Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys, minister of foreign affairs, to Mr. Dayton, United States minister. [Translation.] PARIS, October 22, 1863. SIR: I have the honor to announce to you, as a sequence to my [293] letter of the *15th of this month, that M. the minister of marine has just notified Mr. Voruz of the withdrawal of the authorization which he had obtained for the armament of four vessels in course of construction at Nantes and Bordeaux. Notice has also been given to Mr. Arman, whose attention has been at the same time called to the responsibility which he might incur by acts in opposition to our declaration of the 18th of June, 1861. These measures testify, sir, to the scrupulous care which the government of the Emperor brings to the observance of the rules of a strict neutrality. It is in order to give to your Government a new proof of our disposition in this respect that we have not hesitated to take into consideration the information, the authenticity of which you have affirmed to me. 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. Mr. Dayton, United States minister, to Mr. Seward, Secretary of State. [294] * * * [Extract.] *PARIS, November 27, 1863. SIR I yesterday saw Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys for the first time within the last fortnight. His absence from Paris, and pressing engagements the week before, have prevented his receiving the diplomatic corps for business. He said, furthermore, that he had himself personally informed Messrs. Arman and Voruz, (the constructors and iron-founders,) engaged on the vessels now being built at Bordeaux and Nantes, that the work thereon must cease unless they could satisfy him that they were honestly intended for another government; and he added to me that he would at once refer their proceeding to the minister of marine. * * I am, sir, your obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State, &c., &c. WILLIAM L. DAYTON. Mr. Dayton, United States minister, to Mr. Seward, Secretary of State. SIR: [Extract.] PARIS, December 31, 1863. * In my last conversation with Mr. Drouyn de [295] Lhuys, he informed me that Mr. Arman, the builder of these vessels, was seeking purchasers for them other than the confed erates, and that the minister of marine did not think himself authorized, therefore, to prevent their completion, although he would prevent their being armed or delivered by Arman to the confederates. Mr. Dayton, United States minister, to Mr. Seward, Secretary of State. PARIS, February 5, 1864. SIR: M. Drouyn de Lhuys told me yesterday that Arman (the builder of the iron-clad rams for the confederates, at Bordeaux) had just informed him that he had sold them to the Danish government, but before he (M. Drouyn de Lhuys) acted upon that assumption this gov ernment would have the best and most satisfactory evidence of the correctness of this statement. At present he does not consider the statement of the fact to me as official, but says he will make it so as soon as he shall receive the necessary proof. I am, sir, &c., Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State, &c., &c., &c. * * WM. L. DAYTON. [296] *Mr. Dayton, United States minister, to Mr. Seward, Secretary of M. Drouyn de Lhuys says that he believes the iron-clads at Bordeaux are sold to a neutral, but I received information from Mr. Wood, our minister at Copenhagen, that the minister of foreign affairs of Denmark says he does not know, nor has he ever heard, of any negotiation for the purchase or building for that country of any ships in France. M. Drouyn de Lhuys tells me, and I do not doubt but that he has given notice to Mr. Arman (the builder of the iron-clads, and the contractor for the four other ships building for the confederates) that France must be relieved from all trouble in reference to any of them, and Arman has promised him that France shall be. He says that the four other vessels are building for commerce, and that he can and will sell them to neutral parties. In the mean time, I can and will keep a sharp eye to the entire proceeding. I am, sir, your obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. WM. L. DAYTON, [297] *Mr. Dayton, United States minister, to Mr. Seward, Secretary of State. PARIS, March 11, 1864. SIR: M. Drouyn de Lhuys informs me that in a recent interview with Arman, the ship-builder at Bordeaux, he (Arman) assured him that not only the iron-clad vessels he was building at Bordeaux, but the other four vessels (two at Nantes and two at Bordeaux) would certainly be disposed to neutral governments in such manner as to relieve France from any trouble or responsibility on the subject. These vessels, I may add, are in the steady course of construction, the work being constantly advanced upon them. CORPS LÉGISLATIF, (Séance du 12 mai 1864.) M. ROUHER, Ministre d'Etat : Si j'examine le discours de l'honorable M. Jules Favre, en prenant ses objections dans un ordre inverse à celui qu'il a adopté, le premier point que je rencontre est cette prétendue violation des règles de la neutralité commise par la France vis-à-vis des états du nord de l'Amérique. Messieurs, les questions de neutralité, l'étendue des devoirs des neutres, ont donné, dans tous les temps, matière à des difficultés, à des conflits nombreux. Je ne veux pas retracer ici les phases diverses que le droit des neutres a subies dans le code international; mais ce que je peux dire à l'honneur de la politique de notre pays, c'est que tout ce qu'il y a eu d'idées libérales, progressives, généreuses, introduites dans la législation des neutres, est parti du gouvernement français. [C'est vrai! c'est vrai !] Aussi, lors de la déclaration de la guerre en Amérique entre les états du nord et les états du sud, nous n'avons pas failli à ces précé. [299] dents, et nous avons posé, dès les premiers jours, les *principes de neutralité qui devaient régir toute notre conduite. Dans la déclaration du 10 juin 1861, insérée au Moniteur, acte officiel émané du souverain, il est dit par à l'article 3: Il est interdit à tout Français de prendre commission de l'une des deux parties pour armer des vaisseaux en guerre, ou d'accepter des lettres de marque pour faire la course maritime, ou de concourir d'une manière quelconque à l'équipement ou à l'armement d'un navire de guerre ou corsaire de l'une des deux parties belligérantes. Au mois de juin 1863, une demande a été adresseé par deux constructeurs français pour l'exécution de deux steamers, avec l'indication que ces navires étaient destinés à naviguer dans les mers de Chine. M. le ministre des États-Unis, au mois de décembre 1863, a invoqué des lettres, des documents, que, des circonstances dont nous n'avons pas voulu approfondir le caractère, avaient mis en la possession de M. Dayton, il a soutenu que ces navires étaient destinés aux confédérés. Une enquête s'est ouverte immédiatement. [300] Les armateurs ont été interrogés; leurs *explications ont été appréciées, et l'autorisation, un instant donnée, a été retireé par le gouvernement. Plus tard, quelques doutes se sont élevés; ces steamers, qui ne sont pas en partance, ont été indiqués comme destinés à la Suède. De nouvelles informations ont été prises. Cette indication n'a pas paru suffisamment démontrée, et, à la date du 1er mai 1864, il y a dix jours, le ministre de la marine écrivait au ministre des affaires étrangères: Les navires de guerre que vous nous avez signalés ne sortiront des ports français que le jour où il sera démontré d'une manière positive que leur destination n'affecte point les principes de neutralité que le gouvernement français veut rigoureusement observer à l'égard des belligérants. Voilà la conduite qui a été tenue sans équivoque, de la manière la plus nette et la plus précise, par le gouvernement de l'Empereur. [301] *Speech of M. Rouher, minister of state. [Translation.] [From the Moniteur Universel, of Friday, May 13, 1864, p. 670.] CORPS LÉGISLATIF, (Session of the 12th May, 1864.) Mr. ROUHER, Minister of State: If I examine the speech of the Hon. Mr. Jules Favre, taking his objections in an order the reverse of that adopted by him, the first point I meet is the pretended violation of the laws of neutrality committed by France against the States of the North of America. Gentlemen, questions of neutrality, as regarding the duties of neutrals, have been always the causes of difficulties and of numerous conflicts. Í will not here trace the different phases through which the law of neutrals has passed in the international code; but what I may say to the honor of the policy of our country is that all liberal, progressive, and generous ideas introduced into the law of neutrals originated with the French government. [True, true.] Accordingly, after the declaration of war in America between the States of the North and the States of the South, we have followed these precedents, and we announced [302] at an early day the principles of neutrality * which were to regulate our conduct. In the declaration of the 10th of June, 1861, an official act emanating from the sovereign, inserted in the Moniteur, it is stated in Article 3: All Frenchmen are forbidden to take a commission from either of the two parties to arm vessels of war, or to accept letters of marque for a cruise, or to assist in any manner in the equipment or armament of a war-vessel or privateer of either of the belligerents. In the month of June, 1863, a formal request was made by two French builders for the right to construct two steamers, with the information that these vessels were intended to navigate the Chinese seas.. Mr. Dayton, the minister of the United States, in the month of December, 1863, called our attention to certain letters and documents, which circumstances, into the character of which we have not wished to inquire, had put into his hands; he maintained that these vessels were for the confederates. An inquiry was immediately instituted; the owners were questioned; their explanations were weighed, and the authorization formerly given was withdrawn by the government. Later, doubts arose; it was intimated that these steamers, which had not yet sailed, were intended for Sweden. New testimony was taken, and this intimation not appearing to be sufficiently proved, the [303] minister of the *marine wrote to the minister of foreign affairs, under the date of May 1, 1864, ten days ago, as follows: The vessels of war to which you have called our attention shall not leave the ports of France until it shall have been positively demonstrated that their destination does not affect the principles of neutrality which the French government wishes to rigidly observe toward both belligerents. Such is the conduct which has been maintained without equivocation, and in the clearest and most precise manner, by the government of the Emperor. * ** Mr. Dayton, United States minister, to Mr. Seward, Secretary of State. PARIS, May 16, 1864. SIR: At a special interview accorded to me on Saturday last, M. Drouyn de Lhuys informed me not only that the two iron-clads, now being constructed by Arman, at Bordeaux, under contract with the confederates, have been positively sold to a neutral power, but he assured me distinctly that the four clipper-ships in the course of construction at Bordeaux and Nantes, under a like contract, should not be delivered to the confederates. As two of these vessels are approaching completion, I confess I was much gratified by receiving this distinct assurance. [304] His language was most explicit, and I thanked him accordingly. I am, sir, &c., Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, WM. L. DAYTON. Secretary of State. Mr. Seward, Secretary of State, to Mr. Dayton, United States minister. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: Mr. Geofroy has to-day submitted to me a dispatch which has been received from M. Drouyn de Lhuys, in which he states the fact of the sale of two ships, the Yeddo and the Osacca, which Arman built for the insurgents, to alleged neutrals, to be delivered in Holland, substantially on the same terms as those which M. Drouyn de Lhuys made in communicating that transaction to yourself, as you have related them to us in your dispatches. In the absence of full and definite information about the names, condition, or character of the alleged purchaser, the terms of his contract or the other circumstances of the alleged sale, this Government is not prepared to pronounce its acquiescence in the disposition of the subject which has been made by the French government. We are to be understood, therefore, as maintaining in regard to France all the protests we have heretofore made concerning those [305] vessels, and reserving all *the rights and remedies in respect to the vessels themselves which belong to the United States under the law of nations. At the same time we willingly believe that the French government has taken proper care to guard against the vessels being used for making war upon the United States. I am, sir, &c., WILLIAM L. DAYTON, Esq. WILLIAM H. SEWARD. |