Imágenes de páginas

ARTICLE III.-Consular jurisdiction in cases exclusively pertaining to the masters and crews

of vessels belonging to the country of the consul. In order to prevent the interruption or loss of the voyages of merchant vessels by vexatious lawsuits for trifling causes in a foreign country between the masters, officers, and crew, which may be more appropriately referred for final decision to the tribunals of the country to which such vessels belong, it is agreed that the said consuls general, consuls, vice-consuls, and commercial agents of the one party shall have the exclusive right to sit as judges and arbitrators in reference to disputes concerning wages, the execution of contracts, and the internal order and police of such vessels, whilst in the ports of the other party, between the masters, officers, and crew of such vessels, without the interference of the local authorities, unless the conduct of the master, officers, or crew should disturb the order or tranquillity of the country, or the said consuls general, consuls, vice-consuls, or commercial agents should require their

assistance, which shall not then be refused in executing or supporting their own decisions. But this species of judgment or decision should only have a temporary effect, and shall not deprive the contending parties of their right to resort, on their return, to the judicial authority of the country to which the vessel belongs.

Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward.

No. 1253.]


London, August 17, 1866. Sir: After an absence of a few days in the country, I find on my table, as received from the department, despatches numbered from 1805 to 1819, both inclusive.

The most material of these are numbers 1805, 1809 and 1812, of the 18th, 23d, and 24th of July, relating to the cases of naturalized American citizens detained in prison in Ireland on account of supposed privity in the Fenian schemes of insurrection in that country.

The efforts of Mr. West at Dublin, under my directions, appear to have been 80 successful in procuring the liberation of these persons, that I learn from him the number remaining in Mount Joy prison is reduced to one. There are four others of whose naturalization the requisite evidence is still wanting. So soon as it is received, applications will be made in their behalf.

It appears that Mr. Thomas Hynes, the individual referred to in your No. 1805, although strongly suspected by the authorities of privity to a scheme of assassination, was finally released on the 3d instant, in consequence of the efforts in his behalf of those representatives of the government against whom he is in his letters constantly inveighing. If his character is to be judged by his own expositions of it, it may reasonably admit of doubt whether the interposition will prove an act of mercy either to himself or to others.

In regard to the case of Thomas O'Connell, referred to in your despatch No. 1809 of the 23d of July, I have the honor to report that he was liberated from Mount Joy prison so long ago as the 17th of last March. What has become of him since then, that his friends should not have heard from him, I have no means of knowing.

In regard to the third case, referred to in your No. 1812, of the 24th of July, that of Patrick Hasson, arrested in Belfast so long ago as in February, but which I had never heard of_I immediately applied to Mr. Young, the consul at that place, to know if he had any information respecting him. This produced a reply of rather an extraordinary nature to the effect that he had known of this and other cases of detention, but that he had done nothing in conse. quence of an impression that the government at home had abandoned the whole ground of claim in the case of naturalized citizens returning to their native country.

To this letter I caused an immediate reply to be made, reminding him of the propriety of consulting either the department or this legation before taking

upon himself the responsibility of expressing the sentiments of the government in such cases, and desiring him at once to make a representation in behalf of Mr. Hasson, and any other naturalized person whom he might know to be in confinement within his district.

To that letter I have not yet received any response.

Mr. Young is, I believe, about to vacate his place, which may be the reason why he has not acted. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,


Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.

Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward.

No. 1258.]


London, August 23, 1866. Sir: I transmit herewith a copy of the London Times of the 20th instant, which contains a communication on the subject of the disputed claims for the ravage of the vessels fitted out here during the war, with the signature of the letter 0. From the internal evidence, I presume this to be written by Mr. Olyphant, a member of Parliament, who was in America last year, and whom I know to entertain similar opinions. Though not representing the ministerial side, I am inclined to the belief that there is a growing sentiment in favor of these views which may in time encourage the government to take hold of the question. Should the pacification on the continent be permanently established, this would remove a serious obstruction to it. On the resumption of business, I shall endeavor to renew the subject in an informal way so as to enable myself to form an opinion as to the chances of arriving at any result while the present ministry continue in power. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. Hon. William H. Seward,

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.

[From the London Times, August 20, 1866.]

THE NEUTRALITY LAWS. To the Editor of the Times :

SIR : The recent intelligence from the United States gives occasion for very serious reflections. It appears that the House of Representatives has unanimously passed a bill repealing the stringent provisions of the neutrality laws, and modifying the penalties for their violation.

It is true that the bill has not passed the Senate; but the report of the committee which prepared the bill, and the readiness of the House of Representatives to pass it, afford a very significant and a very unsatisfactory indication of the feelings with which this country is looked upon by a large section of the people of the United States.

The professed object of the bill is to assimilate the municipal law of the United States to that of England so far as regards the precautions taken to preserve neutrality and the penalties imposed for its violation. Of course, we have no right to complain that the United Siates should seek to place their legislation on the same footing as our own. But the report of the committee shows very clearly that the desire for a change in the law had its origin in a feeling of resentment on account of the depredations on American commerce committed by the Alabama and other vessels built in British ports. The Americans assert-whether justly or not I need not now stop to argue-that they have reason to complain of the course taken by the government of this country during their late civil war. They say that either our mnnicipal law was not adequate for the preservation of neutrality, or that it was not enforced with sufficient stringency ; that their trade suffered in consequence, and that we have no right to


expect that they should take upon themselves obligations wbich we refuse to recognize. Now, it may be that some of the provisions of the American law which it is proposed to repeal are inefficient, or that they are superfluous, and impose unnecessary restrictions upon legitimate trade. But, as regards our own municipal law, we have high authority for asserting that it is not adequate for the maintenance of a strict neutrality. Lord Russell, when foreign secretary, declared that it was “scandalous” that vessels like the Alabama should be able to issue from British ports, and to prey upon the commerce of a friendly power; and it is noto. rious that the government overstepped the law in ordering the detention of the Birkenhead

It is equally notorious that we should have been involved in a war with the United States of these vessels had been allowed to proceed to sea. There can be no better evidenco that our neutrality laws are in an unsatisfactory state and require revision. And if it is our duty so to amend our law as to enable the government to compel British subjects to abstain from interfering in the quarrels of nations which may be at war with one another, though on friendly terms with ourselves, I think it is obvious that it is our interest, if possible, to iuduce other countries, and especially the great maritime powers, to amend their neutrality laws, so as to make them as stringent as our own.

But the recent proceedings of the House of Representatives show how hopeless it is to expect any co-operation with us in this direction on the part of the United States so long as the relations between the two countries continue on their present footing. A formal demand for compensation on account of the depredations committed on American commerce by the Alabama and other vessels built in British ports has been made by the government of the United States : it has been peremptorily rejected by our own government. The government of the United States have not abandoned the claim, but reserve the right to press whenever a favorable opportunity may arise. It seems to me that, so far as we are concerned, the question could not possibly have been left in a more unsatisfactory position. I confess I have always thought that Lord Russell committed a great mistake in refusing to refer the claims of the United States to arbitration. Our object should have been not only. to maintain friendly relations with the United States, and to conciliate the people of that country, but to set aside as far as possible any precedent in favor of what has been called “free trade in ships of war” which might have been created by the escape of the Alabama and other vessels of that description. Now, it appears to me that we might have attained both these objects if we had agreed to arbitration. We might have come to an agreement with the United States as to the principles which shall govern the conduct of neutrals towards belligerents, and the legislation which would be required for carrying out those principles. And, so far at least as regards maritime law, it is not too much to say that if once this country and the United States should agree to act in concert the rest of the world must follow in their wake.

I hope it is not yet too late to retrieve Lord Russell's errors. We have a new government; we have a foreign secretary who is not committed to the policy of his predecessor. The government of the United States on their part have shown by their acts that they are animated by the most friendly feelings towards this couutry.

I trust that our government may not be deterred by any feeling of false pride from using its best efforts to settle our outstanding differences with the United States, and at the same time to come to an understanding with them as to the future rights and obligations of neutrals. I am, sir, your obedient servant,

0. AUGUST 17.

Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward.

No. 1259.)


London, August 23, 1866. Sir: In connection with your despatch No. 1820, of the 30th of July, I have now the honor to report that no person proved to be a native or a naturalized citizen of the United States now remains in prison in Dublin under the act for suspending the habeas corpus. Two or three are still detained from inability to pay their passage money to get away.

I have not yet received any reply to my letter to Mr. Young at Belfast, from which I infer that he must have quitted his post before it reached there. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,


Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.

Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward.

No. 1260.]


London, August 25, 1866. Sir: In connection with your despatch No. 1806, of the 18th of July, I have the honor now to transmit copies of the letters that have passed between myself and Lord Stanley in relation to the application made by the authorities in Japan. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,


Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.

Mr. Adams to Lord Stanley.


London, August 20, 1866. MY LORD: I have the honor to apprise your lordship that from information received by my government, through Mr. Portman, the acting chargé d'affaires of the United States in Japan, it appears that on the 13th of April the authorities of that country addressed an application to him, soliciting the assent of the President, as representing one of the four powers, parties to the convention of 1864, to an extension of the time designated for the payment of the three remaining instalments of the indemnity therein provided.

To that application an answer has been made by the Secretary of Siate, dated the 18th of July, in a note, a copy of which I have the honor to submit to your lordship for the information of her Majesty's government. I am instructed further to add that my government, desirous in its action of co-operating in the course determined on by the other parties to the treaty, will be happy to learn the decision of her Majesty's government, should any have been arrived at, upon the question thus presented. I pray your lordship to accept, &c., &c.

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. The Right Hon. Lord STANLEY, &c., &c., &c.

Lord Stanley to Mr. Adams.

FOREIGN OFFICE, August 23, 1866, SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 20th instant, in which you enclose a copy of a despatch from Mr. Seward to the United States chargé d'affaires in Japan, on the subject of the application of the Tycoon's government for delay in paying the remaining instalments of the Simonoseki indemnity money,

It appears, from that despatch, that the President is of opinion that in the absence of any sufficient equivalent for such an extension, and also in the absence of any adequate guar. antees for a more just and faithful execution of the treaties, that extension ought not to be granted; but, Mr. Seward states that the United States chargé d'affaires will be instructed to concur in such course as the European powers shall conclude to adopt, and you add that your government will be happy to learn the decision of her Majesty's government, should any have been arrived at upon this question.

I have the honor to state to you, in reply, that in the despatch in which her Majesty's minister in Japan, forwarded a copy of the application for delay, which he, in common with his colleagues, had received from the Japauese government, her Majesty's minister stated that they had determined that, before submitting that application to their respective govern. ments, the representatives of the treaty powers would await the result of the negotiations in which they were engaged with the Japanese government relative to the revision of the tariff, and other measures calculated to encourage commerce and improve the relations of the treaty powers with Japan. Sir Harry Parkes added that he had intimated to the Gorogio that his recommendation of their proposal must greatly depend upon the spirit in which they should meet the representatives in those negotiations.

In a further despatch, since received from Sir Harry Parkes, he reports that the negotiations in question were approaching a conclusion, and he hoped to be able to report by the next mail that the convention was signed, or, at all events, that the new tariff had been agreed upon.

Under these circumstances it has appeared to her Majesty's government that it would be better to defer taking any action upon the application of the Japanese government until it should be presented to the treaty powers by their respective representatives, with such recommendations as they should decide to accompany it with, and it only, therefore, remains for me, pending the arrival of those recommendations, to request you will convey to your government the acknowledgment of her Majesty's government, for the desire expressed by the cabinet at Washington to act in concert with Great Britain and the other treaty powers, in this and other matters affecting their relations with the Tycoon's government.

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


Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams.

No. 1835.]


Washington, August 27, 1866. SiR : You will herewith receive a summary of claims of citizens of the United States against Great Britain for damages which were suffered by them during the period of our late civil war, and some months thereafter, by means of depredations upon our commercial marine, committed on the high seas by the Sumter, the Alabama, the Florida, the Shenandoah, and other ships of war,

which were built, manned, armed, equipped, and fitted out in British ports, and despatched therefrom by or i hrough the agency of British subjects, and which were harbored, sheltered, provided, and furnished as occasion required, during their devastating career, in ports of the realm, or in ports of British colonies in nearly all parts of the globe.

The table is not supposed to be complete, but it presents such a recapitulation of the claims as the evidence thus far received in this department enables me to furnish. Deficiencies will be supplied hereafter. Most of the claims have been from time to time brought by yourself, as the President directed, to the notice of her Majesty's government, and made the subject of earnest and contiued appeal. That appeal was intermitted only when her Majesty's government, after elaborate discussions, refused either to allow the claims, or to refer them to a joint claims commission, or to submit the question of liability therein to any form of arbitration. The United States, on the other hand, have all the time insisted upon the claims as just and valid. This attitude has been, and doubtless continues to be, well understood by her Majesty's government. The considerations which inclined this government to suspend for a time the pressure of the

the attention of Great Britain were these : The political excitements in Great Britain, which arose during the progress of the war, and which did not immediately subside at its conclusion, seemed to render that period somewhat unfavorable to a deliberate examination of the very grave questions which the claims involve.

The attention of this government was, during the same period, largely engrossed by questions at home or abroad of peculiar interest and urgency. The British government has seemed to 118 to have been similarly engaged. These circumstances have now passed away, and a time has arrived when it is believed that the subject may receive just attention in both countries.

The principles upon which the claims are asserted by the United States have been explained by yourself in an elaborate correspondence with Earl Russell and Lord Clarendon. In this respect, there seems to be no deficiency to be supplied by this department. Thus, if it should be the pleasure of her Majesty's governinent to revert to the subject in a friendly spirit, the materials for any new discussion on your part will be found in the records of your legation, properly and duly prepared for use by your own hand. It is the President's

claims upon

« AnteriorContinuar »