up to the present moment, there was no motion for hindering them. It is only, then, by the explanations which he is going to call forth, by the aid of the papers which you have brought to my knowledge, that M. le Comte de Chasseloup Laubat shall be able to judge of the measures to be taken conformably to our declaration of neutrality.

Accept the assurances of the high consideration with which I have the honor to be, sir, your very humble and very obedient servant, DROUYN DE LHUYS.

Mr. DAYTON,

Minister of the United States at Paris.

M. the minister of the marine to M. the minister of foreign affairs.

[Translation.]

PARIS, October 12, 1863.

M. THE MINISTER AND DEAR COLLEAGUE: You have done me the honor to communicate to me, the 25th of September last, the copy, with its annexes, of a letter from M. the minister of the United States at Paris, relative to bargains entered into by Messrs. Arman and Voruz for the construction and delivery to the confederate government of several vessels armed for war. In pointing out to my attention the gravity of this matter, which you recommend in a manner altogether special to my examination, you express the regret that my department had not thought proper to come to an understanding with that of the foreign affairs before answering the requests of Mr. Arman, who had obtained from the marine the authorization to provide his vessel with twelve cannon of 30 pounds. As to that which concerns the authorization solicited by Mr. Arman, and which was necessary to him by the terms of the ordinance of the 12th July, 1847, I did not believe I ought to refuse it in consequence of the declaration of the constructor, who gave me the assurance, as moreover his correspondence with my department proves, that the vessels in construction in his work-yards were destined to do service in the China seas and the Pacific, between China, Japan, and San Francisco.

[291] *I could not, upon such a declaration, and knowing, besides,

that the vessels of commerce which navigate the parts in question ought always to be furnished with certain armament, in view of the numerous pirates which infest them, I could not, I say, answer negatively to the request of Mr. Arman, nor refuse Mr. Voruz the permission to manufacture the cannon intended to form this armament. This last anthorization was the consequence of that given to the constructor to provide his vessels with artillery.

In granting to Mr. Voruz the permission to procure at Reuil the eluci dations necessary to the manufacture of his cannon, I followed that which has always been done by my department in analogous circumstances, commerce only exceptionally giving itself to a manufacture which, in France, is seldom carried on, save by the government. As to the regrets expressed by your excellency that the department of foreign af tairs has not previously been consulted, I will cause you to remark that it was a question of arms to be caused to be manufactured by private industry, and not of material of war appertaining to the state and delivered by the magazines of the state. This difference will not escape your ex

cellency, and I would not have failed to come to an understanding [292] with you if there had been asked of my department arms of the

marine. Upon the whole, my department has only conformed in this circumstance to its precedents. It could only trust to the declaration of Messrs. Arman and Voruz, and it could not be responsible for the unlawful operations which might be undertaken. I am going, however, to call forth from Messrs. Arman and Voruz explanations upon the facts of which you have spoken to me, and you may rest assured, M. and dear colleague, that the department of the marine will continue, as it has done up to the present day, to do everything which shall be necessary according to the wish of the Emperor, and conformably to the declaration of his government, in order that the most strict neutrality be observed in that which concerns the war which desolates America at this moment, &c. CHASSELOUP LAUBAT.