The agreement, said he, is made in such a manner as to insure to us the exclusive furnishing of all which can be executed in France.

On the 15th of July, the same Voruz, recalling to the attention of the minister of marine the fact that by his letter of the 6th of June he had been good enough to authorize the preparation, in his works at Nantes, of the cannons necessary for the armament of four ships, of which two are being constructed at Bordeaux in the yards of Mr. Arman and two in the yards at Nantes, demands of the minister permission to visit the government establishment at Rueil, to see the improvements made in utensils, &c. This permission was given on the 9th of August.

A new agreement was signed in duplicate at Bordeaux, the 16th of July, 1863:

It has been agreed between Mr. Arman, ship-builder at Bordeaux, deputy of the Corps Législatif, No. 6 quai de la Monnaie, and Mr. James Dunwoody Bullock, acting under orders and for the account of principals whose duly-executed power of attorney he has produced, electing domicile with M. M. Emile Erlanger, 21 rue de la Chausée d'Antin, Paris, as follows:

ART. 1. Mr. Arman engages with Mr. Bullock, who accepts the terms, to con[271] struct for his account, in his yards at Bordeaux, two screw-steamships of wood and iron, of 300 horse-power, with two screws, with two iron-clad turrets, in conformity with the plan accepted by Mr. Bullock.

ART. 3. The cannons, arms, projectiles, powder, combustibles, and finally the salaries and provisions of the sailors, shall be at the sole charge of Mr. Bullock.

ART. 5. The ships are to be provided with an engine of 300 horse-power, at 200 kilograms the horse, constructed by Mr. Mazeline, of Havre.

ART. 6. The two ships shall be admitted and ready to make their trial trips in tenmonths.

ART. 9. The price of each of these ships is fixed at the sum of 2,000,000 francs, which shall be paid at Paris, one-fifth down.

ART. 11. Mr. Bullock has designated the house of É. Erlanger & Co. as the one charged with effecting the payments at Paris and with accepting the financial conditions of the present agreement.

The 17th of July, Mr. Voruz, sr., writes:

I have received to-day a letter from Arnous, at Bordeaux, who says that Arman has just signed the agreement for two iron-clad gun-boats of three hundred horse-power for 2,000,000 francs each.

Finally, on the 12th of August, Mr. Bullock, remaining charged by

Article 3 of the agreement of July 18th, above named, with pro[272] viding cannons, arms, projectiles, &c., for the two iron-clad gunboats, addressed to Mr. Voruz the following letter:

LIVERPOOL, August 12, 1863.

I have received, Mr. Voruz, your letter of the 4th instant, with statements of the price of the 30-pound cannon and accessories. It is impossible for me to say whether I shall give you a positive and direct order for such cannon before learning from Captain Blakeley how his own model of hooped cannon has been received.

I should be glad, however, to make an arrangement with you if we can agree upon the conditions. We will discuss all this when I go to Nantes. It is my intention to intrust my affairs to as few hands as possible, and I hope we shall agree in all essential points in such manner that our relations may proceed on a larger scale, even in case of peace. Our government will have need, doubtless, during a certain period, of sending to France for its vessels and engines, and, so far as I am personally concerned, I should be much pleased if our past relations should lead to orders still more considerable in the future.

Will you, if you please, inform me if the corvettes are progressing, and tell me when the second payments will be due?

I shall write you a week before my arrival at Nantes.

[273]

BULLOCK.

*The terms of this letter apply evidently to the project of arming the two iron-clad gun-boats, the construction of which was the object of the agreement executed at Bordeaux the 16th of July, between Arman and Bullock. This latter, a captain in the service of the

Confederate States of the South, has acted by the order and for the account of his government. It is impossible not to understand that these two gun-boats, as well as the four ships, for which the agreement of the 15th of the preceding April had been concluded, are destined for the service of the Confederate States of the South in the war which they are carrying on with the Federal States of the North.

The material proof of these facts results too evidently from the agreements concluded between the different persons who have participated in their fulfillment, and from the correspondence exchanged between them for the regulation of their particular interests.

These facts are of the gravest importance. Expressly forbidden to all Frenchmen by the imperial declaration of the 10th of June, 1861, they constitute flagrant violations of the principles of the law of nations and of the duties imposed upon the subjects of every neutral power; duties, the loyal observance of which is the foremost guarantee of the respect due to the liberty of neutral states and to the dignity of their flags. These are acts of manifest hostility against one of the two belligerent parties in regard to whom the French government has resolved to maintain a strict neutrality.

[274] *It is necessary to avoid (says Vattel, lib. III, chap. 7) confounding what is allowed to a nation free from all engagements from what it may do if it expects to be treated as perfectly neutral in a war. So long as a neutral people desires securely to enjoy that position, they should show, in all things, an exact impartiality toward those who carry on war. For, if this people favors one to the prejudice of the other, it cannot complain when the latter treats it as an adherent and ally of its enemy. Its neutrality would be a fraudulent neutrality, of which no one wishes to be the dupe. This impartiality (adds Vattel) which a neutral people ought to observe, comprises two things: the refusal to protect or voluntarily to furnish either troops, arms, munitions, or anything of direct service in war.

These are acts of hostility which, forbidden by the law of nations, are characterized as crimes and misdemeanors by the French laws, which decree their repression under penalties. Article 84 of the penal code is conceived in the following terms:

Whoever, by hostile acts not approved by the government, shall have exposed the state to a declaration of war, shall be punished with banishment, and, if war is the result, with 'portation.

[275]

This provision of the law is, in the opinion of the undersigned, evidently applicable to the authors and accomplices of the facts recapitulated in the foregoing.

Whatever may be the motives and whatever the character of the struggle so deplorably carried on in the heart of the American Union, whether it be considered as a civil war or as an insurrection of a part of the American nation against the established Government, whether one regards the separation which is seeking to effect itself by force of arins as a division of the nation into two distinct bodies-into two different peoples-war between these two parts, Vattel continues, falls in all respects within the pale of a public war between two different nations. The nations which do not wish to be forced to take part in this war should keep themselves within the strict limits of the neutrality which they proclaim. In the midst of the internal dissension of the American nation, in the peaceful state existing between France and the Government of the United States, in the relations of amity and commerce which unite the two countries, there is no hostile act that can provoke more irritation and awaken against France juster grievances than giving protection and furnishing naval armaments by the French to the enemy of the Government of Washington, by means of treaties with the confederates and of naval constructions and the fabrication of weap

[276] ons of war, carried on publicly *in the ports, ship-yards, and workshops of France.

The action of parties undertaking these armaments is all the more compromising, and exposes our country all the more to the danger of being considered hostile, and of provoking against itself a declaration of war, for the reason that the armaments in question are made with the regular authorization of the French administration. It is no longer a case for the application of the principles which ordinarily govern in regard to neutral nations, the consequences of shipments of contraband. Although navigating under a neutral flag, the shippers of such merchandise, arms, munitions, and all material prepared for war, are alone responsible; they can be seized and declared as prize-their flag does not cover them-but there results no reponsibility on the part of the government to which such shippers and fitters-out belong. In the agree ments and in the execution of the agreements entered into between the French builders and the agents of the Confederate States, the name and authority of the French government have been compromised by the authorizations accorded.

The facts then present themselves with the character of a hostile act on the part of our government against the Government of the United States.

With this character, the facts may then expose France to a declaration of war.

[277] *But it may be truly said that this apparent compromise of the French government is simply the result of deceit practiced by the constructors and parties to the agreement of the 15th of April, who, by misrepresentation of the destination of the ships, deceived the ministers of marine and of war.

Let the explanations loyally given by government to government, let the withdrawal of the authorizations granted to Arman and Voruz remove all complaint and recrimination on part of the United States Government; the criminal character of the acts of which these gentlemen and their co-operators have rendered themselves guilty will not be modified, and they will have none the less committed hostile acts which expose France to a declaration of war; they are then within the case provided for in the text of article 84 of the penal code. They have no right to allege that they have been legally authorized by the Government.

The fraud which they have practiced vitiating the very essence of the acts of which they would pretend to take advantage, their guilt is thereby aggravated in the eyes of French justice.

There are other of our laws whose provisions the contractors and par ties to the agreements of the 15th of April and of the 16th of July, 1863, have fraudulently eluded.

[278] *The law of the 24th of May, 1834, declares:

ART. 3. Every person who, without being thereunto legally authorized, shall have manufactured or completed arms, cartridges, and other munitions of war, shall be punished with imprisonment from one month to two years, and with a fine of from sixteen to a thousand francs.

ART. 4. The misdemeanors provided for by the preceding articles shall be adjudged by the tribunals of correctional police; the arms and munitions manufactured without authorization shall be confiscated,

In the interest of the development of French manufacturers and of foreign commerce, a royal ordinance of the 12th of July, 1847, has regulated the application of this law of 1834, and the formalities which are to be observed by the manufacturers of arms.

We read in the first article of the ordinance of the 12th of July : Conformably to article 3 of the law of the 24th of May, 1834, every person who shall

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.

(280] *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 prohibifons 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 government, 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 delivery 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 con281] 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 this 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 established, 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