342 



DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE. 



But an examination of the actual occurrences, and 

 of the history of that remarkable period, presents a 

 state of facts materially different from those relating 

 to the Alabama. 



Those facts may be sBortly stated as follows : 



The revolutionary government of France had openly 

 avowed its determination to disregard all the princi- 

 ples of international law which had been acknowledged 

 by civilized States, and that Government proceeded to 

 put in force its determination by claiming to equip, as 

 a matter of right, and by actually equipping privateers 

 in the neutral ports of the United States, by sending 

 those privateers forth from those ports to prey upon 

 British commerce, by bringing prizes into the neutral 

 ports, and by their going through some scant forms of 

 adjudication. 



This was the avowed system upon which the agents 

 of belligerent France claimed to act, and upon which, 

 owing to the temporary superiority of her naval force, 

 they did, for a short period, act in the neutral ports 

 and"^ waters of the United States, notwithstanding the 

 remonstrances of the United States Government. 



It was these several facts, namely, the open and de- 

 liberate equipment of privateers in American ports 

 by the French, the capture by those privateers of 

 B'ritish vessels in United States waters, and the 

 bringing them as prizes into United States ports, 

 which formed collectively the basis of the demands 

 made by the British plenipotentiaries. Those de- 

 mands had reference not to the accidental evasion of 

 a municipal law of the United States by a particular 

 ship, but to a systematic disregard of international 

 law upon some of the most important points of neutral 

 obligation. 



This is apparent from the whole correspondence of 

 the British Government with the Government of the 

 United States, and from the replies of Mr. Jefferson to 

 Mr. Hammond, the British minister. Consequently, 

 neither the complaints of the British Government in 

 1793, nor the treaty of 1794, have any bearing upon 

 the question now under discussion. 



With regard to the claim for compensation now put 

 forward by the United States Government, it is, I re- 

 gret to say, notorious that the Queen's proclamation 

 of the 13th of May, 1S61, enjoining neutrality in the 

 unfortunate civil contest in North America, has, in 

 several instances, been practically set at naught by 

 parties in this country. On the one hand, vast sup- 

 plies of arms and warlike stores have been purchased 

 in this country, and have been shipped from British 

 ports to New York for the use of the United States 

 Government ; on the other hand, munitions of war 

 have found their way from this country to ports in 

 possession of the government of the so-styled Con- 

 federate States. 



These evasions of the neutrality prescribed by the 

 Queen's proclamation have caused her Majesty's Gov- 

 ernment much concern, but it is not difficult to ac- 

 count for what has occurred. 



Such shipments as I have spoken of may be effected 

 without any breach of municipal law ; and commercial 

 enterprise in this country, as elsewhere, is always 

 ready to embark in speculations offering a prospect of 

 success, or in which, at all events, the promise of gain 

 is supposed to be greater than the risk of loss. 



British subjects who have engaged in such enter- 

 prises have been left by her Majesty's Government to 

 abide by the penalty attaching to their disregard of 

 the Queen's proclamation of neutrality, that penalty 

 being, by international law, the condemnation as prize 

 of war of vessel and cargo if captured by a belligerent 

 cruiser, and duly condemned in a competent prize court. 



Her Majesty's Government have nevertheless availed 

 themselves of every fitting opportunity to discourage 

 these enterprises, and I have the honor to refer you, in 

 illustration of the truth of this, to the answer which 1 

 caused to be returned on the 6th of July to a memo- 

 rial from British merchants and ship owners at Liver- 

 pool, and of which I furnished you confidentially with 

 a copy in my note of the 4th of August. (See ANNUAL 

 CYCLOPAEDIA, 1862, p. 197.) 



It is right, however, to observe that the party which 

 has profited by far the most by these unjustifiable 

 practices has been the Government of the United 

 States, because that government having a superiority 

 of force by sea, and having blockaded most of the Con- 

 federate ports, has been able, on the one hand, safely 

 to receive all the warlike supplies which it has induced 

 British manufacturers and merchants to send to United 

 States ports in violation of the Queen's proclamation ; 

 and, on the other hand, to intercept and capture a 

 great part of the supplies of the same kind which 

 were destined from this country to the Confederate 

 States. 



If it be sought to make her Majesty's Government 

 responsible to that of the United States because arms 

 and munitions of war have left this country on account 

 of the Confederate Government, the Confederate Gov- 

 ernment, as the other belligerent, may very well main- 

 tain that it has a just cause of comp'laint against the 

 British Government because the United States arsenals 

 bad been replenished from British sources. Nor would 

 it be possible to deny that, in defiance of the Queen's 

 proclamation, many subjects of her Majesty, owing 

 allegiance to her crown, have enlisted in the armies of 

 the United States. Of this feet you cannot be ignorant. 

 Her Majesty's Government, therefore, have just ground 

 for complaint against both of the belligerent parties, 

 but most especially against the Government of the 

 United States, for having systematically, and in disre- 

 gard of that comity of nations which it was their duty 

 to observe, induced subjects of her Majesty to violate 

 those orders which, in conformity with her neutral po- 

 sition, she has enjoined all her subjects to obey. 



Great Britain cannot be held responsible to eiiher 

 party for these irregular proceedings of British sub- 

 jects ; and an endeavor to make her so would be about 

 as reasonable as if her Majesty's Government were to 

 demand compensation from the United States for the 

 injuries done to the property of British subjects by the 

 Alabama, resting their demand on the ground that the 

 United States claim authority and jurisdiction over 

 the Confederate States, by whom that vessel was com- 

 missioned. 



So far as relates to the export of arms and munitions 

 of war by subjects of Great Britain, from British ports, 

 for the use of the confederates, it is a sufficient answer 

 to say that the municipal law of this country does not 

 empower her Majesty's Government to prohibit or in- 

 terfere with such export, except in extraordinary cases, 

 when the executive is armed with special powers ; 

 and, with regard to the law of nations, it is clear that 

 the permission to export such articles is not contrary 

 to that law, and that it affords no just ground of com- 

 plaint to a belligerent. The authorities for this latter 

 position are numerous and unconflicting; but it mar 

 suffice to refer to passages on the subject in the works 

 of two American writers of high and admitted author- 

 ity. The passages are as follows : 



first. " It is not the practice of nations to under- 

 take to prohibit their own subjects by previous laws 

 from trafficking in articles contraband of war. Such 

 trade is carried on at the risk of those engaged in it, 

 under the liabilities and penalties prescribed by the 

 law of nations or particular treaties. ( Wheaton * In- 

 ternational Late, 6th edition, 1855, page 571, by Law- 

 rence.) 



Secondly. " It is a general understanding that the 

 powers at war may seize and confiscate all contraband 

 goods, without any complaint on the part of the neu- 

 tral merchant, and without any imputation of a breach 

 of neutrality in the neutral sovereign himself. It ws 

 contended on the part of the French nation, in 17'."!, 

 that neutral governments were bound to restrain thc:r 

 subjects from selling or exporting articles contraband 

 of war to the belligerent powers. But it was success- 

 fully shown on the part of the United States that neu- 

 trals may lawfully sell at home to a belligerent pu - 

 chaser, or carry, themselves, to the belligerent powers 

 contraband articles subject to the right of seizure in 

 transiiu. This right has since been explicitly declared 

 by the judicial authorities of this country (United 



