* * *

mitted by Mr. Adams to Earl Russell, on the 23d, it was said: "The evidence I have is entirely conclusive to my mind. I do not think there is the least room for doubt about it. The strictest watch is kept over this vessel; no person except those immediately engaged upon her is admitted into the yard. On the occasion of the trial-trip, made last Thursday week, no one was admitted without a pass, and these passes were issued to but few persons, and those who are known here as active secessionists engaged in sending aid and relief to the rebels." He also stated that "the foreman in Messrs. Laird's yard says she is the sister to the gun-boat Oreto, and has been built for the same parties and for the same purpose; when pressed for a further explanation, he stated that she was to be a privateer for the Southern Government in the United States." And the Consul further stated that certain officers from the Sumter, whose names he gave, had said the vessel was being built for the Confederate States.1

Referred to law.

This letter of Mr. Adams with that of the Consul, was referred by Earl Russell to the Law-Officers of the Crown and to the Lords officers of the Crown. Commissioners of the Treasury, on the 25th of June, of which Mr. Adams was duly advised.2

* * *

On the 30th June the Law-Officers reported to Earl Russell that "the report of the United States Consul at Liverpool, Their action upon it. besides suggesting other grounds of reasonable suspicion, contains direct assertion that the foreman of Messrs. Laird, the builders, has stated that this vessel is intended as a privateer for the service of the government of the Southern States; and, if the character of the vessel and of her equipment be such as the same report describes them to be, it seems evident that she must be intended for some warlike purpose. Under these circumstances, we think that proper steps ought to be taken, under the direction of Her Majesty's Government, by the authorities of the customs at Liverpool, to ascertain the truth, and that, if sufficient evidence can be obtained to justify proceedings under the foreign-enlistment act, such proceedings should be taken as early as possible. In the mean time, Mr. Adams ought, we think, to be informed that Her Majesty's Government are proceeding to investigate the case; but that the course which they may eventually take must necessarily depend upon the nature and sufficiency of any evidence of a breach of the law which they may be enabled to obtain; and that it will be desirable that any evidence in the possession of the United States Consul at Liverpool should be at once communicated to the officers of Her Majesty's customs at that port."3

4

5

The Lords Commissioners of the Treasury sent the letter of Mr. Adams, with that of the Consul, to the Commissioners of Customs on the 25th of June. These letters were forwarded by the Commissioners to the Collector of Liverpool previous to the 28th. But before that time, on the 20th, and before the letter of the Consul to Mr. Adams, or that of Mr. Adams to Earl Russell, the Collector's attention had been called to the same vessel by the Consul in a letter to him, in which was detailed, with more particularity than in the letter to Mr. Adams, his knowledge of facts and his grounds of suspicion. This letter the Collector must have had when he received the communication from the Commissioners.

1 Brit. Case, p. 81.

2 Ibid., p. 82.

6

3 Brit. Case, p. 83.

4 Letter from Mr. Arbuthnot to Mr. Hammond, July 2, Brit. App., vol. i, p. 181. 5 Brit. App., vol. i, p. 183. 6 Am. App., vol. vii, p. 73.

On the 28th of June the customs surveyor at the port of Liverpool reported to the Collector "that the vessel to which these Proceedings of cuspapers refer has not escaped the notice of the customs tonis authorities. officers, but, as yet, nothing has transpired concerning her which appeared to demand a special report. The officers have at all times free access to the building-yards of the Messrs. Laird, at Birkenhead, where the said vessel is now lying, and there has been no attempt on the part of her builders to disguise, what is most apparent to all, that she is intended for a ship of war. Agreeably with your directions, I have personally inspected her and find that she is rightly described in the communication of the United States Consul, except that her engines are not on the oscillating principle. The current report of that vessel is that she has been built for a foreign government, and that is not denied by the Messrs. Laird, with whom I have communicated on the subject; but they do not appear disposed to reply to any question with reference to the destination of the vessel after she leaves this port, and we have no other reliable source of information. It will be in your recollection that the current report of the gun-boat Oreto was, that she had been built for a foreign government, which vessel recently left this port under a British flag, without any guns or ammunition on board, as previously reported."1

* * *

This report was transmitted by the collector to the commissioners of customs on the same day (the 28th) and by them referred to the solicitor of customs, who, on the 30th, (the same day that the Law-Officers made their communication to Earl Russell, as just stated,) gave his opinion that "the officers at Liverpool have acted discreetly in keeping watch upon her, and should continue to do so, immediately reporting to the board any circumstances that they may consider to call for directions, or advisable to bring under the board's notice; but the officers ought not to move in the matter without the clearest evidence of a distinct violation of the foreign-enlistment act, nor unless at a moment of great emergency, the terms of the act being extremely technical and the requirements as to intent being very rigid. It may be that the ship, having regard to her cargo as contraband of war, might be unquestionably liable to capture and condemnation, yet not liable to detention under the foreign-enlistment act, and the seizers might entail upon themselves very serious consequences.” 2

On the 1st of July the commissioners of customs transmitted their own report to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, in which they embodied the substance of the report of the surveyor to the collector, including his statement that the builders did not appear disposed to reply to any questions respecting the destination of the vessel after she left Liverpool, and added that "having referred the matter to our solicitor, he has reported his opinion that, at present, there is not sufficient ground to warrant the detention of the vessel, or any interference on the part of this department, in which report we beg leave to express our concurrence. And, with reference to the statement of the United States Consul, that the evidence he has in regard to this vessel being intended for the so-called Confederate Government in the Southern States, is entirely conclusive to his mind, we would observe that, inasmuch as the officers of customs of Liverpool would not be justified in taking any steps against the vessel, unless sufficient evidence to warrant her detention should be laid before them, the proper course would be for the consul to submit such evidence as he possesses to the collector at that port,

1 Brit. App., vol. i, p. 183.

2 Ibid.

who would thereupon take such measures as the provisions of the foreign-enlistment act would require. Without the production of full and sufficient evidence to justify their proceedings, the seizing officers might entail on themselves and on the Government very serious consequences. We beg to add that the officers at Liverpool will keep a strict watch on the vessel, and that any further information that may be obtained concerning her will be forthwith reported."

This report of the commissioners of customs was transmitted by the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury to the Foreign Office, and received there on the 2d of July. 2

Thus it will be seen that twenty-seven days before the departure of the vessel, Her Majesty's Government was informed by its own officers that the "character of the vessel and of her equipment" was such as the report of the consul described them to be, and that, therefore, in the opinion of the Law-Officers of the Crown," she must be intended for some warlike purpose." And the Government was also, at the same time and in the same manner, informed that in the face of what had been acknowledged by the Law-Officers of the Crown to be “grounds of reasonable suspicion " of the Consul, the builders of the vessel, (a firm, one of the ostensible members of which, at the time of the original contract for her building, was a member of the House of Commons,) being inquired of by one of the officers of the Government, did not appear to be disposed to reply to any question with reference to the destination of the vessel after she left Liverpool.

3

on

At the same time, too, one at least of the departments of the Government was reminded by one of its officers that the Oreto, referred to in the letter of Mr. Adams, had recently left the port, built for a foreign government, but "under a British flag, without any guns or ammunition on board." But the Arbitrators will look in vain for any evidence whatever tending to prove that any officer of the Government, of any grade, ever propounded to the builders, or any other person, a direct question as to the destination of the vessel, insisting upon an answer or a refusal to answer. This, too, when, under the opinion of the LawOfficers, the only material fact remaining to be ascertained was, by whom the vessel was to be employed.

Mr. Adams inforn

consul may submit

A copy of the report of the commissioners of customs was sent by Earl Russell to Mr. Adams, accompanied by a note which ed that the American bears date the 4th of July, but which does not appear to evidence to collector have been received until the 7th, when it was acknowledged. at Liverpool. In this note Earl Russell says: 66 "I would beg leave to suggest that you should instruct the United States Consul at Liverpool to submit to the collector of customs at that port such evidence as he may possess tending to show that his suspicions as to the destination of the vessel in question are well founded." 4

This was the first request ever made of Mr. Adams or any other officer of the Government of the United States, to assist the Government of Her Majesty in procuring testimony against any vessel as to which complaint had been made. As has been seen, Mr. Adams offered the assistance of the United States in respect to the Florida, but his offer was not accepted. Down to this time, therefore, no complaint should be made against the United States because they failed to accompany their representations with proof. But the United States believe

1 Brit. Case, p. 83.

2 Brit. App., vol. i, p. 181.

3 Brit. App., Counter Case, vol. v, p. 204. 4 Brit. Case, p. 84.

that, in view of facts already stated, the Arbitrators will feel as did the Consul when he received notice from Mr. Adams of what was required, and addressed the Secretary of State of his Government in the following language:

I do not think the British Government are treating us properly in this matter. They are not dealing with us as one friendly nation ought to deal with another. When I, as the agent of my Government, tell them from evidence submitted to me that I have no doubt about her character, they ought to accept this until the parties who are building her, and who have it in their power to show if her destination and purpose are legitimate and honest, do so. It is a very easy matter for the Messrs. Laird & Co. to show for whom they are building her, and to give such information as to her purpose as to be satisfactory to all parties. The burden of proof ought not to be thrown In a hostile community like this it is very difficult to get information at any time upon these matters. And if names are to be given it would render it almost impossible. The Government ought to investigate it and not call upon us for proof.1

upon us.

And they will not be surprised that two days after, the Consul wrote Mr. Adams as follows:

When the United States Government, through its acknowledged representatives, say to the British Government that it is satisfied that a particular vessel, which is being built at a certain place in the kingdom by certain parties who are their own subjects, is intended as a privateer for the rebel government, it is the duty of that government to call up the parties who are fitting out the vessel, tell them what the charge is, and require them to state for whom and what purpose she is being built, and if the charge is admitted or shown to be true, to stop her sailing. Our Government has a right, it seems to me, not only to expect but to require this much of another friendly government. And if there was any disposition to do right and act honestly, this much at least would be accorded.2

On the 7th of July, and at once upon the receipt of the letter of Earl Russell, Mr. Adams wrote the vice-consul at Liverpool, in The consul directthe absence of the Consul, transmitting a copy of the lettered to furnish inforof his lordship, and in accordance with the suggestion lector. therein, said:

mation to the col

"I pray you to furnish to the collector of customs, so soon as may be, any evidence which you can readily command in aid of the object designated.”3

He does so.

On the 9th of July the consul, having returned to Liverpool, addressed a letter to the collector at that port, in which he detailed with great particularity the circumstances which had come to his knowledge tending to show that the vessel was intended for the use of the insurgents. This letter is printed in full in the Britsh Case,* and is explicit in its statements. It certainly made a case which was worthy the attention of the Government. The Consul does indeed say that he cannot, in all cases, state the names of his informants, "as the information in most cases is given to me by persons out of friendly feeling to the United States, and in strict confidence;" but he adds: "What I have stated is of such a character that little inquiry will confirm its truth;" and the names of many persons, all of whom were within reach of the officers, were given to whom inquiries might have been addressed.

He then says, the Messrs. Laird "say she is for the Spanish Government. This they stated on the 3d of April last, when General Burgoyne visited their yard, and was shown over it and the various vessels being built there, by Messrs. John Laird, jr., and Henry H. Laird, as was fully reported in the papers at the time." On this point the Consul says he caused inquiries to be made of the Spanish minister as to the truth of the statement, and the reply was a positive assurance that

1 Am. App., vol. vi, p. 382.

2 Am. App., vol. vi, p. 386.

66

she was not for the Spanish Government." If the statements in the letter of the Consul to Mr. Adams on the 21st of June contained, as the Law-Officers of the Crown said, "grounds of reasonable suspicion," this letter certainly ought to have put the officers of the Government upon inquiry as to the truth of the statements made; but the arbitrators will fail to discover in all the evidence submitted by Her Majesty's Government any proof tending to show any attempt at that, or any other time before the departure of the vessel, by any officer of Her Majesty's Government, to inquire as to the truth of any fact stated by the Consul.

The only statements made by him which have not been fully substantiated by subsequent developments are that Captain Bullock was to command the vessel and that the Florida was then arming at Nassau. In point of fact, it was true, however, that Captain Bullock had been, originally, assigned to the command of the Florida, and it was only about the 15th of June that a change was made. As to the arming of the Florida at Nassau, it has already been seen why that had not then been accomplished as it afterward was. This last named error in the statement of the Consul has, however, been considered of sufficient importance by Her Majesty's Government to be made the subject of special mention on page 85 of its Case.

Conduct of the collector.

On the 10th of July the collector acknowledged the receipt of the letter from the Consul, but accompanied his acknowledgment with the remark, "I am respectfully of the opinion, the statement made by you is not such as could be acted upon by the officers of this revenue, unless legally substantiated by evidence." 2 The collector, however, on the same day, (the 10th) ordered the vessel again to be "inspected" by the the surveyor, who immediately reported that it had been done, and that she was in the same state as regards her armament as on the date of his former report. And the same day (the 10th also) the collector transmitted to the commissioners of customs the letter of the Consul and the report of the surveyor, accompanying them with a copy of his letter to the consul and the statement that "if she is for the confederate service the builders and parties interested are not likely to commit themselves by any act which would subject them to the penal provision of the foreign-enlistment act.”4

3

On the 11th of July the solicitor of the customs, having considered the letter of the consul, reported:

There is only one proper way of looking at this question. If the collector of customs were to detain the vessel in question, he would no doubt have to maintain the seizure by legal evidence in a court of law, and to pay damages and costs in case of failure. Upon carefully reading the statement, I find the greater part, if not all, is hearsay and inadmissible, and as to a part the witnesses are not forthcoming or even to be named. It is perfectly clear to my mind that there is nothing in it amounting to prima facie proof sufficient to justify a seizure, much less to support it in a court of law, and the consul could not expect the collector to take upon himself such a risk in opposition to rules and principles by which the Crown is governed in matters of this nature. 5

On the 15th of July, four days after the opinion of the solicitor was given, and six days after the letter of the Consul, the commissioners of customs advised the collector that "there does not appear to be primafacie proof sufficient in the statement of the Consul to justify the seizure of the vessel, and you are to apprise the Consul accordingly." 6

1 Am. App., vol. vi, p. 488.

2 Brit. Case, p. 85.

3 Ibid., p. 86.

Brit. App., vol. i, p. 184. 5 Brit. Case, p. 86.

6 Ibid.