Page images
PDF
EPUB

olina, and then armed and employed by that government as a cruiser. It is not alleged that she ever received any outfit or equipment in or from British territory. What is alleged is merely this, that on one occasion she took a prize, (the Hanover,) captured by her near San Domingo, to Long Cay, an island of the Bahama group, "and there sold the cargo without previous judicial process;" and that, on another occasion, the Emily Fisher, a prize captured "off Castle Island,” (one of the Bahamas,)" was taken to Long Cay, and, notwithstanding the protest of the master, and in the presence of a British magistrate, was despoiled of her cargo, a portion of which was landed, and the balance willfully destroyed. Upon the strength of these allegations alone, the United States ask the arbitrators to hold Great Britain" responsible for the acts" of the Retribution. Claims for the value of prizes captured by her are inserted in the general list of claims; and she is not distinguished from the other vessels, in the vain "pursuit" of which the Navy of the United States is represented as having been engaged. This is asked, "not only for the general reasons heretofore" (in the Case of the United States) "mentioned as to this class of vessels, but because, in the case of each of the captured vessels above named, the acts complained of were done within Her Majesty's jurisdiction." The British government is not exactly informed what general reasons for demanding compensation from Great Britain are considered by the United States to be applicable to the class of vessels to which the Retribution belonged -that is to say, vessels built in the United States, wholly armed, fitted out, and commissioned within confederate territory, and never even furnished with coal in any British port; but it is right to call the attention of the tribunal to this admission, that the claims of the United States are founded on reasons which they suppose to extend to vessels of this latter class.

The British government might fairly decline to enter into any discussion, before the tribunal, of claims such as those made on account of this ship, since they are obviously of a different class from those "generically known as the Alabama claims," and cannot properly be reckoned among them. Her Majesty's government prefers, however, to state the facts, inaccurately referred to by the United States, so far as it is acquainted with them.

The case of the Hanover appears to have been as follows: In December, 1862, a schooner arrived at the port of Fortune Island, or Long Cay, and was reported by her master (or the person who appeared to be and acted as such) to have run ashore-no uncommon accident in those seas -on a neighboring islet, and to be in distress. Long Cay is a small island or strip of land, belonging to the Archipelago of the Bahamas, and about two hundred and forty miles from the seat of government. From the ship's papers, which were regular, it appeared that she was the schooner Hanover, bound from Boston to Havana, or to seek a market; the master further stating that his instructions were to dispose of the cargo, purchase with the proceeds a cargo of salt, and try to run the blockade. The master's name was shown by the ship's papers to be Washington Case; and it was in that name that the person who represented himself to be master signed the manifest, bills of lading, and other documents, entered his vessel at the revenue office, and finally cleared her, having loaded a cargo of salt at Long Cay. The magis trate of the district, who resides in the island of Inagua, but happened to be at Long Cay at the time, went to the place, and questioned the

1 Case of the United States, pp. 390, 391.

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. 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 em ployed 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." That he should have had personal knowl edge of circumstances which are stated to have occurred at a great

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 bad bargained with the wreckers to pay them 50 per cent. on the cargo and 334 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." 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

[blocks in formation]

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.-Recep cruisers 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. 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

Mr.

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 Brit ish 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.

« PreviousContinue »