Earl attention called to facts. Russell's strong enough to make them liable to be treated as enemies, and, if taken, to be reckoned as prisoners of war.' "1 Earl Russell replied to this note on the 9th of these March. He ignored the evidence and charges 2 of the hostile use of the British West India ports. He alluded to a charge against Lieutenant Rooke, which he set aside as unimportant, and to a charge against one James Ash of a purpose to build ships for the insurgents. As to the latter charge, he reiterated the oft-repeated plea that there was no legal and proper evidence" to sustain it; and having disposed of these, he confined himself to a notice of Mr. Adams's intimation that it might become necessary to treat blockade-runners as prisoners of war. This, he said, could not be assented to. A short discussion ensued, which was closed by a note of Mr. Adams, transmitting further evidence of the character of the trade between the British West Indian ports and the insurgent States, and calling Earl Russell's "particular attention to the express condition exacted from all vessels in trade. with the insurgent ports, that one-half of the tonnage of each vessel may be employed by the socalled Government for its own use, both on the Adams to Russell, Vol. I, page 745. 2 Russell to Adams, Vol. I, pages 749-'51. outward and homeward voyage;"1 in which Earl Russell replied in an answer in which he said, in substance, that admitting all the facts stated to be true, there was nothing in them worthy of attention; for "the subjects of Her Majesty are entitled by International Law to carry on the operations of commerce equally with both belligerents, subject to the capture of their vessels and to no other penalty."" This discussion closed the correspondence which took place between the two Governments on this branch of the subject. It left Great Britain justifying all that took place, after actual knowledge of much, and possible knowledge of all, had been brought within its reach. It left, too, the Queen's Proclamation as to this subject virtually revoked, and Her Majesty's subjects assured that it was no violation of international duty to break the blockade. It is worthy of remark that Lord Westbury, the Lord High Chancellor, gave a judicial decision to the same effect, which was soon after followed by the High Court of Admiralty.* The executive and judicial branches of the British Government were thus a second time brought into Adams to Russell, Vol. I, page 756. 2 Russell to Adams, Vol. I, page 757. 3 11 Jurist N. S., 400. 3 Law Reports Admiralty and Ecclesiastical Courts, Browning, Vol. 1, page 1. He again sees no offense in them. Blockade run ning in partner accord in construing away Her Majesty's Proclamation. Blockade-running throve, and Nassau and Bur ship with the in- muda prospered under these repeated decisions of surgent Govern ment. Her Majesty's Government. The Florida, too, arrived at Bermuda on the 16th of July, 1864, and remained there until the 27th, taking coal and supplies on board; and this at a time when like permission was refused to the vessels of the United States. It was a favorite idea of the insurgent authorities from the beginning to become interested with Englishmen as partners in blockade-running. One contract to that effect has already been alluded to. In July, 1864, McRae reported other contracts. Captain Bullock, "with whom (he said) I [McRae] am directed by the Secretary of the Treasury to consult," was a party to the transaction. These contracts "made provision for fourteen steamers, four to leave during the month of August, eight in December, and two in April, 1865." They were to be " built of steel, and to carry one thousand bales of cotton each, on a draught of seven feet water, and with an average speed of thirteen knots per hour."5 Arrangements were at the same time made for the purchase of supplies for Huse and Ferguson pending the fin McRae to Seddon, July 4, 1864, Vol. VI, page 163. ishing of the vessels. The "Owl" was the first Blockader un ning in partner surgent Govern ment. of these vessels to arrive. The insurgent Navy ship with the inDepartment claimed the right "to place a naval officer in charge of her in conformity with regulations."1 The treasury doubted this, but Mallory insisted upon his right. This drew from Bullock an indignant letter, complaining that the navy had taken these vessels. Good ships were building for the navy; why take these vessels, which were not suited for naval purposes.3 On the 5th of October, 1864, orders were given for more arms, and McRae was ordered to supply Huse with $50,000 for the purpose. On the 26th of November, Ferguson reports his doings in the purchase of woolen goods, and gives the reason for "making Liverpool his headquarters."5 As late as the 7th of January, 1865, McRae is ordered to pay to Bullock £105,000. The steamer "Laurel," the same which took the arms and men to the Shenandoah, was then in Wilmington. She was sent out with a cargo of cotton, with instructions to the officer in command to sell the steamer and the cotton, and to pay Bullock £12,000 out of the proceeds, putting the balance to the credit of the I Mallory to Trenholm, September 21, 1864, Vol. VI, page 171. 2 Same to same, September 22, 1864, Vol. VI, page 172. 3 Bullock to McRae, November 1, 1864, Vol. VI, page 173. 4 Gorgas to Seddon, October 5, 1864, Vol. VI, page 172. 5 Ferguson to Lawton, November 26, 1864, Vol. VI, page 175. No treasury, with Fraser, Trenholm & Co.' On the 15th of March, 1865, Mr. Adams complained of this matter for the last time. The United States steamer San Jacinto having been wrecked on the Bahamas, and her officers and crew having found shelter at Nassau, the "Honduras," also a man-of-war, was sent there for the purpose of paying in coin the claims for salvage. Trenholm to Fraser, Trenholm & Co., December 24, 1864, Vol. VI, page 177. Trenholm to Mallory, December 17, 1864, Vol. VI, page 176. |