No. 112.]

Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, October 29, 1861.

SIR: Your despatch of October 11, No. 58, has been received. It is accompanied by Lord Russell's reply to the note which you addressed to him by my direction, asking an explanation of the conduct of the colonial authorities in Trinidad on the occasion of the entrance of the piratical vessel the "Sumter" into that port.

Lord Russell admits that the "Sumter." (an armed American vessel,) bearing an insurgent flag, entered the port of Trinidad, and when boarded and required to show her nationality, her commanding officer showed no legal authority from this government, but a pretended commission from a citizen of the United States, notoriously engaged in arms against them. Notwithstanding these facts, it is not denied that the governor of the island hoisted the British flag on the government flag-staff, although it is stated by Lord Russell that, if he did so, it was probably done in order to show the national character of the island, and not in acknowledgment of the arrival of the "Sumter."

His lordship, however, admits that the "Sumter" was allowed to remain six days in Trinidad, and that during her stay she was allowed to supply herself with coals and provisions. The armament, the insurgent flag, and the spurious commission told the governor, as they sufficiently prove to her Majesty's government, that the "Sumter" is and can be nothing else than a piratical vessel. Her depredations on the commerce of this country form a part of the history of our times. The British government has, moreover, been directly informed by us that the "Sumter" is a piratical craft, and that the navigators and seamen on board of her are pirates, punishable by the laws of their own country with death. Lord Russell informs us that the law officers of the crown have nevertheless reported that the conduct of the colonial authorities of Trinidad is in conformity to her Majesty's proclamation. Her Majesty's government dismiss our complaint from their consideration.

In view of these facts, it becomes my duty to instruct you to inform the British government that the President deeply regrets that Lord Russell is altogether unable to give to our complaint a satisfactory solution.

When it is considered how important a part commerce plays among the interests of our country, it will be seen that the United States cannot consent that pirates engaged in destroying it shall receive shelter and supplies in the ports of friendly nations. It tends to the universal derangement of commerce when piracy is anywhere tolerated, and therefore its suppression is a common interest of all civilized countries. But if any one power fails to preserve this interest, and to act for the common welfare, then it is easy to see that each state must provide for its own security at whatever cost, and however it may disturb the general harmony of the commercial world. This government will consider how its safety may be best secured; but it cannot forbear from expressing a hope that her Majesty's ministers, in view of the gravity of the question, may deem the subject worthy of a deliberate reconsideration.

I am, sir, your most obedient servant,

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, Esq., &c., &c., &c.

WILLIAM H. SEWARD.

Mr. Seward to Lord Lyons.

[Circular.]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, October 4, 1861.

MY LORD: I regret to inform you that information has reached this department that foreign vessels-of-war, which have entered ports of States in insurrection against the government of the United States, under blockade, have, in some instances, carried passengers, and in others private corres, pondence. It is presumed that such proceedings could not have taken place with the knowledge or approval of the governments of foreign countries. With a view, however, to prevent any misunderstanding in future, it is distinctly to be understood that no foreign vessel-of-war, which may enter or depart from a blockaded port of the United States, will carry any person as a passenger, or any correspondence other than that between the government of the country to which the vessel may belong and the diplomatic and consular agents of such country at the ports adverted to.

I avail myself of this occasion to offer to your lordship a renewed assurance of my high consideration.

WILLIAM H. SEWARD.

To the Right Honorable LORD LYONS, &c., &c., &c.

Lord Lyons to Mr. Seward.

BRITISH LEGATION, Washington, D. C., October 12, 1861.

SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 4th instant, relative to communications between ships-of-war and the ports in the southern States, now under blockade.

You have apprised me in that note that information has reached the Department of State that foreign vessels-of-war which have entered those ports since they were blockaded, have in some instances carried passengers, and in others private correspondence. You were so good as to assure me verbally, yesterday, that no British ship-of-war was included among those to which your note thus referred. Indeed, I have every reason to believe that, with a single exception, no British ship-of-war has communicated with any of the ports under blockade. The ship which I except is the "Steady;" of my intention to request the commander of this ship to leave official despatches at Charleston, I had the honor to inform you on the 18th of last month. The "Steady" accordingly sailed for Charleston a few days afterwards. She carried no letters except official despatches from me or other authorities of foreign governments in the United States, and no passenger excepting Mr. Fullaston, her Majesty's acting consul at Savannah, who was landed at Charleston on his way back to his post.

As several of my colleagues have expressed to me their desire to send official despatches to the consuls of their respective governments by any of her Majesty's ships which may hereafter convey despatches for me to the ports under blockade, I shall be much obliged if you will inform me whether you see any objection to my forwarding to those ports, by her Majesty's

ships, despatches addressed by official authorities of foreign countries to other official authorities of their own countries.

I have the honor to be, with high consideration, sir, your most obedient, humble servant,

LYONS.

Lord Lyons to Mr. Seward.

WASHINGTON, October 14, 1861.

SIR: Her Majesty's government were much concerned to find that two British subjects, Mr. Patrick and Mr. Rahming, had been subjected to arbitrary arrest; and although they had learnt from a telegraphic despatch from me that Mr. Patrick had been released, they could not but regard the matter as one requiring their very serious consideration.

Her Majesty's government perceive that when British' subjects as well as American citizens are arrested they are immediately transferred to a military prison, and that the military authorities refuse to pay obedience to a writ of habeas corpus.

Her Majesty's government conceive that this practice is directly opposed to the maxim of the Constitution of the United States "that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."

Her Majesty's government are willing, however, to make every allowance for the hard necessities of a time of internal trouble; and they would not have been surprised if the ordinary securities of personal liberty had been temporarily suspended, nor would they have complained if British subjects falling under suspicion had suffered from the consequences of that suspen

sion.

But it does not appear that Congress has sanctioned in this respect any departure from the due course of law; and it is in these circumstances that the law officers of the crown have advised her Majesty's government that the arbitrary arrests of British subjects are illegal.

So far as appears to her Majesty's government, the Secretary of State of the United States exercises, upon the reports of spies and informers, the power of depriving British subjects of their liberty, of retaining them in prison, or liberating them, by his own will and pleasure.

Her Majesty's government cannot but regard this despotic and arbitrary power as inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, as at variance with the treaties of amity subsisting between the two nations, and as tending to prevent the resort of British subjects to the United States for the purposes of trade and industry.

Her Majesty's government have therefore felt bound to instruct me to remonstrate against such irregular proceedings, and to say that, in their opinion, the authority of Congress is necessary in order to justify the arbitrary arrest and imprisonment of British subjects.

I have the honor to be, sir, with the highest consideration, your most obedient, numble servant,

Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, &c.

LYONS.

Mr. Seward to Lord Lyons.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE. Washington, October 14, 1861. MY LORD: I have the honor to acknowledge your lordship's note of the present date.

In that paper you inform me that the British government is much concerned to find that two British subjects, Mr. Patrick and Mr. Rahming, have been brought under arbitrary arrest, and that although her Majesty's ministers have been advised by you of the release of Mr. Patrick, yet they cannot but regard the matter as requiring the very serious consideration of this government.

You further inform me that her Majesty's government perceive that when British subjects, as well as American citizens, are arrested, they are transferred to a military prison, and that the military authorities refuse to pay obedience to a writ of habeas corpus.

You add that her Majesty's government conceive that this practice is directly opposed to the maxim of the Constitution of the United States that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. You then observe that her Majesty's government are nevertheless willing to make every allowance for the hard necessities of a time of internal trouble, and they would not have been surprised if the ordinary securities. of personal liberty had been temporarily suspended, nor would they have complained if British subjects, falling under suspicion, had suffered from the consequences of that suspension. But that it does not appear that Congress has sanctioned, in this respect, any departure from the due course of law, and it is in these circumstances that the law officers of the crown have advised her Majesty's government that the arrests of British subjects are illegal.

You remark further, that, so far as appears to her Majesty's government, the Secretary of State for the United States examines upon the reports of spies, and assumes the power of depriving British subjects of their liberty or liberating them by his own will and pleasure; and you inform me that her Majesty's government cannot but regard this despotic and arbitrary power as inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, as at variance with the treaties of amity subsisting between the two nations, and as tending to prevent the resort of British subjects to the United States for purposes of trade and industry. You conclude with informing me that upon these grounds her Majesty's government have felt bound to instruct you to remonstrate against such irregular proceedings, and to say that, in their opinion, the authority of Congress is necessary in order to justify the arbitrary arrest and imprisonment of British subjects.

The facts in regard to the two persons named in your note are as follows: Communications from the regular police of the country to the Executive at Washington showed that disloyal persons in the State of Alabama were conducting treasonable correspondence with confederates, British subjects and American citizens, in Europe, aimed at the overthrow of the federal Union by armed forces actually in the field, and besieging the capital of the United States. A portion of this correspondence which was intercepted was addressed to the firm of Smith & Patrick, brokers, long established and doing business in the city of New York. It appeared that this firm had a branch at Mobile; that the partner, Smith, is a disloyal citizen of the United States, and that he was in Europe when the treasonable papers were sent from Mobile, addressed through the house of Smith & Patrick, in New York. On receiving this information William Patrick was arrested and committed

into military custody at Fort Lafayette by an order of the Secretary of War of the United States, addressed to the police of the city of New York. These proceedings took place on the 28th of August last.

Representations were thereupon made to the Secretary of State by friends of Mr. Patrick to the effect that notwithstanding his associations he was personally loyal to this government, and that he was ignorant of the treasonable nature of the correspondence which was being carried on through the mercantile house of which he was a member. Directions were thereupon given by the Secretary of State to a proper agent to inquire into the correctness of the facts thus presented, and this inquiry resulted in the establishment of their truth. Mr. William Patrick was thereupon promptly released from custody by direction of the Secretary of State. This release occurred on the thirteenth day of September last.

On the second day of September the superintendent of police in the city of New York informed the Secretary of State, by telegraph, that he had under arrest J. C. Rahming, who had just arrived from Nassau, where he had attempted to induce the owners of the schooner "Arctic" to take cannon to Wilmington, in North Carolina, for the use of the rebels, and inquired what should he do with the prisoner. J. C. Ralming was thereupon committed into military custody at Fort Lafayette under a mandate from the Secretary of State. This commitment was made on the second day of September. On the 17th day of that month this prisoner, after due inquiry, was released from custody on his executing a bond in the penalty of two thousand five hundred dollars, with a condition that he should thereafter bear true allegiance to the United States, and do no act hostile or injurious to them while remaining under their protection.

I have to regret that, after so long an official intercourse between the governments of the United States and Great Britain, it should be necessary now to inform her Majesty's ministers that all executive proceedings, whether of the Secretary of War or of the Secretary of State, are, unless disavowed or revoked by the President, proceedings of the President of the United States.

Certainly it is not necessary to announce to the British government now that an insurrection, attended by civil and even social war, was existing in the United States when the proceedings which I have thus related took place. But it does seem necessary to state, for the information of that gov ernment, that Congress is, by the Constitution, invested with no executive power or responsibility whatever; and, on the contrary, that the President of the United States is, by the Constitution and laws, invested with the whole executive power of the government, and charged with the supreme direction of all municipal or ministerial civil agents, as well as of the whole land and naval forces of the Union; and that, invested with those ample powers, he is charged by the Constitution and laws with the absolute duty of suppressing insurrection as well as of preventing and repelling invasion; and that for these purposes he constitutionally exercises the right of suspending the writ of habeas corpus whenever and wheresoever and in whatsoever extent the public safety, endangered by treason or invasion in arms, in his judg ment requires.

The proceedings of which the British government complain were taken upon information conveyed to the President by legal police authorities of the country, and they were not instituted until after he had suspended the great writ of freedom in just the extent that, in view of the perils of the State, he deemed necessary. For the exercise of that discretion he, as well as his advisers, among whom are the Secretary of War and the Secretary of State, is responsible by law before the highest judicial tribunal of the republic, and amenable also to the judgment of his countrymen and the enlightened opinion of the civilized world.