852 CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 



force the vessel of a friendly nation that has committed no offense, 

 and forcibly dissolving the relations which, by the laws of his coun- 

 try, the captain is bound to preserve and enforce on board. These 

 rights, sanctioned by the law of nations, viz, the right to navigate the 

 ocean and to seek shelter in case of distress or other unavoidable cir- 

 cumstances, and to retain over the ship, her cargo, and passengers, the 

 law of her country, must be respected by all nations, for no independ- 

 ent nation would submit to their violation." 



It is proper to state that Lord Ashburton, who conducted the con- 

 troversy in its diplomatic stage on the British side, did not deny as a 

 general rule the propositions of Mr. Webster. He merely questioned 

 the applicability of the rule to the case of the Creole. Nor has the 

 principle ever been doubted by either Her Majesty's Government or 

 the Government of the United States ; while, in cases of vessels driven 

 by storm on inhospitable coasts, both Governments have asserted it, 

 sometimes by extreme measures of redress, to secure indemnity for. 

 vessels suffering under such circumstances from port exactions, or 

 from injuries inflicted from the shore. 



It would be hard to conceive of anything more in conflict with 

 the humane policy of Great Britain in this respect, as well as with the 

 law of nations, than was the conduct of Captain Quigley towards 

 the vessel in question on the morning of October 8th. 



In such coasts, at early dawn, after a stormy night, it is not unusual 

 for boats, on errands of relief, to visit vessels which have been strug- 

 gling with storm during the night. But in no such errand of mercy 

 was Captain Quigley engaged. The Marion Grimes, having found 

 shelter during the night's storm, was about to depart on her voyage, 

 losing no time while her bait was fresh and her ice lasted, when she 

 was boarded by an armed crew, forced to go 7 miles out of her way to 

 the port, and was there under pressure of Captain Quigley, against 

 the opinion originally expressed of the collector, subjected to a fine of 

 $400 with costs, and detained there, as I shall notice hereafter, until 

 her voyage was substantially broken up. I am confident Her Maj- 

 esty's Government will concur with me in the opinion that, as a ques- 

 tion of international law, aside from treaty and other rights, the 

 arrest and detention under the circumstances of Captain Landry and 

 of his vessel were in violation of the law of nations as well as the law 

 of humanity, and that on this ground alone the fine and the costs 

 should be refunded and the parties suffering be indemnified for their 

 losses thereby incurred. 



It is not irrelevant, on such an issue as the present, to inquire into 

 the official position of Captain Quigley, " of the Canadian cruiser 

 Terror" He was, as the term " Canadian cruiser " used by him ena- 

 bles us to conclude, not an officer in Her Majesty's distinctive service. 

 He was not the commander of a revenue cutter, for the head of the 

 customs service disavowed him. Yet he was arresting and boarding, 

 in defiance of law, a vessel there seeking shelter, over-influencing the 

 collector of the port into the imposition of a fine, hauling down with 

 his own hand the flag of the United States, which was displayed over 

 the vessel, and enforcing arbitrarily an additional period of deten- 

 tion after the deposit had been made, simply because the captain of 

 the vessel refused to obey him by executing an order insulting to the 

 flag which the vessel bore. If armed cruisers are employed in seiz- 

 ing, harassing, and humiliating storm-bound vessels of the United 



