the neutral, that enemy ships should make enemy goods. These two maxims have been, in fact, commonly thus coupled in the various treaties on this subject, with a view to simplify the judicial in

against armed cruisers proceeding from British ports, as against the naval forces of a public enemy; and also to claim and insist upon indemnities for all the injuries which all such expeditions have heretofore committed, or shall hereafter commit, against this government and the citizens of the United States." To this end, he adds, that the United States, if the navy is not sufficient, will resort to the use of privateers. (Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams, July 16, 1863: Dipl. Corr. 1863, p. 308.) Mr. Adams accordingly proposed to Earl Russell that the statute should be made more efficacious. At the same time, a memorial from ship-owners of Liverpool had suggested the inadequacy of the statute. Earl Russell expressed his willingness to propose amendments, on the condition that the same should be adopted in the American act. To this the American Government assented; but, when Mr. Adams communicated their assent, Earl Russell said Her Majesty's Government had reconsidered the matter, and declined to propose amendments. (Mr. Adams to Earl Russell, May

20, 1865.) To the close of the war, no amendment to the act was proposed to Parliament.

During the last three years of the war, Captain Bulloch, of the Confederate navy, an energetic and capable man, had his headquarters at Liverpool as agent of that government for purchasing, building, and fitting out vessels of war from that port, where his person and office were alike perfectly well known. They had also there disbursing-officers; and Messrs. Frazer, Trenholm, & Co. (a Charleston house, with a branch in Liverpool), and other firms, were notoriously their financial agents. Their practice was to fit out ships completely ready for hostile operations in all respects, except the armament, ammunition, and full crew, and, sailing from Liverpool or Glasgow, to take in the armament and men, &c., either at some small port on the English or French coast, or at the West Indies; the same having been collected and enlisted at Liverpool, and sent thence at the same time in another vessel. These acts were watched and reported to Mr. Adams by the vigilance of the American Consul at Liverpool, Mr. Dudley, and by him laid before Earl Russell. (See, especially, letter of Feb. 9, 1863.) The vessels so equipped and armed mostly made no attempts to visit a Confederate port, and went at once upon their hostile cruises. In this way, several got to sea, among the most conspicuous of which were the Alabama, Shenandoah, Florida, and Georgia. Between their cruises, these vessels put into British ports in various parts of the world, where they received hospitalities, obtained supplies of coal and stores, and made repairs. Most of them never visited a Confederate port. The commissions of their commanders and officers were generally issued by the agent of the Confederacy in England, who was empowered thereto. The Oreto or Florida was complained of by Mr. Adams, Feb. 19, 1862, as fitting out at Liverpool for the rebel service. She sailed, without armament, March 22; was arrested and tried at Nassau, and acquitted on the ground that she had done no illegal act in the Bahamas. She went to Mobile, and took on board her armament, and thence proceeded on her cruise, having run the blockade in front of Mobile. Her career ended by her seizure in the harbor of Bahia, in October, 1864, by the United States ship Wachusett. The Alabama was complained of June 23, 1862; sailed from Liverpool, July 29, unarmed; came to anchor in a small harbor near Holyhead, and there received a part of her crew, enlisted at Liverpool for the hostile cruise, and taken to her in a tug-boat from that port; thence went to the Azores, took in her armament from two vessels which brought it to her from Liverpool, and proceeded upon her cruise. She destroyed

quiries into the proprietary interest of the ship and cargo, by resolving them into the mere question of the national character of the ship.

a great many American merchant-vessels, cruised off the Cape of Good Hope, and received hospitalities and supplies at British ports. She was destroyed by the United States ship Kearsarge, in the British Channel, June 19, 1864. Four British Naval-Reserve men, who had shipped in her, had their names struck off the list, by order of Feb. 27, 1863. The Georgia or Japan sailed from Greenock 2d April, 1863, and, in a small French port in the Channel, received her armament, officers, and war-crew, who came to her from Liverpool in a small steamer, the Alar, with one of the firm of Jones & Co., of Liverpool, rebel agents. The complaint against the vessel did not reach the Foreign Office until she had sailed. Although a complaint was made against the Alar, she was not prosecuted: the law-officers of the crown advising that she had committed no offence. Jones & Highat were tried for enlisting men at Liverpool for the rebel service, convicted, and fined fifty pounds each. The Georgia destroyed many vessels; received asylum and supplies in British ports; disarmed herself, and returned to Liverpool, where she was said to have been sold by her owners to Mr. Bates, who fitted her out for sea as a mail and merchant vessel. She was arrested by the United States ship Niagara, and sent to Boston as a prize, where proceedings against her are now (1866) pending. Mr. Adams protested against her being allowed to be sold in Liverpool and sent again to sea, without proceedings against her for detention or trial. A man named Campbell was arrested on the charge of fitting her out, pleaded guilty, but was discharged on his recognizance. The history of the Alexandra has been given above. The Rappahannock: This was a British naval vessel, the Victor, sold to Messrs. Coleman in October, 1863. She sailed from Sheerness, with riggers and others on board, in an incompleted state, and went to a French port, where she was not able to arm herself or get to sea during the war. Rumball, the chief of the royal outfitting department at Sheerness Dockyard, was tried and acquitted. No others were prosecuted for this offence. Three men (Seymour, Cunningham, and Buchanan) were tried for being engaged in fitting her out, and, pleading guilty, were discharged on their recognizances, without punishment. The Shenandoah or Sea King: This vessel, an English trading-steamer, sailed from London Oct. 8, 1864, proceeded to Funchal, and there took in her armament and war-crew from the British steamer Laurel, Captain Corbett, which was sent out from Liverpool for that purpose, at the same time the Sea King left London. The Laurel returned to England. No proceedings were had against her. Captain Corbett was tried and acquitted. The Shenandoah went to Melbourne, where she got repairs and stores and enlisted more men, and went to sea, burning a great number of American whalemen in the Arctic seas, some of which she destroyed after being informed of the end of the Confederacy and She returned to Liverpool, where her commander, Waddell, made a report to Earl Russell, and gave up the vessel to the British Government, who handed her over to the American Consul at Liverpool, the Confederacy having come to an end. The Pampero or Canton: This vessel was building in the Clyde, was complained of by Mr. Adams, seized, and, there being no defence, was held by the crown until the end of the war. The United States Government always continued its remonstrance against allowing any armed vessel under the Confederate flag an asylum for herself or her prizes, to preserve its protest against the recognition of belligerency. But, beyond that, it remonstrated against allowing asylum, necessary supplies and repairs, and departure to sea, (with the holding-back of United States vessels for twenty-four hours thereafter) to vessels under the Confederate flag, cruising against our commerce, which had been

war.

and enemy

§ 445. The two maxims are not, however, inseparable. The primitive law, independently of international com- maxims, of free ships pact, rests on the simple principle, that war gives a right free goods, to capture the goods of an enemy, but gives no right to ships enemy capture the goods of a friend. The right to capture an necessarily enemy's property has no limit but of the place where the connected.

goods, not

fitted out, in whole or in part, for that purpose, in British ports, and had escaped or been allowed to depart therefrom before arrest.

Early in 1863, the Messrs. Laird at Liverpool were found to be building two ironclad steam rams, professedly for a French house. Mr. Adams addressed Earl Russell on the subject, with affidavits tending to prove that they were building for the rebel government, and under direction of its agents. At first, Earl Russell replied that the government were advised there was no cause for interference. In his letter of July 11, 1863, Mr. Adams says that the building and sending-out such vessels as rams— instruments of war in themselves, though without guns, and destined of course for purely warlike objects - "will be regarded by the government and people of the United States as tantamount to a participation in the war by the people of Great Britain, to a degree which, if not seasonably prevented, cannot fail to endanger the peace and welfare of both countries." On the 14th August, 1863, he furnished more evidence, and said, "It is difficult for me to give your lordship an adequate idea of the uneasiness and anxiety created in the different ports of the United States by the thought that instruments of injury of so formidable a character continue to threaten their safety, as issuing from the ports of Great Britain." Earl Russell's reply, of Sept. 1, showed that the government was not disposed to make a seizure, on the evidence. Sept. 3, 1863, Mr. Adams writes again to Earl Russell his conviction that the rams are intended for the rebel service, and are nearly ready for sea. He adds, "I feel it my painful duty to make known to your lordship, that, in some respects, it [the previous letter] has fallen short in expressing the earnestness with which I have been, in the interval, directed to describe the grave nature of the situation in which both countries must be placed in the event of an act of aggression committed against the government and people of the United States by either of these formidable vessels." On the 4th September, Mr. Adams communicated more proofs of the destination of the rams, and their apparent immediate departure, and adds, "I beg your lordship's permission to record, in the name of my government, this last solemn protest against the commission of such an act of hostility against a friendly nation." The same day, Earl Russell replies, that Mr. Adams's letter of the 3d inst. "is under the serious and anxious consideration of Her Majesty's Government." On the 5th September, Mr. Adams wrote again, that one of the iron-clads is "on the point of departure from this kingdom on its hostile errand against the United States." He adds, after describing the essentially warlike character and great power of these rams, "It would be superfluous in me to point out to your lordship that this is war." He declined to repeat his arguments, and, with this letter, closed the subject. It was left to be understood that the sailing of the rams would be-not a probable cause of war, but war itself. In the course of the day, he received a letter from Earl Russell, announcing that the government had issued orders to prevent their departure.

The rams were seized, and, after the institution of legal proceedings, the government bought them of the Messrs. Laird for the navy, and so closed the question with the United States. The opposition, under Earl Derby and Lord Chelmsford in the Lords, and Sir Hugh Cairns and Mr. Walpole and Mr. Seymour Fitzgerald in

goods are found, which, if neutral, will protect them from capture. We have already seen that a neutral vessel on the high seas is not such a place. The exemption of neutral property from capture

the Commons, attacked the government for having made the seizure in violation of law, and without sufficient proofs. The course of the government was defended by Earl Russell and the Duke of Argyll in the Lords, and the Attorney-General, Sir R. Palmer, in the Commons. In these debates, the government distinctly admitted their obligation to give to the United States their rights under the law of nations, whether Acts of Parliament furnished the means or not; and justified the arrest on the ground of the absolute necessity of stopping the departure of vessels of such a character, under circumstances of reasonable suspicion. Subsequent events showed that the rams were built and destined for immediate rebel service, and that the statements made to the government by the builders were fraudulent. (London Times of 11th February and 13th April, and Annual Register, 1864, pp. 125-129.) Before hearing of the result, Mr. Seward had written to Mr. Adams (Sept. 5, 1863, Dipl. Corr. 1863, p. 369), that, if the rams sailed, and attacked our blockade or ports, it would "make a retaliatory war inevitable."

At the close of the civil war, Mr. Adams, in a correspondence with Earl Russell, beginning April 7, 1865, and closing with a letter of Nov. 3, 1865, reviews the alleged failures of Great Britain to fulfil her obligations as a neutral, and demands compensation for the injuries resulting thereby to the United States.

In his letter of April 7, Mr. Adams argues that formidable vessels of war have gone from British ports, and entered at once on their hostile career, without ever visiting a port of the Confederacy, the crews and armament being British, as well as the vessels and their stores; that these have been procured by rebel agencies openly employed in Liverpool; that these acts have been in violation of our rights, and been caused by the fact that Great Britain accorded belligerent rights to the rebels in an "unprecedented and precipitate manner;" and that, under the circumstances, this amounted to a creation of the maritime belligerent powers of the rebels out of British materials, the result of which had been the gradual transfer of commerce from American to British flags and vessels.

Earl Russell, May 4, 1865, defends the course of Great Britain in recognizing belligerency, and denies any liability for any actual or supposed consequences thereof. As to the building and equipping of vessels, he enters into particulars as to the Alabama, Shenandoah, and Florida, for the purpose of showing that the government honestly and in good faith did its duty in endeavoring to prevent such violations of law; and takes the ground, that, if the government does that, it is not answerable for the consequences if a vessel is fitted out and sails from Great Britain, in violation of her laws, and commits hostilities beyond her jurisdiction. He cited the course taken by the United States on the complaints of Spain and Portugal, during the civil wars in South America, as precedents to the point that a nation is not expected to make compensation where it considers itself to have executed its laws with fidelity, although breaches of neutrality have been committed, and caused serious loss to another nation. (See this note, ante, pp. 559, 560.)

Mr. Adams, on the 20th May, replies, reviewing the subject. He insists that the original cause was the improper according of belligerent rights to the rebels, the direct consequence of which, he insists, was the creation in England of all the maritime power they had; and that, if the government could not repress violations of law arising from this recognition, they were responsible by reason of having furnished the opportunity and occasion. He enters into details as to the equipping and sailing of vessels

has no other exceptions than those arising from the carrying of contraband, breach of blockade, and other analogous cases, where the conduct of the neutral gives to the belligerent a right to treat to show, that, especially in the case of the Alabama, the departure was owing to the unconcealed sympathy, connivance, and neglect of officials between the Minister and the vessel herself. He urges, that, after experience had shown the inefficiency of the statutes as expounded, the United States had suggested amendments, and offered co-operation in making them; but that the British Government had deliberately refused to propose changes to Parliament, after once agreeing to do so, and thereby became responsible for the inadequacy of the statutes. He states the rule as unquestionable, that a want of statute provisions is never a justification to a nation, and cannot be even an excuse or apology, after the want is known and opportunity is open for supplying it. He refers to the fact that the British statutes want those very preventive provisions which the United States added to the act in 1817, at the suggestion of the Portuguese Minister, under circumstances somewhat like. As to the relations of the United States with Spain and Portugal, beside the immediate compliance with the request of Portugal to amend the laws, citizens of the South American States in revolt were prosecuted by the United States for violations of her neutrality laws; while citizens of the United States in insurrection were openly residing in England, and engaged as agents of the Confederate Government in fitting out vessels, notoriously in violation of her laws, yet not one had been prosecuted, although requests to that effect had been made and evidence furnished. The United States did make compensation to Spain for the Miranda expedition, and other demands, by accepting them as fair equivalents for their own demands against Spain, in the treaty of 1819. He complains, that, after the Alabama had, as Lord Russell says, escaped from Great Britain, -having, as the government now admit by ordering her arrest, though too late, violated their laws of neutrality, she had since visited British ports in all parts of the world, and been received with honor and hospitality; and cites a passage from Hautefeuille, to the effect that, under such circumstances, the offended nation can detain and disarm a vessel of war, or, if out of her control, demand her disarmament, and the restitution of her prizes.

Aug. 30, 1865, Earl Russell to Mr. Adams: His lordship re-argues the recognition of belligerency, contending that the case was sui generis, and that the facts existing and known, as well as the probabilities of the future, demanded the recognition by Great Britain at once, in justice to the United States and herself as well as to the Confederates; that, by recognizing belligerency in both parties, it admitted the right of the United States to blockade all her own ports against British commerce, and to stop and search all British vessels at sea. He re-examines the facts as to the escape of vessels fitted out unlawfully, and contends that the British Government did its duty in good faith. As to the Act of Parliament, he says the determination of the government was not to alter the law, unless, after sufficient trial, it should be proved to be practically inadequate; and contends that the existing law had not been so proved, and that it was not certain that possible alterations would enable more to be done in the way of prevention. He reviews the relations of Portugal with the United States for the purpose of defending his position, that a nation must judge for itself whether it has done its duty honestly, and is not liable for captures made beyond its jurisdiction by vessels which have, within its jurisdiction, been fitted out in violation of its laws. He refuses to submit the matter to arbitration, on the ground that the decision of the umpire must depend upon the answer to two questions, neither of which Great Britain could put to arbitration with due regard to her own dignity and character,