its officers in respect to the flags and ships of the Confederate States. It will be seen that they conform to what was said to me on this subject by Prince Gortchacow in the conversation which I reported to the department in my No. 16. I ought to add that every American ship which has yet appeared at Cronstadt has shown the American flag and claimed the American character. In one case from a southern port the papers were not quite regular, but the irregularity was overlooked. * I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. JOHN APPLETON. [Translation.] To the commander-in-chief of the port of Cronstadt : His imperial highness the general admiral, foreseeing the possibility of ships belonging to the southern States of the American Union, which have seceded from the United States of North America, arriving at our ports during the present navigation, has directed me to inform your excellency, for your guidance, that, according to the opinion of the minister of foreign affairs, the flag of men-of-war belonging to the seceded States must not be saluted. That there may be no obstacle in the way of commerce, merchant vessels of the seceded States are to be treated according to the rules acted on by us with regard to Italian merchant vessels sailing under the Italian flag; i. e., according to the treaties that are at present in force, (commercial treaty concluded between America and us December 6-18, 1832.) Should the crews of vessels belonging to the seceded States not wish to acknowledge the authority of the consuls appointed by the federal government of Washington, then, in case of dispute, they must abide by the decision of our local authorities, in the same manner as foreigners whose governments have no representatives in our empire. General Major GREIG, Director of the Chancellery of the Ministry of Marine. [Translation.] CIRCULAR ADDRESSED TO THE CUSTOM-HOUSES IN THE WHITE, BALTIC, BLACK, AND AZOFF SEAS. By order of the minister of finance, the department of foreign trade prescribes: In case any merchant vessels arrive in our ports belonging to the southern States of the American Union, the same not acknowledging the authority of the government of the United States of America, the said vessels are to be treated and received as hitherto, according to the treaty of 1832, should even their ships' papers not be in order, which may occur in consequence of the present political condition of the United States of America. General Lieutenant PASHKOFF, Director of the Department of Foreign Trade. SORNIN, Chief of Section, &c. SPAIN. Mr. Perry to Mr. Seward. No. 7.] LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: I have the honor to inclose the royal decree, published by the official gazette this morning, with its translation. The minister of state has to-day, whilst acknowledging that its provisions are in great part taken from the French decree, drawn my attention to the fact that he has avoided the use of the expression belligerents as far as possible, or any other which could be considered as prejudging the question of right in any manner. He also drew my attention to the fact that, though the decree proclaims neutrality, it expressly prohibits any supplies to be furnished to privateers in the Spanish ports, whilst vessels of war may be provided and equipped with all they need; and this provision tells exclusively against the party issuing letters of marque. The preamble also is less objectionable than some other documents which have seen the light in Europe. With the highest respect, sir, your obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, HORATIO J. PERRY. Secretary of State. [Translation.] MINISTRY OF STATE-ROYAL DECREE. Taking into consideration the relations which exist between Spain and the United States of America, and the desirability that the reciprocal sentiments of good intelligence should not be changed by reason of the grave events which have taken place in that republic, I have resolved to maintain the most strict neutrality in the contest begun between the federal States of the Union and the States confederated at the south; and in order to avoid the damage which might come to my subjects and to navigation, and to commerce, from the want of clear provisions to which to adjust their conduct, in consonance with my council of ministers, I do decree the following: ARTICLE 1. It is forbidden in all the ports of the monarchy to arm, provide, or equip any privateer vessel, whatever may be the flag she displays. ART. 2. It is forbidden in like manner to] the owners, masters, or captains of merchant vessels to accept letters of marque, or contribute in any way whatsoever to the armament or equipment of vessels of war or privateers. ART. 3. It is forbidden to vessels of war or privateers with their prizes to enter or to remain for more than twenty-four hours in the ports of the monarchy, except in case of stress of weather. Whenever this last shall occur, the authorities will keep watch over the vessel and oblige her to get out to sea the soonest possible without permitting her to take in any stores except the purely necessary for the moment, but in no case arms nor supplies for war. ART. 4. Articles proceeding from prizes shall not be sold in the ports of the monarchy. ART. 5. The transportation under the Spanish flag of all articles of commerce is guaranteed, except when they are directed to blockaded ports. The transportation of effects of war is forbidden, as well as the carrying of papers or communications for belligerents. Transgressors shall be responsible for their acts, and shall have no right to the protection of my government. ART. 6. It is forbidden to all Spaniards to enlist in the belligerent armies or take service on board of vessels of war or privateers. ART. 7. My subjects will abstain from every act which, in violation of the laws of the kingdom, can be considered as contrary to neutrality. ART. 8. Those who violate the foregoing provisions shall have no right to the protection of my government, shall suffer the consequences of the measures which the belligerents may dictate, and shall be punished according to the laws of Spain. Palace, on the seventeenth of June, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one. SIGNED WITH THE ROYAL HAND. The minister of state, SATURNINO CALDERON COLLANTES. Mr. Savage to Mr. Seward. No. 56.] CONSULATE GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SIR: Having learned, on the 30th ultimo, as I might say accidentally, that a vessel had come, several days before, into the port of Matanzas under the flag of the so-called Confederate States, and, notwithstanding the efforts of our consul there to prevent it, had been admitted by the authorities to entry, and to discharge her cargo, which course had been approved of by the superior authority of the island, I addressed the same day a letter to Mr. Martin, calling upon him for information on the subject. No reply having been received on the 2d instant to my letter, I wrote again, and yesterday morning his answer came to hand. A copy of it and the accompanying papers are herewith inclosed. This correspondence contains all the facts relating to that case. On the same day that I wrote my first letter to Consul Martin I ascertained that the governor general had decided to admit into the ports of the island all vessels arriving under the flag of the insurgents, and to allow them to discharge and take cargo. On the next day I succeeded in obtaining a copy, and it is now accompanied with a translation thereof. This order was transmitted by the intendant general of the army and treasury to the collector general of the maritime revenue; has not been published nor communicated to me in any form; and, although its existence is known to many, the public journals, excepting the Weekly Report in a general way, have not even mentioned it. In a matter of such import, and feeling the conviction that no suggestions of this office would cause the captain general to cancel that order, I have deemed it expedient not to enter into any correspondence or discussion with him without specific instructions from the department; more especially after reading what Mr. Wheaton advances upon the subject, in pages 32, 33, and 34, Elements of International Law. Moreover, as the Spanish government has always denied to consuls any diplomatic power, I felt apprehensive that my first communication on the subject would be unheeded, or acknowledged with the remarks that the question comes within the province of our respective governments, and to be settled at Wasi en or Madrid. I have the honor to be, sir, with great respect, your obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State of the United States, Washington. [Translation.] His excellency the superior civil governor has, on date of 27th instant, resolved the following: 1st. All merchant vessels proceeding from and wearing the flag of the southern confederacy, employed in legitimate commerce, will be admitted in all the ports of entry of this island, if the documents they may present do not cause the slightest suspicion of piracy, fraud, or any other crime punishable according to the laws of all nations. 2d. Once in our ports, said vessels will be under the safeguard of the neutrality proclaimed by the government of her Majesty the Queen (whom God save) in the royal decree of the 17th of June, and in this understanding they cannot be molested by any foreign agent whilst engaged in their licit operations of entrance and discharge, loading and departure, in said ports. 3d. Therefore, all the civil, as well as naval and treasury, authorities in the ports of this island will consider such vessels, in relation to their admission and clearance, as vessels proceeding from a foreign nation which has no accredited consul in this territory. Which, by order of the intendant general, I communicate to you for your intelligence and fulfillment of the part that concerns you. APPENDIX No. II. PAMPHLET ENTITLED "HASTY RECOGNITION," BY GEORGE HASTY RECOGNITION OF REBEL BELLIGERENCY, AND OUR RIGHT TO PREFACE. The following pamphlet, I am free to acknowledge, is both controversial and American: controversial, so far as it seeks to meet and answer the new position set up by Earl Russell, the British secretary of state for foreign affairs, on behalf of his ministry, and by Earl Russell's juridical champion, "Historicus," of the London Times, that the recognition of the American rebels as a belligerent power was a necessity and not a choice; and American, so far as it looks at this new plea in avoidance from an American point of view. Yet the writer cherishes a hope that his readers will find in the following pages something besides controversy and Americanism. He trusts that his labors will help throw light for the purposes of permanent history upon one of the great questions of public law of the nineteenth century, namely, whether the action of the two great western powers of Europe in so speedily raising the confederate secessionists to the rank of a belligerent power-thereby, perhaps, warming into life and helping to walk alone the most gigantic and immoral sedition in history, and inaugurating the bloodiest and most cruel civil war since the Christian 'era-was either a friendly or a justifiable measure; friendly, considering that it was apparently set in motion by one of the great heads of the English liberal party, a party whose antecedents were all in favor of popular rights, and committed without a reserve to uncompromising hostility against negro slavery, and seconded on the southern side of the British Channel by that France which had stood godfather to American liberties, and without whose aid Americans may freely admit that they would never have been independent unless after a long lapse of intermediate years-or justifiable, because as an international precedent, when can civil rebellion ever be justly counteracted and crushed out, if not in such a case as that of this American contest?-An assault, as the second greatest leader in the rebellion himself characterized it, upon "the best and freest government that the sun of heaven ever shone upon." In my attempted elucidation of this great historic question I am well aware to how easy a refutation I expose myself (if I am wrong) when I venture to call in question Earl Russell's statement, that the law-advisers of the Crown in recommending the issue of the Queen's proclamation of neutrality, and so the recognition of confederate belligerency, grounded themselves upon the American proclamation of blockade as an overruling necessity which left no choice for British action. If the Crown lawyers really gave such advice, and the foreign secretary is not mistaken in his recollection, nothing will be easier than to produce their written opinion-if, in the judgment of the British cabinet, its own reputation for candor seems sufficiently involved to require it. Even then, however, I feel confident that my positions will hold good in three particulars: (1.) That the Crown lawyers, in any advice given prior to May 6, 1861, gave an opinion upon an unofficial and probably imperfect copy of President Lincoln's proclamation; (2.) That if they made the American blockade an important element in their opinion, it was only in the sense that it entitled not required her Majesty's government to proclaim neutrality and belligerency; and, (3.) That they never advised that a manifesto of a future blockade-not then enforced or known to be enforced, and which, while directed against insurgent subjects, was so far municipal and un-international that it professed to treat as pirates those rebellious subjects and all others found guilty of any adoption of Jefferson Davis's letters of marque and reprisal-required the neutral power of Great Britain to regard such manifesto as tantamount to the existence of a war, and thereupon to recognize two belligerent parties equally entitled to neutral consideration. If on this latter point the record shall make against me, I shall appeal with full confidence from the judgment of English lawyers to the enlightened opinion of European and American publicists. But, on the other hand, I venture, with all the confidence in the world, to enforce my other position with regard to the blockade proclamation, that provided the Crown lawyers gave the advice attributed to them by Earl Russell, and in that connection, yet the British government, represented by the foreign secretary, never made any account of that advice; and that the true reason for British action in acknowledging rebel belligerency and rebel equality was that set forth in Earl Russell's dispatch to Lord Lyons of May 6, 1561, in which the foreign secretary declares, in effect, that the American Union has gone to pieces, that the southern government has duly organized itself, and that her Majesty's government does not wish any secret to be made of its recognition and acceptance of these facts in its future dealings with the "late Union." I ask the reader's special attention to this dispatch, which I am confident that no advice of the Crown lawyers and no apology of juridical journalists can explain away or render unimportant. Unlike, too, some of the other diplomatic documents which I am obliged to quote in their excerpted state, as prepared for publication, this state paper is not a mere "extract." The whole of its text is given, pure and simple, under the official imprimatur of a Blue Book; and I presume to say that that text will stand in history as a truer key to British intervention at the first stage of the American struggle, in the shape of what was called British neutrality, than any new gloss first devised or first made much account of, as late as March, 1865. I deem it highly probable that the foreign secretary's friends will say for him, or he for himself, in extenuation of this state paper, that it was a hasty document, penned under the influence of what seemed at that moment a dark juncture in American affairs, and that it was only subsequent events which rendered the opinions therein put forth inopportune and unfounded. Perhaps Earl Russell's friends will even urge in his behalf that he knew more, at that crisis of the rebellion, of the dangers which threatened the American Union, than the American government itself. If so, I would ask did Earl Russell get that knowledge from rebel conspirators and from traitors against their own government? Not that I would necessarily imply that as a diplomatist he had not a right to listen to any plots that American conspirators might see fit to break to his ear; but if he had had that superior knowledge, would it not have been an act of national friendliness, which would have redounded to the advantage of the British nation to all posterity, if he had imparted it to the government of the United States and put them on their guard against unforeseen perils from a gigantic plot of treason? But, supposing the foreign secretary to have had no such illegitimate source of information opened to him, or not to have availed himself of it, if opened, as that suggested; yet, if in any way he had a better information as to the magnitude of the dangers which were about to assail the United States, than the United States government itself, had he a right, I ask, to act upon those threatened dangers till they had actually come to pass and wrought out their evil results? Had he a right to declare a state of belligerency as actually existing, when he only saw it as a future contingency, however inevitable? Had he a right to say to the United States-You are gone to pieces; you are hopelessly separated into fragments; your rebels are as duly organized a government as yourself; when the American people had hardly begun, as yet, to dream of the possibility of separation, much less of the dire necessity of civil war? The foreign secretary avows, in this dispatch of the 6th of May, 1861, that he knew what a tremendous struggle might be in store for the American republic, and the momentous consequences which a declaration of European neutrality would draw after it; why so hasty, then, in taking such a fearful step? Would it have done any harm tó have waited twenty-four hours, or even eight days, to get speech with the new American minister? But, instead of waiting for Mr. Adams's explanatory statements and authentic intelligence, Earl Russell, as appears by this dispatch of the 6th of May, did not even wait for his own envoy's. While in one breath he is complaining that the delay of the steamers or the interruption of railroad and telegraph communication between Washington and New York has cut him off from the latest (and one would say Host indispensable) intelligence from the seat of war, he is announcing before the close of the document that he is prepared to act and take all the consequences of the step of "investing" the rebels "with all the rights and prerogatives belonging to belligerents." There may, possibly, have been no unfriendliness-no positive ill-wishing-in all this; but I appeal to the world whether it was not unduly precipitate, and whether it can be excused by any plea of unavoidable necessity? BOSTON, May 30, 1865. NOTE.-It seems proper to add, for the information of a certain portion of my readers, that a considerable part of the following paper appeared as a communication in the columns of the Boston Daily Advertiser of May 3d, by the favor of whose editors I was thus enabled to come before the public with so much of my matter, at an earlier day of publication, and before a larger circle of readers than I should otherwise have had an opportunity of addressing. |