On the 30th of September, 1861, Mr. Adams made com plaint to Earl Russell of the manner in which the Sumter had been received at Trinidad, but as early as the 29th of August, the Duke of Newcastle had transmitted to the Foreign Office a report from the Governor of the island to the Colonial Office, and which was of course in the possession of Earl Russell when he received the communication from Mr. Adams. In that report of the Governor this passage occurs: "A great deal of trade goes on between. "Trinidad and the northern ports of North America, and "Captain Semmes, I imagine, has not failed to take this opportunity of obtaining information with regard to the ' vessels employed under the flag of the United States in this traffic. Fears are entertained with regard to one or "two now expected. It is to be hoped that the presence of "the Sumter in these waters will soon be made generally 66 66 known, and that, while the civil war continues, the "lumber and provision trade, any interruption of which would cause serious embarrassement to this community, will be carried on in British bottoms. "1 66 "On the 4th of October, Earl Russell informed Mr. Adams, "the Law Officers of the Crown have reported "that the conduct of the Governor was in conformity to "Her Majesty's Proclamation." On the 1st of November, the Minister of the United States at Rio Janiero complained to the Government of His Majesty the Emperor of Brazil of the conduct of the provincial authorities during the stay of the Sumter at Maranham. A long correspondence ensued, connected with the visit of this vessel and those of other insurgent 3 1 Brit. App., vol. II, p. 1. 2 Brit. Case, p. 14. 3 Brit. App., vol. VI, p. 5. cruisers subsequently, which resulted in the promulgation of the instructions to the Presidents of the Provinces of the Empire, under date of the 23d of June, 1863, to which reference has already been made.' It is sufficient for the purposes of this Argument for the United States to say, that during the contest between them and the insurgents, abuse of neutrality was never tolerated in the ports of the Netherlands or Brazil, and these ports were never suffered to be used, by either of the belligerents, "as the base of their operations against the commerce of the adverse party." 66 It is true that, on the 31st of January, 1862, certain "orders to be observed in all the ports of the United 66 Kingdom, and those of Her Majesty's transmarine ter"ritories and possessions," were issued by Her Brittanic Majesty's Government,' and that, by the "first and "second of the ..... orders, belligerent vessels were ab 66 66 solutely excluded from the ports, roadsteads and waters "of the Bahama Islands, except in case of stress of weather, or of special leave granted by the Lieutenant "Governor." It is also true that, "to vessels of the "Confederate States it [access to these islands], was "of great importance, the harbors of these States being generally, though not always, effectively blockaded." But the United States have not yet been able to discover that the "special leave" required by the orders was ever, during the entire contest, withheld by the Lieutenant Governor from any insurgent vessel of war, and that, too, notwithstanding the long continued and flagrant abuses 66 1 Ante, p. 287. 2 Brit. Case, p. 15. 3 Ibid, p. 17. of the hospitalities of British ports, to which the attention of the Arbitrators has already been directed. The Sumter went to Gibraltar for coal. The Consul of the United States was enabled to prevent her obtaining a supply from the merchants at that port, until the arrival of certain vessels of war of the United States in the adjoining waters of Spain, and, after that time, her movements were so closely watched by these vessels, that she was never able to escape in the character of a ship of war. Her crew was discharged and paid off in April,1 and previous to the 8th of December, while she was yet in port fully armed, a private contract was made by the insurgents, for her sale for £4,000. The purchasers were ready with the money to pay for her, and receive the bill of sale, but all the papers required by them could not "be produced by the officer in charge, . . . who, it appears, holds a power of attorney from a certain Bullock, who styles himself senior naval officer in the "Confederate service in Europe, and, I am told, is at 66 66 66 present in England, giving his attention to what relates "to the marine service of the rebel States."* In consequence of this informality, the sale was not consummated, and on the same day, the 8th, she was advertized to be sold at public auction. The Consul of the United States protested against such sale being allowed in the port, stating, among other things, that it was being "made for the purpose of avoiding a capture by the "cruisers of the United States." It seemed to the 1 Brit. Case, p. 18. 2 Sprague to Adams, Am. App., vol. II, p. 507. a Ibid., p. 509. Brit. Case, p. 18. Commander of the United States war vessel Kearsage, that," the sale of so-called Confederate war vessels in "British ports, is an act as unfriendly and hostile to 66 our [his] government, as the purchase of war vessels "in their ports by the same party."1 He therefore advised the Consul to enter his protest against the sale. On the 19th, the form of a sale was gone through with, but the nominal purchaser was M. G. Klingender, intimately connected with the firm of Frazer, Trenholm and Co. She was afterwards given a British registry, and went to Liverpool under British colors, and from that time was used as an insurgent transport. 66 On the 14th of October, 1863, the following significant letter was written by Prioleau, of the firm of Frazer, Trenholm and Co., at Liverpool, to Major Huse, which explains itself: “ Touching the Gibraltar, formerly Sum"ter, did you not advise the Government that you had “taken her for the War Department? They do not under"stand it out there, and you must come here and settle 66 it some how as early as you conveniently can. I will "adopt either of three courses which you may prefer: "To ignore our ownership altogether, and consider "her always the property of the Government. 2. To sell her to the Government at a fair valuation on her leaving here. 3. To keep her as our own from the time of "purchase in Gibraltar, and charge you the regular rate of freight for the voyage to Wilmington, say £60 "per ton. The first is the best plan, I think. Certainly 'for the government it is. Of course you know that it was not she that was sunk in this harbor. She was at 66 66 1 Am. App., vol. II, p. 510. 2 Ibid,, p 515. 66 Wilmington lately, and before she is lost or returns "here, the matter ought to be arranged." 1 As has been seen, the sale of the Georgia was afterwards permitted in the port of Liverpool. After that, but not until the 9th of September, 1864, an order was promulgated by Her Majesty's Government, that "for the "future no ship of war belonging to either of the belligerent powers of North America, shall be allowed to enter, or to remain, or be in any of Her Majesty's "ports, for the purpose of being dismantled or sold.' When this order was made the insurgents had no armed ship of war to be dismantled or sold. THE NASHVILLE. This vessel, like her predecessor, the Sumter, had, previous to the outbreak of the rebellion, been employed in the merchant service of the United States as a packet running between New York and Charleston. She passed the blockade at the latter port, on the night of the 26th of August, having been lightened for that purpose, and arrived at the port of St. George, in the Island of Bermuda, on the 30th, a little more than three days after leaving her home port. 3 She presented herself at Bermuda as a vessel of war. 1 Am. App., vol VII, p. 71. 2 Brit. App., vol. III, p. 20. |