DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE. 



343 



States). The right of the neutral to transport, and of 

 the hostile power to seize, are conflicting rights, and 

 neither partv can charge the other with a criminal 

 act." (Kentfs Commentaries, vol. i., page 145, 8th 

 edition, 1854.) 



In accordance with these principles, the President's 

 message of 31st December, 1855, contains the follow- 

 ing passage : " In pursuance of this policy the laws of 

 the United States do not forbid their citizens to sell 

 to either of the belligerent powers articles contraband 

 of war, or take munitions of war or soldiers on board 

 their private ships for transportation ; and although, 

 in so doing, the individual citizen exposes his property 

 or person to some of the hazards of war, his acts do 

 not involve any breach of international neutrality, nor 

 of themselves implicate the government." 



As regards the sailing of the Alabama from Liver- 

 pool, I cannot do better than refer you to the circum- 

 stances respecting that vessel, with which I have al- 

 ready had the honor to make you acquainted. In my 

 letter of the 28th of July I informed you that it was 

 requisite to consult the law officers of the crown before 

 any active steps could be taken in regard to that ves- 

 sel. In my letter of the 22d of September I explained 

 that, from the nature of the case, some time was neces- 

 sarily spent in procuring the requisite evidence ; that 

 the report of the law officers was not received until 

 the 29th of July ; and that on the same day a tele- 

 graphic message reached her Majesty's Government 

 stating that the vessel had that morning "Bailed. In- 

 structions were then despatched to detain her should 

 she put in either at Queenstown or Nassau, to one or 

 other of which ports it was expected that she would 

 go ; but the Alabama did not call at either of those 

 places. On the 4th of October I stated to you that 

 much as her Majesty's Government desired to prevent 

 such occurrences, they were unable to go beyond the 

 law, municipal and international ; and on the 16th of 

 that month I replied to your observations with refer- 

 ence to the infringement of the Foreign Enlistment Act, 

 by remarking that it was true that the Foreign Enlist- 

 ment Act, or any other act for the same purpose, might 

 be evaded by subtle contrivances ; but that her Majes- 

 ty's Government could not on that account go beyond 

 the letter of the existing law. 



It is needless, however, that I should pursue this 

 branch of the question further, since you admit that 

 you are aware that the Alabama sailed not only with- 

 out the direct authority or indirect permission of her 

 Majesty's Government, but in opposition to the muni- 

 cipal law, and in spite of earnest endeavors made to 

 enforce it. 



That this should have happened is a circumstance 

 not calculated to excite much surprise in the United 

 States, for two reasons : first, because the principal 

 municipal law of the United States (passed almost at 

 the same time as that of this country, and, it is be- 

 lieved, after a full understanding between the two 

 States) is, in fact, almost identical with that of Great 

 Britain upon this subject; and, secondly, because its 

 notorious evasion during the, late war, waged by Great 

 Britain and her allies against Russia, was the subject 

 of remonstrance on the part of her Majesty's repre- 

 sentative at Washington to the United States. 



Great Britain was then, as on other occasions, as- 

 sured that every effort which the law would permit 

 had been made to prevent such practices; that the 

 United States Government could only proceed upon 

 legal evidence, the law as to which is almost, if not 

 entirely, the same as in this country, and that without 

 such evidence no conviction could be procured. 



In the case of the Alabama it is not denied that 

 strict orders were given for her detention as soon as it 

 appeared to the legal advisers of the crown that the 

 evidence might be sufficient to warrant them in ad- 

 vising such a course, and that the Alabama contrived 

 to evade the execution of those orders. 



Her Majesty's Government cannot, therefore, admit 

 that they are under any obligation whatever to make 

 compensation to United States citizens on account of 

 the proceedings of that vessel. 



As regards your demand for a more effective pre- 

 vention for the future of the fitting out of such vessels 

 in British ports, I have the honor to inform you that 

 her Majesty's Government, after consultation with the 

 law officers of the crown, are of opinion that certain 

 amendments might be introduced into the Foreign En- 

 listment Act, which, if sanctioned by Parliament, would 

 have the effect of giving greater power to the execu- 

 tive to prevent the construction in British ports of 

 ships destined for the use of belligerents. But her 

 Majesty's Government consider that, oefore submitting 

 any proposals of that sort to Parliament, it would be 

 desirable that they should previously communicate 

 with the Government of the United States, and ascer- 

 tain whether that Government is willing to make simi- 

 lar alterations in its own Foreign Enlistment Act; and 

 that the amendments, like the original statute, should, 

 as it were, proceed paripassu in both countries. 



To this note Mr. Adams replied on the 30th 

 of December, 1862, stating that his duty had 

 been performed by a transmission of the cor- 

 respondence to "Washington; and saying: 



But your lordship has done me the honor to touch 

 upon several lateral topics incidentally connected with 

 the reasoning contained in my note, in a manner 

 which seems to require from me a somewhat extended 

 explanation. 



The first of these to which my attention has been 

 particularly directed relates to the fact which your 

 lordship appears readily to admit, that her Majesty's 

 proclamation of the 13th of May, 1861, enjoining neu- 

 trality in the unfortunate civil contest in North Amer- 

 ica, has been practically set at naught in this kingdom. 

 Much as it may impair the confidence heretofore so 

 generally and justly entertained in the ability of her 

 Majesty's Government to enforce her authority within 

 her own dominions, I am not aware that in the repre- 

 sentation I had the honor to make upon this particular 

 occasion, any reasoning of mine was made to rest upon 

 it. The question, as connected with the case of the 290 

 was presented by the eminent counsel on whose opinion 

 I relied, mainly on the ground that the building and 

 equipment of that vessel was a gross violation of a muni- 

 cipal lavv of this kingdom. It was expressly stated by 

 Mr. Collier that " it appeared difficult to make out a 

 stronger case of infringement of the Foreign Enlist- 

 ment Act, which, if not enforced on this occasion, is 

 little better than a dead letter." That this position 

 was a correct one is fully confirmed by the report sub- 

 sequently made by her Majesty's law officer, and by the 

 later efforts of her Majesty's Government to act under 

 the law. It is not, then, the nullity of her Majesty's 

 proclamation that is now in question ; it is rather the 

 admitted fact of a violation of a statute of this kingdom 

 intended to prevent ill-disposed persons from involv- 

 ing it in difficulty by committing wanton and injurious 

 assaults upon foreign nations with which it is at 

 peace, of which her Majesty's ministers are invited by 

 a party injured to take cognizance ; of which they do 

 take cognizance so far as to prepare measures of pre- 

 vention, but which, by reason of circumstances wholly 

 within their own control, they do not prevent in season 

 to save the justly complaining party from serious in- 

 jury. On the substantial points of the case little 

 room seems left open for discussion. The omission to 

 act in season is not denied. The injury committed on 

 an innocent party is beyond dispute. If, in these par- 

 ticulars, I shall be found to be correct, then I especial- 

 ly submit it to your lordship whether it do not legi- 

 timately follow that such a party has a right to com- 

 plain and ask redress. And, in this sense, it matters 

 little hovv that omission may have occurred, whether 

 by intentional neglect or accidental delays, having no 

 reference to the merits of the question ; the injury clone 

 to the innocent party giving a timely notice remains 

 the same, and they who permitted it remain equally re- 

 sponsible. 



It is in this view that the precedent which I had the 

 honor to cite from the earlier history of the United 





