domestic affairs of foreign nations, are cardinal principles in the policy of the United States. You have therefore justly expected that the President would disavow and regret the proceedings at Bahia. He will suspend Captain Collins and direct him to appear before à court-martial. The consul at Bahia admits that he advised and incited the captain and was active in the proceedings. He will therefore be dismissed. The flag of Brazil will receive from the United States Navy the honor customary in the intercourse of friendly maritime powers. It is, however, not to be understood that this Government admits or gives credit to the charges of falsehood, treachery, and deception which you have brought against the captain and the consul. These charges are denied on the authority of the officers accused. You will also be pleased to understand that the answer now given to your representation rests exclusively upon the ground that the capture of the Florida was an unauthorized, unlawful, and indefensible exercise of the naval force of the United States within a foreign country in defiance of its established and duly recognized gov ernment. This Government disallows your assumption that the insurgents of this country are a lawful naval belligerent; and, on the contrary, it maintains that the ascription of that character by the government of Brazil to insurgent citizens of the United States, who have hitherto been and who still are destitute of naval forces, ports, and courts, is an act of intervention in derogation of the law of nations and unfriendly and wrongful, as it is manifestly injurious, to the United States. So also this Government disallows your assumption that the Florida belonged to the aforementioned insurgents, and maintains, on the contrary, that that vessel, like the Alabama, was a pirate, belonging to no nation or lawful belligerent, and therefore that the harboring and supplying of these piratical ships and their crews in Brazilian ports were wrongs and injuries for which Brazil justly owes reparation to the United States as ample as the reparation which she now receives from them. They hope and confidently expect this reciprocity in good time, to restore the harmony and friendship which are so essential to the welfare and safety of the two countries. In the positions which I have thus assumed the imperial government will recognize an adherence to rights which have been constantly asserted, and an enduring sense of injuries which have been the subject of earnest remonstrance by the United States during the last three years. The government of Brazil is again informed that these positions of this Government are no longer deemed open to argument. It does not, however, belong to the captains of ships of war of the United [78] States, or to the *commanders of their armies, or to their consuls residing in for eign ports, acting without the authority of Congress, and without even Executive direction, and choosing their own time, manner, and occasion, to assert the rights and redress the wrongs of the country. This power can be lawfully exercised only by the Government of the United States. As a member of the family of nations, the United States practice order, not anarchy, as they always prefer lawful proceedings to aggressive violence or retaliation. The United States are happy in being able to believe that Brazil entertains the same sentiments. The authorities at Bahia are understood to have unsuccessfully employed force to overcome the Wachusett and rescue the Florida, and to have continued the chase of the offender beyond the waters of Brazil, out upon the high seas. Thus, in the affair at Bahia, subordinate agents, without the knowledge of their respective governments, mutually inaugurated an unauthorized, irregular, and unlawful war. In desisting from that war on her part, and in appealing to this Government for redress, Brazil rightly appreciated the character of the United States, and set an example worthy of emulation. The disposition of the captured crew of the Florida is determined upon the principles which I have laid down. Although the crew are enemies of the United States, and, as they contend, enemies of the human race, yet the offenders were, nevertheless, unlawfully brought into the custody of this Government, and therefore they could not lawfully be subjected here to the punishment which they have deserved; nor could they, being enemies, be allowed to enjoy the protection of the United States. They will therefore be set at liberty, to seek a refuge wheresoever they may find it, with the hazard of recapture when beyond the jurisdiction of this Government. The Florida was brought into American waters, and was anchored, under naval surveillance and protection, at Hampton Roads. While awaiting the representation of the Brazilian government, on the 28th November, she sunk, owing to a leak which could not be seasonably stopped. The leak was at first represented to have been caused, or at least increased, by a collision with a war-transport. Orders were immediately given to ascertain the manner and circumstances of the occurrence. It seemed to affect the Army and the Navy. A naval court of inquiry and also a military court of inquiry were charged with the investigation. The naval court has submitted its report, and a copy thereof is herewith communicated. The military court is yet engaged. So soon as its labors shall have ended, the result will be made known to your Government. In the mean time it is assumed that the loss of the Florida was a consequence of some unforeseen accident, which cast no responsibility upon the United States. I avail, &c., Senhor IGNACIO DE AVELLAR BARBOZA DA SILVA, &c. WILLIAM H. SEWARD.1 It has been stated above that the crew of the Florida were shipped principally at Mobile. Representations having been made to Her Majesty's government to the effect that some of the men who served in her were British subjects, the law-officers of the Crown were consulted on the question whether proceedings could be instituted against these persons for an infringement of the foreign-enlistment act. The lawofficers advised as follows: 2 We do not think that sufficient evidence has yet been obtained to warrant the institution of proceedings against any of these seamen. If it were shown that their enlistment on board the Florida had taken place in England, or within British jurisdiction, they might perhaps have been presumed to be natural-born British subjects, owing obedience at that time to British law; so far, at all events, as to make slight evidence in confirmation of that presumption sufficient. Next it appears, by the fourth column of the list annexed to Thompson's first affidavit, that, with two exceptions only, all these men took service on board the Florida beyond the limits of British jurisdiction, and by far the greater number of them at Mobile, within the territory of the Confederate States. With respect to the two, Dennis Sullivan and Charles Ballinger, who are alleged, the one to have enlisted at Nassau, and the other to have been shipped at the first, (which we suppose means when the ship first sailed from England,) no evidence whatever has yet been obtained in support of either of these allegations. In the former report of the law-officers upon this subject it was noticed that the first section of the foreign-enlistment act, which prohibits the enlistment of British subjects in the belligerent service of any foreign power, is not limited (as the seventh section as to equipping vessels is) to acts done within British jurisdiction, but that it seems to be intended to apply, and is in its literal terms applicable, to all natural-born British subjects who may enter into the service of any foreign belligerent power without Her Majesty's license, wheresoever the prohibited act may be done. Assuming this to be the construction and effect of the statute, we apprehend that it would be impossible to procure a conviction under it in the case of persons who were not resident within British jurisdiction at the time of their taking foreign service, without strict proof that such persons were in fact, at the time of their doing so, natural-born British subjects, owing exclusive obedience, wherever they might be, to the statute law of Great Britain; and we think it is at least very doubtful whether those sections of the statute would be held to be applicable to any persons who were naturalized, or even domiciled, at the time of their taking such service, within the territory of the belligerent power in whose service they enlisted. * [79] Bearing these considerations in mind, we turn to the original depositions of Thompson and Müller, and we find in the former no evidence whatever bearing upon the essential question of the nationality and origin of any of these seamen while the statements of the latter, as to seventeen of the thirty-three persons who are described as of British origin in the second column of the lists, depend upon admissions or inferences of so loose a character that we do not think any reliance ought to be placed upon them. So far as they rest only on the deponent's belief, they are inadmissible; so far as they prove that certain individuals associated on board the ship as Irishmen, and sung Irish songs, &c., they are insufficient; and we think it would be unsafe to trust to the statements of this witness as to the admissions said to have been made by some of the parties (as we count them, by seven only, viz, Considine, Conway, Doris, McNevin, McCabe, McGarroch, and Welch) to the effect that Ireland was their home, their country, or the place of residence of their parents. Every one of these seven persons, it is to be remembered, joined the Florida, according to the lists, at Mobile; and it may serve as some test of the value of this kind of evidence, that the same witness makes very similar statements as to four other seamen, (Taylor, Rivers, Grover, and King,) with a view to prove them to be either Englishmen or Irishmen, although they are described as native Americans in the second column of the list referred to in his own affidavit. The opinion which we had formed, as above expressed, upon the perusal of the original depositions of Thompson and Müller is strongly confirmed by the subsequent 1 These two letters, as well as the preceding one, are extracted from the Daily Morning Chronicle, (American journal,) of 31st December, 1864. Appendix, vol. i, p. 124. affidavit of Thompson, who in that affidavit speaks of admissions made to him by eighteen of these seamen, to the effect that they were born in Ireland, Scotland, or England; and by six others, to the effect either that they were Irishmen, or that Ireland or Liverpool was their home. But of these twenty-four persons there are only seven on whose history any further light is thrown by these depositions, and every one of these seven appears to have emigrated from Great Britain or Ireland to the United States previous to the existing civil war, under circumstances from which it is prima facie to be inferred that, at the time when he took service on board the Florida, he was either a naturalized or a domiciled American. Some of them appear to have resided for many years in the United States; and two (Good and Doris) are expressly stated to have acquired the rights of citizens there, and to have voted at presidential and other elections. With respect to the rest of the crew there is nothing whatever to show that they may not have enlisted under similar circumstances. As to all persons so situated, we think that it would be a reasonable construction of the foreign-enlistment act to hold that, although they are natural-born subjects of Her Majesty, the word "foreign," which pervades the first section of the statute, is not, as regards them, applicable to the service into which they have entered. And even assuming that this construction might not be admitted, we think that it would not be a proper exercise of discretion on the part of the Crown to attempt to put the statute in force, so far as relates to acts done by persons so situated beyond the limits of British jurisdiction, and within the territory in which such persons may have been naturalized or domiciled. (Signed) LINCOLN'S INN, October 20, 1863. ROUNDELL PALMER. SUMMARY. The Florida was a vessel built at Liverpool by a firm of ship-builders there, to the order of another Liverpool firm carrying on an extensive business as engineers and iron-founders. She was stated to be ordered for and on account of a person resident at Liverpool, who was a partner in a mercantile house at Palermo, and upon the completion of the vessel this person was duly registered as her owner, on his own declaration. Her builders stated that, according to the best of their information, they believed her to be really destined for Palermo. She was a vessel built for speed, and her internal fittings and arrangements were not such as are usual in vessels constructed to carry cargo, but were suitable to a ship of war. She was unarmed, however, and had on board no guns, carriages, ammunition, or other warlike stores of any kind. No facts whatever proving, or tending to prove, that she was intended to cruise or carry on war against the United States were ever, before the departure of the ship, communicated by Mr. Adams or Mr. Dudley to Her Majesty's government. Mr. Adams alleged, indeed, that advances of money had been made to the firm which ordered the vessel, and to that which constructed her, by the firm of Fraser, Trenholm & Co., who were believed to have been engaged in blockade-running, and to be employed as agents for the government of the Confederate States; but this assertion, whether material or not, was not substantiated in any way. These were all the facts respecting the vessel which had been communicated to or were in the possession of Her Majesty's government previously to and at the time of her departure from England. It is certain that, had the vessel been seized by Her Majesty's government, a court of law would have ordered, and would indeed have been bound to order, the immediate restoration of her, for want of evidence to support a forfeiture. It was not the duty of Her Majesty's government to seize a vessel which it would have been the duty of a court of law to restore. The means and opportunities possessed by Mr. Adams and [80] Mr. Dudley of ascertaining *the truth were fully as great as those possessed by Her Majesty's government. They were, indeed, greater; since Mr. Dudley was the United States consul on the spot, in constant communication with Americans of all classes, always on the watch for information, and provided with means of gaining it which could not have been employed by Her Majesty's government. The vessel sailed from Liverpool with a clearance for Palermo and Jamaica, unarmed, and with no warlike stores of any kind, under the command of a master belonging to the British mercantile marine, and manned by a crew who were not enlisted for the confederate service and had no thought or intention of engaging in it, and who afterward left the ship as soon as they conceived a suspicion that she might be employed in that service. Although no directions, nor any notice or warning, had or could have been sent to the authorities of Nassau before her arrival there, the vessel was, upon her arrival and while she remained there, strictly watched by order of the governor; a ship of war was placed near to her; she was finally seized by order of the governor; and proceedings were instituted against her in the proper court of the colony. On being released by the decree of the court, she sailed from Nassau unarmed, and with a clearance for New Brunswick. Before committing any hostilities against vessels of citizens of the United States, she sailed for and entered a port of the Confederate States, where she remained during more than four months and was put in condition for war, and enlisted a crew, and from whence she was finally sent out to cruise. She was commissioned as a ship of war of the Confederate States, and was commanded by an officer commissioned by the de facto government of those States. She was received on the footing of a public ship of war in the ports of neutral nations-Spain, France, and Brazil; and on the same footing, and in the same manner, without favor or partiality, she was received likewise in those ports of the British colonies which she had occasion to enter. The United States ships of war blockading the port of Mobile failed to capture the Florida when she entered it, under circumstances which made the capture so easy of accomplishment that the officer to whose incapacity the failure was due was dismissed the service. They again failed to capture her when she left the port to commence her cruise. From that time, until her unlawful seizure in the port of Bahia, she was, for a year and nine months, engaged in cruising, sometimes near the coast of the United States. It does not appear, however, that dnring all that period she was ever encountered or chased by a United States ship of war. No serious endeavor, indeed, to intercept or capture her appears to have been made on the part of the Government of the United States. Her Britannic Majesty's government cannot admit that, in respect of the Florida, it is justly chargeable with any failure of international duty for which Great Britain owes reparation to the United States. [81] *PART VI. STATEMENT OF FACTS RELATIVE TO THE ALABAMA. On the 24th June, 1862, Earl Russell received from Mr. Adams the following note with an inclosure:1 Alabama. Mr. Adams to Earl Russell. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, London, June 23, 1862. MY LORD: Some time since it may be recollected by your lordship that I felt it my duty to make a representation touching the equipment from the port of PART VI.-The Liverpool of the gun-boat Oreto with the intent to make war upon the United States. Notwithstanding the statements returned from the authorities of that place, with which your lordship favored me in reply, touching a different destination of that vessel, I have the strongest reason for believing that that vessel went directly to Nassau, and that she has been there engaged in completing her armament, provisioning, and crew for the object first indicated by me. I am now under the painful necessity of apprising your lordship that a new and still more powerful war-steamer is nearly ready for departure from the port of Liverpool on the same errand. This vessel has been built and launched from the dock-yard of persons, one of whom is now sitting as a member of the House of Commons, and is fitting out for the especial and manifest object of carrying on hostilities by sea. It is about to be commanded by one of the insurgent agents, the same who sailed in the Oreto. The parties engaged in the enterprise are persons well known at Liverpool to be agents and officers of the insurgents in the United States, the nature and extent of whose labors are well explained in the copy of an intercepted letter of one of them which I received from my Government some days ago, and which I had the honor to place in your lordship's hands on Thursday last. I now ask permission to transmit, for your consideration, a letter addressed to me by the consul of the United States at Liverpool, in confirmation of the statements here submitted, and to solicit such action as may tend either to stop the projected expedition, or to establish the fact that its purpose is not inimical to the people of the United States. Renewing, &c., (Signed) CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. The "copy of an intercepted letter" referred to in the above note was a paper purporting to be a copy of a letter or report from a confederate officer of artillery, addressed to some person unknown, and relating to purchases of military supplies for the confederate army, and to vessels employed in blockade-running. The inclosure was as follows: Mr. Dudley to Mr. Adams. UNITED STATES CONSULATE, SIR: The gun-boat now being built by the Messrs. Laird & Co., at Birkenhead, opposite Liverpool, and which I mentioned to you in a previous dispatch, is intended for the so-called confederate government in the Southern States. The evidence I have is entirely conclusive to my mind. I do not think there is the least room for doubt about it. Beaufort and Caddy, two of the officers from the privateer Sumter, stated that this vessel was being built for the Confederate States. The foreman in Messrs. Lairds' 1 1 Appendix, vol. i, p. 177. |