such acts of theirs as I have been compelled to complain of are done "in derogation of their duty to her as a neutral sovereign, and incur her high displeasure." If such, then, be the true character of the proceedings to which I have heretofore called your lordship's attention, they surely merit something more of notice from her Majesty's ministers than an intimation that they will be suffered to pass unreproved unless the punishment shall be inflicted by the nation whom they are designed to injure. The object of the government of the United States has not been to relieve itself of the duty of vigilance to capture offenders against the law. It has rather been to Avoid the necessity of applying additional stringent measures for their own security against British subjects found to be engaged in such illicit enterprises, made imperative by the conviction that no preventive co-operation whatever can be expected from her Majesty's government. It has rather been to avoid the risk of confounding the innocent with the guilty, because all happen to be involved in a general suspicion. And, lastly, it has rather been to remove, at as early a day as may be, consistently with its own safety, the restrictions on the trade with foreign countries, which these evildoers are laboring with so much industry to force it to protract. Your lordship's language leaves me little hope of any co-operation of her Majesty's government to these ends. Nevertheless, I trust I may be permitted to indulge the belief that the time is not now far distant when the difficulties thus interposed in the way of its progress will have been so far removed by its own unassisted action as to relieve both countries from the painful necessity of further continuing the discussion. Renewing to your lordship the assurances of my highest consideration, I have the honor to be, my lord, your most obedient servant, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. Right Hon. EARL RUSSELL, &c., &c. No. 253 Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, May 19, 1862. SIR: Your despatch of May 2 (No. 150) has been received. The principal military event of the past week has been the recovery of the important port and town of Pensacola. Of our seaports there yet remain in the occupation of the insurgents only Wilmington, in North Carolina, Charleston, in South Carolina, Mobile, in Alabama, Galveston, in Texas-all of which are, nevertheless, very effectually blockaded. Preparations are made for their immediate recovery. Thus we expect that, within the next four weeks, the authority of the Union will be entirely restored along the whole Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the country. Trade resuming its legitimate character will begin anew on the first of June at the several ports of Beaufort, Port Royal, and New Orleans, and we shall not be slow in extending the same benefits to other ports. The temptations to contraband trade are rapidly passing away, and it is to be hoped that that great and disturbing annoyance will speedily cease to irritate at home and abroad. The conflict henceforth will be between land forces in the interior of the country, and perhaps the battles impending at Richmond and Corinth may close the unnatural war. It would be idle to speculate of the probabilities of the results of those combats. They are imminent. I will say only that our armies are as strong, vigorous, and enthusiastic, as they are well appointed. Their supplies, also, are adequate, and are not in any case likely to fail. Every day exhausts the insurgents, and deprives them of needful resources and facilities for military operations. I send for your information a copy of a circular which has been addressed by this department to the consuls of the United States upon the subject of licenses for trade at the several ports where the blockade is to be relaxed from and after the first of June next by effect of the President's proclamation. I observe that speculations concerning foreign intervention were again rising in Europe at the date of our last advices thence, and certain remarks made by one of the ministry at Manchester have been thought here indicative of a disposition of that kind growing up in Great Britain. It is regretted that such incidents should occur just at the moment when this country is so manifestly about to return to a condition of repose and peace. Nevertheless they may exert a salutary influence, by inducing Congress to put the land and naval forces of the country upon a footing which will not permit it to be agitated again by intrigues to introduce foreign enemies to settle domestic strifes. SIR With reference to the case of the Labuan, which is the subject of your despatch, No. 151, of the 2d instant, I have to remark that when it was first presented to the department by Lord Lyons my impression was that the capture was illegal. My opinion, however, was that there was probable cause enough for the capture to warrant a judicial investigation of the case, at least for the purpose of assessing the damages which might be due to the claimants. This opinion was soon after confirmed by a letter from the United States consul at Matamoras to the department, which represented that at the time of the capture the Matamoras custom-house was at Brownsville, and that the cotton which was on board the Labuan at the time of the capture proceeded from the latter place in a steamer belonging there. The attorney of the United States at New York was instructed to endeavor to have the case disposed of as soon as might be practicable, and the department is in daily expectation of receiving from him the result of the proceedings. I am, sir, your obedient servant, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, Esq., &c., &c., &c. WILLIAM H. SEWARD. Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. No. 255.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, May 22, 1862. SIR: Referring to your despatch No. 146, of the 24th ultimo, and to my reply of the 9th instant, numbered 248, in relation to the recapture of the prize ship Emily St. Pierre, I invite your attention to the enclosed copy of a communication on the subject from the Secretary of the Navy. I am, sir, your obedient servant, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, Esq., &c., &c., &c. WILLIAM H. SEWARD. Mr. Welles to Mr. Seward. NAVY DEPARTMENT, May 20, 1862. SIR: I have the honor to invite your attention to the accompanying extract from a despatch, dated the 14th instant, received from Flag-Officer Samuel F. DuPont, commanding South Atlantic blockading squadron, in reference to the recapture of the Emily St. Pierre. I am, respectfully, your obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, GIDEON WELLES. Flag-Officer DuPont to Mr. Welles. [Extract.] FLAG-SHIP WABASH, Port Royal Harbor, S. C., May 14, 1862. SIR: I have read in the last papers the account of the recapture of the ship Emily St. Pierre, taken off Charleston, effected by clever artifice and enforced by gagging and putting in irons the prize officers and crew. I cannot refrain from expressing the hope that the government purposes to insist upon the return of the Emily St. Pierre to the United States courts for adjudication, inasmuch as the recapture by the crew of a neutral vessel is, as I believe, contrary to law. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, S. F. DUPONT, Hon. GIDEON WELLES, Secretary of the Navy, Washington. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: I have to acknowledge the reception of despatches from the depart ment, numbered from 243 to 246, both inclusive, and also of two printed circulars dated, respectively, on the 3d and 5th of May, consequent upon the recovery of New Orleans. I am not aware of any matter contained in these which calls for particular notice, unless it be the injunction upon me to renew my appeals to the government of Great Britain for the revocation of the recognition of belligerent rights, its original false step. I bad little expectation of success, but I felt it my duty at once to execute the orders. So, after the forms in connexion with the slave trade treaty on Tuesday had been completed, I asked the favor of a few minutes' further conversation on this subject. I alluded to the fact of your reception of my report of our last conference, and to your comments on it which had just. reached me. I told him that you thought the course of events, and the decided turn the fortunes of war had taken since the date of that conference, justified you in presuming that some alteration in the views of the govern ment must have ensued. I dwelt somewhat upon the unfavorable impression that act had made on the people of the United States. It was the true root of the bitterness towards Great Britain that was felt there. All the later acts of assistance given here by private persons to the rebels, the knowledge of which tended to keep up the irritation, were viewed only as natural emanations from that fatal source. Every consular report that 'went, and there were a good many, giving details of ships and supplies and money transmitted to keep up the war, served merely to remind us of the original cause of offence. I did hope then that he would consider, before it should be too late to be useful, the expediency of some action that might tend to soften the asperity thus engendered. I believed that in your urgency you were actuated by a sincere desire to maintain kindly relations between the two countries, and to that end you labored to procure the removal of this unlucky obstruction. I certainly acted in that spirit myself. His lordship replied by saying that he did not see his way to any change of policy at present. We seemed to be going on so fast ourselves that the question might settle itself before a great while. I said that I should be sorry to have that result happen before any action had been taken here; for, after it, we should scarcely attach value to what seemed a mere form. His lordship remarked that the insurrection had certainly been a very formidable one. It embraced a great territory and a numerous population. The very magnitude of the means used to suppress it proved its nature. Under these circumstances, the government had sought to remain perfectly neutral. It would lean to neither side. The wishes of the federal authorities had been that it should aid them, which would have been a departure from that line of policy. To this I replied, that whatever might be the intent of that policy, the practical effect of it had been materially to uphold the rebels. The declaration of it at so early a moment, before the government had had any time to organize its counteracting forces, was a prejudgment of the whole question in their favor. The people of the United States felt as if the putting the two sides on an equality was in the nature of a standing insult to them. And the manifest eagerness of influential parties in Great Britain to expedite all the means necessary to induce the misguided people to persevere in their undertaking was like the continual application of a nettle to flesh already raw. His lordship then fell back upon the same argument to which he has resorted in his note to me of the 17th instant, in answer to my previous remonstances against these movements, a copy of which goes out with this despatch. He said that large supplies of similar materials had been ob tained here on the part of the United States, which had been freely transported and effectively used against the insurgents. I answered by admitting that at one time a quantity of arms and military stores had been purchased here as a purely commercial transaction for the use of the federal army; but that I had early objected to this practice, for the reason that it prevented me from pressing my remonstrances against a very different class of operations carried on by friends and sympathizers with the rebels in this island, and it had been discontinued. We had, indeed, purchased largely in Austria, but that government had never given any countenance to the insurgents. His lordship observed that that government had no commercial interests pressing upon it for protection. Here the conversation ceased. His lordship said that I had fully acquitted myself of my duty, and I took my leave. There was another topic touched upon prior to the commencement of this one, to which I shall advert in another despatch. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. Earl Russell to Mr. Adams. FOREIGN OFFICE, May 17, 1862. SIR: I do not wish to prolong this correspondence, and shall only make one remark in answer to your last letter. If the British government, by virtue of the prerogative of the crown or by. authority of Parliament, had prohibited and could have prevented the conveyance in British merchant ships of arms and ammunition to the Confederate States, and had allowed the transport of such contraband of war to New York and to other federal ports, her Majesty's government would have departed from the neutral position they have assumed and maintained. If, on the other hand, her Majesty's government had prohibited and could have prevented the transport of arms and ammunition to both the contending parties, they would have deprived the United States of a great part of the means by which they have carried on the war. The arms and ammunition received from Great Britain, as well as from other neutral countries, have enabled the United States to fit out the formidable armies now engaged. in carrying on the war against the southern States, while by means of the blockade established by the federal government the southern States have been deprived of similar advantages. The impartial observance of neutral obligations by her Majesty's government has thus been exceedingly advantageous to the cause of the more powerful of the two contending parties. I have the honor to be, sir, your most obedient, humble servant, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. RUSSELL. |