Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

a

[ocr errors]

On Tuesday the 14th instant I received a letter from the commander of that vessel, dated the 1st August, at Saldanha Bay, announcing his having entered that bay with a view to effecting certain repairs, and stating that he would put to sea as soon as they were completed, and would strictly respect our neutrality.

When this intelligence was received the United States consul called on me to seize her, or at any rate to send her away instantly ; but as the vessel which brought the news reported that the Alabama was coming immediately to Table Bay, I replied that I could not seize her, but would take care to enforce the observance of the neutral regulations.

On the next day, about noon, it was reported from the signal station that the Alabama was steering for Table Bay from the north, and that a Federal bark was coming in from the westward ; and soon after, that the latter had been captured and put about. A little after 2 p. m. the United States consul called to state that he had seen the capture effected within British waters; when I told him he must make his statement in writing, and an investigation should be made. I also, by telegram, immediately requested the naval commander-in-chief to send a ship of war from Simon's Bay. The Alabama, leaving her prize outside, anchored in the bay at 3.30 p. m., when Captain Semmes wrote to me that he wanted supplies and repairs, as well as permission to land thirty-three prisoners. After communicating with the United States consul, I authorized the latter, and called upon him to state the nature and extent of his wants, that I might be enabled to judge of the time he ought to remain in port. The same afternoon he promised to send the next morning a list of the stores needed, and announced his intention of proceeding with all dispatch to Simon's Bay to effect his repairs there. The next morning (6th August) the paymnaster called on me with the merchant who was to furnish the supplies, and I granted him leave to stay till noon of the 7th.

On the night of the 5th Her Majesty's ship Valorous had come round from Simon's Bay. During the night of the 6th the weather became unfavorable; a vessel was wrecked in the bay, and a heavy sea prevented the Alabama from receiving her supplies by the time arranged. On the morning of the 8th, Captain Forsyth, of the Valorous, and the port-captain, by my desire, pressed on Captain Semmes the necessity for his leaving the port without any unnecessary delay; when he pleaded the continued heavy sea and the absence of bis cooking apparatus, which had been sent on shore for repairs and had not been returned by the tradesman at the time appointed, and intimated his own anxiety to get away. Between 6 and 7 a. m. on Sunday the 9th he sailed, and on his way round to Simon's Bay captured another vessel, but, on finding that she was in neutral waters, immediately released her.

In the mean time the Uuited States consul had, on the 5th August, addressed to me a written statement, that the Federal bark Sea Bride had been taken “ about four miles from the nearest land,” and “already in British waters;” on which I promised immediate inquiry. The next day the consul repeated his protest, supporting it by an affidavit of the master of the prize, which he held to show that she had been taken about two miles and a half from the land; and the agent for the United States underwriters, on the same day, made a similar protest. On the 7th the consul represented that the prize had, on the previous day, been brought within one mile and a half of the light-house, which he considered as much a violation of the neutrality as if she had been there captured, and asked me to have the prize crew taken out, and replaced by one from the Valorous, which I declined.

I had, during this period, been seeking for authentic information as to the real circumstances of the capture, inore particularly with reference to the actual distance from the shore, and obtained through the acting attorney general, statements from the kreper of the Green Point light-house, (this was supported by the collector of customs,) from the signalman at the station on the Lion's Rump, and from an experienced boatman who was passing between the shore and the vessels at the time. Captain Forsyth, of the Valorous, also made inquiries of the captain of the Alabama, and of the port-captain, and maile known the result to me; and from all these statements, I came to the conclusion that the vessels were not less than four miles distant from land; and on the oth I communicated to the United States consul that the capture could not, in my

opinion, be held to be illegal by reason of the place at which it was effected. (113) * In his reply of the 10th, the consnl endeavored to show how indefensible my

decision must be, if, in these days of improved artillery, I rested it on the fact of the vessels having been only three miles from land. This passage is, I think, of considerable importance, as involving an indirect admission that they were not within three miles at the time of capture; and I hope your grace will concur in my view that it was not my duty to go beyond what I fouud to be the distance clearly establisbed by past decisions under international law.

An important question has arisen in connection with the Alabama, on which it is very desirable that I should, as soon as practicable, be made acquainted with the views of Her Majesty's government. Captain Semmes had mentioned, after his arrival in port, that he had left outside one of his prizes previously taken, the Tuscaloosa, wbich be had equipped and fitted as a tender, and bad ordered to meet bim in Simon's

H. Ex. 282-10

noon.

Bay, as she also stood in need of supplies. When this became known to the naval commander-in-chief, he requested me to furnish him with a legal opinion; and whether this vessel could be held to be a ship of war before she had been formally condemned in a prize-court; or whether she must not be held to be still a prize, and as such prohibited from entering our ports. The acting attorney-general, founding his opinion on Earl Russell's dispatch to your grace of the 31st January, 1862, and on Wheaton's " International Law,” stated in substance that it was open to Captain Semmes to convert this vessel into a ship of war, and that she ought to be admitted into our ports on that footing.

On the 8th August the vessel entered Simon's Bay, and the admiral wrote that she bad two small ritled guns with a crew of ten men, and that her cargo of wool was still on board. He was still doubtful of the propriety of admitting her.

On the 10th August, after further consultation with the acting attorney-general, I informed Sir Baldwin Walker that, if the guns had been put on board by the Alabama, or if she had a commission of war, or if she were commanded by an officer of the confederate navy, there must be held to be a sutficient setting forth as a vessel of war to justify her admission into port in that character.

The admiral replied in the affirmative ou the first and last points, and she was adinitted.

The Tuscaloosa sailerl from Simon's Bay on the norning of the 14th instant. but was becalmed in the vicinity until the following day, when she sailed about

The Alabama left before noon on the 15th instant. Neither of these vessels was allowed to remain in port longer than was really necessary for the completion of their repairs.

On the 16th, at noon, the Georgia, another confederate wir-steamer, arrived at Simon's Bay in need of repairs, and is still there.

Before closing this dispatch, I wish particularly to request instrnctions on a point touched on in the letter from the United States consul of the 17th instant, viz, the steps which should be taken here in the event of the cargo of any vessel captured by one of the belligerents being taken out of the prize at sea, and brought into one of our ports in a British or other neutral vessel.

Both belligerents are strictly interdicted from bringing their prizes into British ports by Earl Russell's letter to the lords of the admiralty of the 1st June, 1861, and I conceive that a colonial government would be justified in enforcing compliance with that order by any means at its command, and by the exercise of force if it should be required.

But that letter refers only to "prizes," that is, I conceive, to the ships themselves, and makes no mention of the cargoes they may contain. Practically, the prohibition has been taken to extend to the cargoes; and I gathered, from a conversatiou with Captain Semmes on the subject of our neutrality regulations, that he considered himself debarred from disposing of them, and was thus driven to the destruction of all that he took. But I confess that I am unable to discover by what legal means I could prevent the introduction into our ports of captured property purchased at sea, and tendered for entry at the custom-house, in the usual form, from a neutral ship. I have consulted the acting attorney-general on the subject, and he is not prepared to state that the customs authorities would be justified in making a seizure under such circumstances; and therefore, as there is great probability of clandestine attempts being made to introduce cargoes of this deseription, I shall be glad to be favored with the earliest practicable intimation of the views of Her Majesty's government on the subect.

The allegation that the capture of the Sea Bride had taken place within the territorial waters of the colony was ascertained by clear proof to be erroneous.

The questions stated in the dispatch of Sir P. Wodehouse were referred to the law-officers of the Crown, who reported on them as fol. lows:

Opinion.

LINCOLN'S Isx, October 19, 1863. MY LORD: We are honored with your lordship's commands, signified in Mr. Hamwond's letter of the 30th September ultimo, stating that he was directed by your lordship to transmit to ns the accompanyivg letters and their inclosures from the admiralty and colonial office, dated respectively the 26th and 29th September ultimo, relative to the proceedings at the Cape of Good Hope of the confederate vessels of war Georgia, Alabama, and her reputed tender Tuscaloosa ; and to request that we would take the various questions raised in these papers, and especially the opinion

[ocr errors][merged small]

given by the acting attorney general of that colony with regarıl to the latter vessel, into our consideration, and favor your lordship with such observations as we might bave to make thereupon. We are also honored with your lordship's commands signified in Mr. Hammond's

letter of the 20 October instant, stating that, with reference to his letter of the 30th [114] ultimo, he was directed by * your lordship to transmit to us the accompanying

letter, dated the 29th September ultimo, from Mr. Adams, relative to the proceedings of the Alabama off the Cape of Good Hope, and to request that we would take the same into our consideration, together with papers on this subject then before us, and favor your lordship with our opinion thereupon.

In obedience to your lordship’s commands we have taken these papers into consideration, and have the honor to report

That, so far as relates to the capture of the Sea Bride ware by the Alabama, it appears, as we understand the evidonce, to have been effected beyond the distance of three miles from the shore; and, as we have already had the honor to report to your Jordship, that distance must be accepted as the limit of territorial jurisdiction, according to the present rule of international law upon that suljeet. Is appears, how ever, that this prize, very soon after her capture, was bronght within the distance of two miles from the shore; and as this was contrary to Her Majesty's orders, it might hare attorded just grounds (if the apology of Captain Semmes for this improper act, which he ascribed to inaulvertence, had not been accepted by Sir Philip Wodehouse) for the interference of the authorities of the Cape Colony upon the principles which we are about to explain.

Secondly, with respect to the Alabama herself, we are clearly of opinion that neither the governor nor any other authority at the cape could exercise any jurisdiction over her; and that, whatever was her previous history, they were bound to treat her as a ship of war belonging to a belligerent power.

l'pon the third point raised with regard to the vessel called the Tuscaloosa, we are not able to agree with the opinion expressed by the attorney general of the Cape Colony, that she had ceased to have the character of a prize captured by the Alalama increly becanse she was, at the time of her being bronght within British waters, armed with two small guns, in charge of an officer, and manped with a crew of ten men from the Alabama, and nsed as a tender to vessel, under the authority of ('aptain Semmes.

It would appear that the Tuscaloosa is a bark of 500 tons, captured by the Alabama off the coast of Brazil on the 21st of June last, and brought into Simon's Bay on or before the 7th of August, with her original cargo of wool (itself, as well as the vessel, prize) still on board, and with nothing to give her a warlike character (so far is appears from the papers before ns) except the circumstances already noticed.

We therefore do not feel called upon, in the circumstances of this case, to enter into the question whether, in the case of a vessel duly commissioned as a ship of war, after being made prize by a belligerent government, without being first brought infra presidia or condemned by a court of prize, the character of prize, within the meaning of Her Majesty's orders, would or would not be merged in that of a national ship of war. It is enough to say that the citation from Mr. Wheaton's book by the colonial attorney general does not appear to us to have any direct bearing upon this question.

('onnected with this subject is the question as to the cargoes of captured vessels, which is noticed at the end of Sir Philip Wodehouse's dispatch of the 19th Angust last. We think that, according to the true interpretation of Her Majesty's orders, they apply as much to prize cargoes of every kind which may be brought by any armed whips or privateers of either belligerent into British waters as to the captured vessels thelliselves. They do not, however, apply to any articles which may have forined part of any such cargoes, if brought within British jurisdiction, not by armed ships or priraterns of either belligerent, but by other persons who may have acquired or may claim property in them by reason of any dealings with the captors.

We think it right to observe that the third reason alleged by the colonial attorney grberal for his opinion assumes (though the fact had not been made the subject of any inquiry) that " no means existed for determining whether the ship had or had not been judicially condemned in a court of competent jurisdiction;" and the proposition that, - admitting her to hare been captured by a ship of war of the Confederate States, she was entitled to refer Her Majesty's government, in case of dispute, to the court of her States, in order to satisfy it as to her real character," appears to us to be at variance with Her Majesty's undoubted right to determine, within her own territory, whether Les orders, made in vindication of her own neutrality, have been violated or not.

The question remains, what course ought to have been taken by the authorities at the Cape, first, in order to ascertain whether this vessel was, as alleged by the United States consul, an uncondemned prize, brought within British waters in violation of Her Majesty's ventrality; and secondly, what ought to have been done if such bad appeared to be really the fact? We think that the allegations of the Uuited States consul ought to have been brought to the knowledge of Captain Senwes while the

Tuscaloosa was still within British waters; and that he should bave been requested
to state whether he did or did not admit the facts to be as alleged. He should also
have been called upon (unless the facts were admitted) to produce the Tuscaloosa's
papers. If the result of these inquiries had been to prove that the vessel was really
an uncondemned prize, brought into British waters in violation of Her Majesty's or-
ders, made for the purpose of maintaining her neutrality, it would, we think, deserve
very serious consideration whether the mode of proceeding in such circumstances, most
consistent with Her Majesty's dignity and most proper for the vindication of her ter-
ritorial rights, would not have been to prohibit the exercise of any further control
over the Tuscaloosa by her captors, and to retain that vessel under Her Majesty's
control and jurisdiction until properly reclaimed by her original owners.
(Signed)

ROUNDELL PALMER.
R. P. COLLIER.

ROBERT PHILLIMORE. Instructions in accordance with this opinion were accordingly sent to

Sir P. Wodehouse.' [115] *In connection with the above correspondence it may be

convenient to state here the subsequerit history of the Tuscaloosa.

The question which arose as to this ship was not whether there had been a violation of the law of nations or of Her Majesty's neutrality, but whether the orders issued by Her Majesty's government, that no prizes should be suffered to be brought into ports within Her Majesty's dominions, had or had not been infringed. This again depended on the question whether the Tuscaloosa bad or had not been divested of the character of a prize. The governor of the Cape Colony was advised that she had, and he accordingly permitted her to depart. Her Majesty's government was advised that she had not. She returned to Simon's Bay on the 26th December, 1863, and was then seized by the rear-admiral commanding on the station, with the concurrence of the governor.Directions were subsequently sent by Her Majesty's gov. ernment that she should be restored to her commander, Lieutenant Low, on the special ground that, having been once allowed to enter and leave the port, he was fairly entitled to assume that he might do so a second time. She was not, however, actually given up; Lieutenant Low having left the cape at the time, and there being no one to receive her. At the conclusion of the war she was handed over to the consul of the United States as the representative of her original owners.

A further question afterward arose respecting certain goods which had been imported by a French ship into the Mauritius, and had been claimed by the United States consul there, on the ground that they had formed part of the cargo captured by the Alabama in the Sea Bride. This question having been referred to the law-officers of the Crown, they reported on it as follows:5

The law-officers of the Crown to Earl Russell.

LINCOLN's Inn, May 11, 1964. MY LORD: We are honored with your lordship’s commands signified in Mr. Murray's letter of the 5th instant, stating that he was directed by your lordship to transmit to us the papers as marked in the margin, respecting some goods which had been brought to the Mauritius in the French bark Sirène, and for the detention of which application was made by the United States consul to the governor of the colony, on the ground that they bad formed part of the cargo of the confederate prize Sea Bride: and Mr. Murray stated that we should observe from the letter from the colonial office of the 5th instant, that Mr. Secretary Cardwell is of opinion that, as the question of the general instructions to be issued to the governors of Her Majesty's colonies was Brought under our consideration in Mr. Layard's letter of the 16th ultimo, it is desirable that we should also have before us the papers now sent to us, relative to the dis

Appendix, vol. i, p. 327. ? Ibid., pp. 330–342. 3 Ibid., pp. 342-344. * Ibid., p. 363.

5 Ibid., p. 365.

a

posal of the cargoes of prize vessels brought into a colonial port in British or other neutral vessels; and Mr. Murray was accordingly to request that we would take these papers into consideration, together with those lately before us, and embody in the proposed instrnctions to the colonial governors such directions as we may consider advisable on this particular head.

In obedience to your lordship's commands we have taken these papers into consideration, and have the honor to report that, after considering these papers, it does not appear to us to be necessary to make any change in, or addition to, the draught instructions prepared by us, pursuant to the request conveyed in Jr. Layard's letter of the 16th ultimo.

Questions such as that lately raised at the Mauritius by the United States consul with respect to the cargo of the Sea Bride must be left, in our opinion, to the civil tribunals. The executive government has no authority to disregard or call in question the prima facie title, evidenced by possession, of a private non-belligerent person who brings property of this description into a neutral port, whether he be a foreigner or a British subject. And there is no foundation in law for the idea that a valid title cannot be made to property taken in war, by enemy from enemy, without a prior sentence of condemnation.

The absence of such a sentence may be material when the question is whether captured goods, brought by a belligerent ship of war, exempt from civil jurisdiction, into a neutral port from which prizes are excluded, ought to be regarded by the neutral government as still having the character of prize; but this is altogether different from a mere question of property in the goods themselves.

We have, dir.,
(Signed)

ROUNDELL PALJER.
R. P. COLLIER.

ROBERT PHILLIMORE. It has been previously stated that the Alabama sailed from Simon's Bay on the 15th August. On the 16th September she returned thither, and soon afterward sailed for the Indian Seas. The United States warsteamer Vanderbilt had, in the interval, visited both Cape Town and Simon's Bay, coaled, and departed for the Mauritius. She had pre

viously coaled at St. Helena, and at the Mauritius she obtained (] 116 a renewed supply. The * Alabama touched and coaled at Singa

pore op or about the 21st of December, 1863; returned a second time to the Cape of Good Hope on the 20th of March, 1864; and thence proceeded to Europe, anchoring, on the 11th June, 1863, in the port of Cherbourg. The United States minister at Paris, Mr. Dayton, protested in writing against her being received into a French port. She was, however, admitted, and suffered to coal and to make such repairs as might be necessary, but did not obtain permission to enter the gorernment docks.

On the 19th June, 1864, she engaged the United States war-steamer Kearsarge, off the coast of France, and was sunk, after an action lasting about an hour. Some of ber officers and crew were picked up and saved by an English yacht, which happened to be near at hand, and some by a French pilot-boat.

With reference to this incident some correspondence passed between Mr. Adams and the government of Her Britannic Majesty, Mr. Adams erroneously contending that it was the duty of the owner of the yacht to surrender the persons whom he had picked up to the captain of the Kearsarge. To the representations made on this subject Earl Russell replied:

Earl Russell to Ur. Adams.

3

FOREIGN OFFICE, June 27, 1864. Sir: I bave the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 25th instant, complaining of the interference of a British vessel, the Deerhound, with a view to aid in effecting the escape of a number of persons belonging to the Alabama, who you

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]
« AnteriorContinuar »