States, because that government having a superiority of force by sea, and having blockaded most of the confederate 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 government, as the other belligerent, may very well maintain that it has a just cause of complaint against the British government because the United States arsenals had 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 fact 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 disregard 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 position, she has enjoined all her subjects to obey.

Great Britain cannot be held responsible to either party for these irregular proceedings of British subjects; 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 commissioned.

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 interfere 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 complaint to a belligerent. The authorities for this latter position are numerous and unconflicting; but it may suffice to refer to passages on this subject in the works of two American writers of high and admitted authority. The passages are as follows:

First. "It is not the practice of nations to undertake 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's International Law, 6th edition, 1855, page 571, by Lawrence.)

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 neutral merchant, and without any imputation of a breach of neutrality in the neutral sovereign himself. It was contended on the part of the French nation, in 1796, that neutral governments were bound to restrain their subjects from selling or exporting articles contraband of war to the belligerent powers. But it was successfully shown on the part of the United States that neutrals may lawfully sell at home to a belligerent purchaser, or carry, themselves, to the belligerent powers contraband articles subject to the right of seizure in transitu. This right has since been explicitly declared by the judicial authorities of this country, (United States.) The right of the neutral to transport, and of the hostile power to seize, are conflicting rights, and neither party can charge the

other with a criminal act.”—(Kent's Commentaries, vol. 1, page 145, 8th edition, 1854.)

In accordance with these principles, the President's message of 31st December, 1855, contains the following 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 Liverpool, I cannot do better than refer you to the circumstances respecting that vessel, with which I have already 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 vessel. In my letter of the 22d of September I explained that, from the nature of the case, some time was necessarily 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 telegraphic message reached her Majesty's government stating that the vessel had that morning sailed. Instructions 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 reference to the infringement of the foreign enlistment act, by remarking that it was true that the foreign enlistment act, or any other act for the same purpose, might be evaded by subtle contrivances; but that her Majesty'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 without the direct authority or indirect permission of her Majesty's government, but in opposition to the municipal 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 believed, 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 representative at Washington to the United States. Great Britain was then, as on other occasions, assured 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 advising 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 prevention 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 enlistment act, which, if sanctioned by Parliament, would have the effect of giving greater power to the Executive to prevent the construction in British ports of ships destined for the use of belligerents. But her Majesty's government consider that, before 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 ascertain whether that government is willing to make similar alterations in its own foreign enlistment act; and that the amendments, like the original statute, should, as it were, proceed pari passu in both

countries.

I shall accordingly be ready at any time to confer with you, and to listen to any suggestions which you may have to make by which the British foreign enlistment act, and the corresponding statute of the United States, may be made more efficient for their purpose.

I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obedient, humble servant,

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, Esq., &c., &c., &c.

RUSSELL.

Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams.

[Extracts.]

No. 435.]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, December 29, 1862. SIR: Your very suggestive despatch of December 11 (No. 271) has been received.

It does, indeed, seem paradoxical that the public sentiment of this country in regard to Great Britain should appear to remain as severe now as it was heretofore, when no symptoms of melioration of the reciprocal sentiment of that country towards our own were observable. The solution, however, will be found, as I think, in the distance that lies between them. The symptoms of that kind, which you describe, have not escaped the attention of this government, as, I think, my recent despatches must have shown you. But they have not yet forcibly arrested the notice of the press, while the public attention is still entirely engrossed with the shipment of supplies and arms, and the outfit of piratical vessels in British ports, and with the flagrant demonstrations of the "290," alias the Alabama, on our merchant vessels, and now the reputed escape of the Oreto from her imprisonment. Still the indications of a reciprocal change of sentiment here in regard to Great Britain are as manifest to this government as those on the part of the British government are apparent to yourself. I hardly need say that every care that can be properly given by this department to favor a return to the most friendly feelings between the two countries will be exercised.

The proclamation of freedom to the slaves of the insurgent States will be promptly issued on the first day of January next; and it seems probable that a state of things will arise in the Gulf States that will be calculated to undermine the hopes that have been built there upon foreign intervention. Finally, we are inaugurating a system of administration in New Orleans, under Major General Banks, which we expect will relieve the condition there of much of the uneasiness which it is supposed affected the disposition of foreign powers.

The military situation remains unchanged since my last despatch. Congress

has taken its recess for the holidays. The financial policy will chiefly engage its attention when it reassembles.

SIR: I have the honor to transmit a copy of my note to Earl Russell of the 30th ultimo, which, in my despatch (No. 281) of the 25th of December, I mentioned that I was preparing in answer to a portion of his note of the 19th of that month, which I sent forward last week.

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD,

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS.

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.

Mr. Adams to Earl Russell.

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,
London, December 30, 1862.

MY LORD: I have the honor to acknowledge the reception of your lordship's note of the 19th instant, in reply to the representation I had been instructed to submit to your consideration touching the ravages committed on the commerce of the United States by a vessel-of-war built and fitted out in a port of this kingdom, and, for the most part, manned by her Majesty's subjects. So far as that note responds to the two great objects of inquiry which I had been directed. to propose, my duty has been performed by the transmission, without loss of time, of a copy of it for the consideration of my government. 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 neutrality in the unfortunate civil contest in North America, 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 representation 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 municipal law 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 enlistment 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 subsequently 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 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 invited 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 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 particulars, I shall be found to be correct, then I respectfully submit it to your lordship whether it do not legitimately follow that such a party has a right to complain and to ask redress. And, in this sense, it matters little how that omission may have occurred, whether by intentional neglect or accidental delays, having no reference to the merits of the question; the injury done to the innocent party giving a timely notice remains the same, and those who permitted it remain equally responsible.

It is in this view that the precedent which I had the honor to cite from the earlier history of the United States appeared to me to have much more pertinence than your lordship is inclined to attach to it. I still think that it has not attracted so much of your attention as it deserves. Your lordship will pardon me for suggesting that it was not because "the revolutionary government of France openly avowed its determination to disregard all the principles of international law which had been acknowledged by civilized states," or because of a "supposed temporary superiority of her naval force," it "did actually equip privateers in the neutral ports of the United States, and send them forth to prey upon British commerce," &c., that the government of the United States were induced to listen to the demands of the British government for redress. The claim that was actually made by France rested upon its interpretation of two articles of a solemn treaty, offensive and defensive, between France and the United States, which, not without show of reason, claimed for the former the right to fit out cruisers against its enemies in the ports of the United States. Although very properly denying this to be the correct version, the government of the United States felt unwilling to act on a policy of repression until due notice given of its determination to abide by an opposite construction. In the interval certain captures of British vessels took place which the government, because of its failure, for the reasons assigned, to prevent them, considered itself bound to make good. Here are the very words of Mr. Jefferson, in his letter to Mr. Hammond:

“Having, for particular reasons, forborne to use all the means in our power for the restitution of the three vessels mentioned in my letter of August 7, the President thought it incumbent on the United States to make compensation for them; and though nothing was said in that letter of other vessels taken under like circumstances and brought in after the 5th of June, and before the date of that letter, yet, where the same forbearance had taken place, it was and is his opinion that compensation would be equally due." From these words the deduction appears to be inevitable that the principle of compensation in the case derived its only force from the omission by the United States to prevent a wrong done to the commerce of a nation with which they were at peace. So, likewise, may it be reasonably urged in the present case, that the omission of her Majesty's government, upon full and reasonable notice, to carry into effect the provisions of its own law designed to prevent its subjects from inflicting injuries upon the commerce of nations with which it is at peace, renders it justly liable to make compensation to them for the damage that may ensue.

That the British government of that day did consider itself equitably entitled to full indemnity, not simply for the hostile acts of Frenchmen in American ports, but for the loss and damage suffered on the high seas by reason of assist