348 



DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE. 



reply to some portions of mine of the 30th of last 

 mouth, respecting the case of the outfit from Liver- 

 pool of the gunboat No. 290, to depredate on the com- 

 merce of the United States. Your lordship is pleased to 

 raise a discussion on the following statement made by 

 me. I quote the paragraph as it stands in your note : 



" The admitted fact of a violation of a statute of this 

 kingdom, intended to prevent ill-disposed persons from 

 involving 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 in- 

 vited (by a party injured) to take cognizance, of which 

 they do take cognizance, so far as to prepare measures 

 of prevention', 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 injury. On the substantial point of the case 

 little room seems left open for discussion." 



Out of my profound respect for your lordship's rep- 

 resentation, I have reviewed the whole of this para- 

 graph with the utmost care. I am compelled now to 

 confess that I can perceive no ambiguity in the mean- 

 ing sufficient to justify any of the implications which 

 your lordship appears to desire to raise from it. Start- 

 ing from a point of moral obligation (in my view as 

 strong between nations as itishetween individuals), 

 that injuries inflicted on an innocent party (of which, 

 if not prevented, it has a right to complain, provided 

 that it give notice in time seasonable for the applica- 

 tion of a_dequate means of prevention) should be, so far 

 as practicable, repaired or compensated for by the party 

 that does the wrong, or suffers it to be done by persons 

 under its control, I apply the general principle to the 

 case before me. The fact that warning nad been given 

 in full season to prevent the departure of No. 290 does 

 not depend upon my statement, inasmuch as it is simply 

 a question of dates, open to the inspection of all men. 

 The fact that her Majesty's Government were convinced 

 of the justice of the representation made, is patent 

 from the determination to which your lordship admits 

 that they ultimately came to detain the vessel. The 

 fact that this decision was so long delayed as to fail in 

 effecting theobiect intended, whereby great injury has 

 been actually done, and is yet likely to ensue, to the 

 commerce of the United States, is equally a question 

 purely of dates. Inasmuch as these constitute the sub- 

 stance of the paragraph of my note, to which exception 

 is taken, I must confess myself wholly at a loss to per- 

 ceive upon what ground any doubt can further be 

 raised about it. 



But your lordship proceeds to do me the honor to 

 address a series of questions to me as to possible 

 meanings that maybe conveyed in my language, which 

 might imply, from the failure to act of her Majesty's 

 Government, motives of some kind or other that I have 

 not distinctly expressed. I must respectfully ask to 

 be excused from entering into any such field of contro- 

 versy. I desire neither to make charges, nor to raise 

 implications of an unnecessary nature to complicate 

 the difficulties of this painful subject. All that I deem 

 it my duty to know is, that a grievous wrong has been 

 done to an innocent and friendly nation, by what seems 

 to me to have been a most unfortunate delay in effect- 

 ing a prevention, that later experience conclusively 

 shows ought to have been applied in time. Of the rea- 

 sons that prevented such an application, inasmuch as 

 none of them could have grown out of the course of the 

 injured party, I have no wish to enter into a discussion. 

 The principle of justice is not merely that right should 

 be done, but that it should be done sufficiently prompt 

 to effect its object. Otherwise it is justice denied. 

 Upon that I am content to rely. 



As it is probable that I may receive, at an early mo- 

 ment, furtner instructions from my Government in re- 

 spect to the substantial points involved in the present 

 correspondence, I deem it unadvisable further to take 

 up your lordship's time, by enlarging the limits of the 

 discussion of purely incidental questions. I desire to 

 express my obligation to you for the ready and full 

 manner in which your lordship has exonerated me 

 from the suspicion of encouraging the enlistment of 



her Majesty's subjects in the service of the United 

 States. At the same time it is not without regret that 

 I perceive the charge still persevered in against the 

 Government of the United States. If I understood 

 your lordship aright, it is now affirmed that because 

 the Government offers large bounties on enlistment in 

 the United States, and because British subjects in the 

 United States, tempted by these bounties, do occasion- 

 ally enlist, therefore your lordship is justified in having- 

 affirmed in your former note that the Government of 

 the United States, systematically and in disregard of 

 the comity of nations, induces them to enlist. As well 

 might I in my turn, in view of the frequent applica- 

 tions made to me to procure the discharge of citizens 

 of the United States who have been tempted in the 

 same manner to enlist in her Majesty's service in this 

 kingdom, assume the existence of a similar policy. 

 Further than the presence of a general ofler, I do not 

 perceive that your lordship's reference to the action of 

 Mr. Seward, of which I am not in a situation to speak 

 authoritatively, appears to extend. Further than this, 

 I must still continue to disclaim the belief in the exist- 

 ence of any systematic policy, as well in one case as in 

 the other. 



On the 19th of February Mr. Seward writes 

 to Mr. Adams, acknowledging the reception of 

 his correspondence .with Earl Russell, and say- 

 ing : " It seems only necessary, so far as that 

 particular case (the Alabama) is concerned, to 

 repeat what was said, in effect in my instruc- 

 tion, Jan. 19th, that this Government does not 

 think itself bound in justice to relinquish its 

 claim for redress for the injuries which have 

 resulted from the fitting out and despatch of 

 the Alabama in a British port." 



On the 9th of March Earl Russell, writing 

 to Mr. Adams relative to a petition from the 

 New York Mutual Insurance" Co., addressed to 

 Mr. Seward, and claiming repayment by her 

 Majesty's Government of certain policies of in- 

 surance on the Ships Brilliant and Manchester 

 which had been destroyed by the Alabama, 

 also added : " I have the honor to state to you 

 that her Majesty's Government entirely dis- 

 claim all responsibility for any acts of the Ala- 

 bama, and they had hoped that they had al- 

 ready made this decision on their part plain to 

 the Government of the United States." 



As the Alabama continued in her career of 

 destruction, claims were prepared by the own- 

 ers of the vessels thus destroyed and forwarded 

 to Mr. Adams. By him tbey were sent to 

 Earl Russell, with a request that they might be 

 added to the list already before him. On the 

 14th of September, in reply to such a request, 

 Earl Russell added : " When the United States 

 Government assumes to hold the Government 

 of Great Britain responsible for the captures 

 made by vessels which may be fitted out as 

 vessels-of-war in a foreign port, because such 

 vessels were originally built in a British port, 

 I have to observe that such pretensions are en- 

 tirely at variance with the principles of inter- 

 national law, and with the decisions of Amer- 

 ican courts of the highest authority ; and I 

 have only, in conclusion, to express my hope 

 that you may not be instructed again to put 

 forward claims which her Majesty's Govern- 

 ment cannot admit to be founded on any 

 grounds of law or justice." 





