days after the first occasion. The vessel was then searched. Previous to her sailing the officers and men of the Greyhound searched her.

"We had some men engaged on Saturday to proceed to sea on Sunday morning, but, owing to their not coming on board in time, we could not get the vessel unmoored in time for the tide. She was on that day seized by the officers of the Greyhound.

"Two mornings following, previous to this seizure, I mean on Friday and Saturday, I ordered my crew to get the vessel under weigh; but they refused, stating that I had deceived them once, and that they would not believe what I told them again. I told them she was cleared for Havana, and bound there, as far as I knew. They still continued to refuse to work, and said that they would not believe anything about what I told them. In consequence of this I sent warrants on board for them. They all appeared before the magistrate. They said that they would not proceed in the vessel unless they were guaranteed that they would be safe from any American cruisers. They then said that they would take their discharge, and the whole of them took their discharge.' (It appears they afterward went on board, got their clothes, and left the vessel.)

Captain Duguid goes on to say: "I know a man named Ward; he is my steward; he was sent to prison for a fortnight at my instance. I think the day he come out of prison he made use of very abusive language and threats to me down on the wharf, stating that he would fix me before he had done with me, and the vessel too. I know a man named Jones; he shipped on board the Oreto as boatswain. He was disrated, when about half of our passage out, for incompetency. He quitted the ship at Cochrane's anchorage, taking the boat with him. I do not know if he is in the country. I have not seen him. I have heard that he is gone away. I am very sorry that Jones has gone away, I would rather have him here. On the oath I have taken I have not myself been privy to Mr. Jones leaving this place, or to making him any recompence of any sort for leaving it, nor do I know of any person connected with the Oreto having done so. During the time the Oreto lay in the Mersey, she was passed and repassed by men-of-war. At one time men-of-war were lying within a mile of her. Officers of the navy were passing her every hour in the day. The fittings of the Oreto, from the time of her quitting Liverpool up to the present time, are the same, with the exception of the little alteration in the boats' davits. Four of them were lengthened two feet. That is the only alteration since she left Liverpool. I have not, since the Oreto has been in harbor, attempted to fit her out in any shape that she might cruise or commit any hostilities against any foreign state. The shipping of the blocks at Cochrane's anchorage was done under the order that I gave when at Liverpool. As I do not remember having given any order than that to ship blocks, I had no intent, nor would I do so, to use the Oreto to commit hostilities against any power or state. Mr. Lowe never gave me any orders to strop blocks, or any other orders connected with the vessel. Mr. Lowe took sights at sea, asking me to allow him to do so, as he wanted practice, but he never navigated the vessel, changed her course, or gave any orders to the crew with my knowledge. I was present when Ward was examined, when he said some conversation took place between Mr. Lowe and myself relative to the vessel being for the South. No such conversation took place at Cochrane's auchorage or at any other time. Mr. Lowe had nothing to do with the removal of the galley. I had it done for the convenience of the men, as it was too hot for them where it was below."

On cross-examination he says: "I received my instructions from Messrs. Fosset, Preston and Company as to the voyage. They were written. (The instructions were produced.) In the conversation referred to in the letter, dated 22d March, 1862, I proposed going to Nassau instead of Havana. No instructions were given to me as to the ultimate destination of the vessel after she reached Nassau," (Captain Duguid then gives some evidence as to the fittings of the vessel, but as it does not affect the evidence already given on that point, there is no necessity to repeat it.)

"I saw the men employed at Cochrane's anchorage stropping blocks; I never at Cochrane's anchorage heard those blocks called 'gun-tackle blocks,' The first time that I heard the term 'gun-tackle blocks' used was in this court. I have not, that I ar aware of, any blocks on board the Oreto called gun-tackle blocks. I saw in the log-book of the ship that they had been called gun-tackle blocks; I saw that entry since the vessel arrived here. I am not aware whether the entry was made after the vessel arrived here. On the 16th of May there is an entry in the log-book, 'Hands employed in scraping the mainmast and stropping the gun-tackle blocks.' There is a word struck out in the entry in the log-book of the 9th of June; I am not aware of my having struck it out. I had no knowledge whatever, when the vessel cleared for Havana, that she was ultimately bound to the Confederate States of America. I have no knowledge whether the vessel was to return to Europe or not. I have no knowledge one way or the other. I have no knowledge whatever that she had been sold, or agreed to be sold to any persons in the Confederate States. I struck out some parts of the log-book, but I will not undertake to swear that I struck out the word in the entry of the 9th of June, referred to as follows: Received on board four hundred and forty cases of shell and stowed them in the room.' After 'the' there is a word scratched

out, between the word 'the' and 'room.' I have never stated that the vessel was intended for a vessel of war.

The galley was moved; the caboose was in the galley; it was in its proper place. That galley was in the mess deck. It will have to be placed there again before the vessel can go to sea, as it was only shifted for the convenience of the men. When I was preparing to go to sea on the 15th of June, I had not attempted to remove the galley. There was not time; we could have done it after the anchor was up. Where it was originally placed, it was not near the magazine; it was removed as far as possible from it. If the magazine was filled with powder, I think it would be quite safe if the galley were in its proper place.

"The ship while at Cochrane's anchorage was frequently visited by Mr. Lowe. I don't know when Mr. Lowe left this. I think he left in a vessel called the Gordon or Nassau. I have not seen him since."

The question now to be decided is, whether upon a careful consideration of the evidence there appears proof or circumstantial evidence amounting to reasonable proof, that a violation of the provisions of the foreign enlistment act has been committed by the parties having charge of the Oreto; 1st, by attempting, by any act done since she came into this colony, to fit or equip the Oreto as a vessel of war; 2d, by making such attempt for the purpose of fitting and equipping her as a vessel of war for the service of the Confederate States of America, to cruise and commit hostilities against the citizens of the United States of America. I have already said that what took place before the vessel came here can only be received as elucidatory or explanatory of what occurred since that time. Two facts have been proved, both of which, it has been contended, are violations of the act. One is, that while the vessel lay at Cochrane's anchorage some blocks were stropped in such a manner that they might be used as gun-tackle blocks, and that they were so called in an entry in the ship's log-book, and by some of the crew. The other, that a number of boxes containing shells were put in the ship after she came into this harbor, and were taken out again. I first notice the evidence relating to the shells.

A permission from the governor in council to ship cargo in the Oreto has been given in evidence; this does not prohibit any kind of cargo; shells might, therefore, be shipped under it as well as any other kind of cargo. It appears, by the evidence of Mr. Harris, one of the consignees of the vessel, that everything relating to the shipment of the shells was done openly and bona fide. It was observed by the advocate general that penal statutes need not now be constructed so strictly as they formerly were. Supposing that to be the case, there is no doubt that it is necessary to act on them with great caution. Now, what is the proof that these shells were intended for the arming of the vessel? Why is it not as probable that they were intended to be carried as many similar cargoes have been, and landed at some other port? Mr. Harris, who shipped them, swears they were intended as cargo. Captain Duguid does the same, and so does Mr. Duggan, the chief mate. What proof is there, either direct or circumstantial, that these gentlemen have sworn to what is false? It will be remembered that these shells were taken out of the Oreto, and landed before the vessel was seized. The original intention, therefore, with regard to the shells, whatever it may have been, had been abandoned before the seizure was made. Is, then, the mere probability that such original intention was to arm and equip the vessel for war purposes sufficient for imputing the crime of perjury to Mr. Harris, to Captain Duguid, and to Mr. Duggan, and for the condemnation of the vessel for a violation of the foreign enlistment act? I certainly think not.

The stropping of the blocks now alone remains to be considered.

While the vessel lay at Cochrane's anchorage strops were put on some blocks which had been brought in her from England. The blocks so stropped might be used as guntackle blocks, but blocks so stropped may also be used for the ordinary purposes of a merchant ship. What proof is there, then, that they were to be used as gun-tackle ? 1st, it is contended, because they were named gun-tackle blocks in an entry in the ship's log-book, and were so called by some of the crew; 2d, because there were more of them than could be required for the ordinary use of the ship as luff-tackle, or watchtackle, and then, it is argued, if the blocks were intended as gun-tackle blocks, the Oreto having been constructed as a war vessel, it is to be inferred that they were intended for her equipment.

The other side in reply contend, 1st, that as the tackle might be used for either of the purposes before mentioned, the mere circumstance of the mate, in his entry in the log-book, or some of the crew, not knowing for what they were really intended, choos ing to call them gun-tackle blocks, is no proof whatever that the owners of the vessel intended to use them as such; 2d, that the evidence of Captains Parke, Raisbeck. Waters and Eustice, all master mariners and men of much experience, has proved that the number of blocks on board the Oreto is not at all greater than would be required for the ordinary purposes of the ship, especially as she is a new vessel, on board of which a greater number of spare blocks is usually provided than is to be found in vessels that have been in use. That Captain Duguid unequivocally states in his evi

dence that the blocks were solely for the ordinary use of the vessel, and were never intended to be used as gun-tackle blocks. That he never ordered them to be stropped as such, or heard them called so until he heard the evidence given in this court. Comparing, then, the evidence on the one side with that on the other, I agree in the opinion that the mere fact of blocks which might be used for other purposes being called gun-tackle blocks by persons who did not know for what purpose they were intended, is not proof that they were intended to be used as gun-tackle blocks. I think that as the fact of there being more blocks on board the Oreto than were required for her use, is a matter of professional opinion; and as the opinion of several master mariners quite competent to form a correct one has been given in the evidence, that there were not more blocks on board the vessel than might have been required for ordinary use, I ought not, in the absence of any valid and produceable reason for so doing, to adopt the opinion of one party in preference to that of the other. The consequence of which is, that the fact of there being more blocks than could be required for the ordinary use of the vessel is not sufficiently proved.

Lastly, I see no evidence to invalidate the direct and positive testimony of Captain Duguid, that the blocks were not intended to be used as gun-tackle blocks.

If there is not enough proof that the blocks in question were intended to be used as gun-tackle blocks, any observation as to the probability arising from the construction of the ship that they were for her equipment becomes unnecessary.

If the evidence given to prove that any act has been done here subjecting the vessel to the penalties of the foreign enlistment act is not sufficient for that purpose, it is, perhaps, superfluous to say anything about the capacity of the vessel to take cargo, or her connection with the Southern States of America. I will, however, observe that although the ship may not be calculated to carry the ordinary bulky cargo of merchant ships, yet there are certain kinds of cargo of which she might carry a considerable quantity. For example, there were some hundreds of boxes of shells put on board of her, and these were stowed in a compartment called the shell room. There yet remained what is called the magazine, the light rooms, and other places, besides the cabin. Into these a very large number of muskets, sabres, pistols, and other warlike instruments and ammunition might be stowed. And it is not improbable that a fast vessel of this description might be used for what is called "running the blockade," an employment which, however improper in itself, would not subject the vessel to forfeiture here.

I think, too, that the evidence connecting the Öreto with the Confederate States of America, as a vessel to be used in their service to cruise against the United States of America, is but slight. It rests entirely on her connection with a gentlemen named Lowe, who came out passenger in her, and some evidence has been given, from which it may be inferred that this Mr. Lowe is connected in some way with the Southern States. He is said by some of the crew to have exercised some control over the Oreto. This is denied, on oath, by Mr. Harris and Captain Duguid. But, assuming it to be true, and assuming also that Mr. Lowe is connected with the Confederate States, no one can state that Mr. Lowe or his employers, if he have any, may not have engaged the Oreto for the purpose of carrying munitions of war, which we have seen she is capable of doing, and this would not have been an infringement of the act under which she is libelled. But the evidence connecting the Oreto with the Confederate States rests almost entirely on the evidence of the steward, Ward, whose testimony I have already explained my reasons for receiving with much doubt.

Under all the circumstances of the case, I do not feel that I should be justified in condemning the Oreto. She will therefore be restored.

With respect to costs, although I am of opinion that there is not sufficient evidence of illegal conduct to condemn the vessel, yet, I think all the circumstances of the case taken together were sufficient to justify strong suspicion that an attempt was being made to infringe that neutrality so wisely determined upon by her Majesty's government. It is the duty of the officers of her Majesty's navy to prevent, as far as may be in their power, any such infringement of the neutrality. I think that Captain Hickley had prima facie grounds for seizing the Oreto, and I therefore decree that each party pay his own costs.

APPENDIX No. XIX.

DEBATE IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS OF FEBRUARY 16, 1864 RELATIVE TO BRITISH AND AMERICAN CLAIMS.*

[From Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, vol. 173, pp. 618-635.]

HOUSE OF LORDS, February 16, 1864.

UNITED STATES-BRITISH AND AMERICAN CLAIMS-MOTION FOR RETURNS.

The EARL OF CARNARVON rose to move for "returns of claims made by British subjects upon the United States government, sustained either in person or property since the secession of the southern States, specifying how and the grounds on which such claims have been disposed of, and to ask for any further information as to claims made by the United States government upon her Majesty's government for damages alleged to be done to American ships by the Alabama and other confederate cruisers." The noble earl said: My lords, the notice which stands upon the paper in my name divides itself into two parts. In the first part I ask for a return of all the claims made on the American government by British subjects for injuries sustained either in person or property since the commencement of the civil war, and for which the federal government is deemed responsible. I presume there can be no real objection to this part of the return. It is not open to the objection sometimes made that it may prejudice negotiations in prog ress, because it is simply a summarized statement of the particular claims which have been made, and the grounds on which they have been accepted, rejected, or disposed of by the American government. I can easily understand that it may not be quite practicable to make that return complete, or precise, but I shall be satisfied if it is an approximate return, and puts the House and the country in general possession of the facts. I can easily believe that, under the peculiar circumstances of the United States government, many claims have arisen to which many counter claims and objections may have been made, and which require the most grave and serious consideration, and I should be the last person to show any want of forbearance to the government of a country situate as the government of the United States is. Wherever we can safely assume a bona fide intention on the part of the federal government to do that which is right, we ought not to be very minute in marking that which has been done amiss. With regard, too, to those British subjects-and the case is by no means an unfrequent one-who have gone out to the United States within the last few years with the inten tion of acquiring the rights of American citizens, and consequently of divesting themselves as far as lies in their power of their nationality and allegiance to the Crown, and have only been prevented from carrying out that purpose by recent events-though they may not have wholly forfeited the protection which the British Crown extends to all its subjects everywhere, still they do not come into court with a very satisfactory case, and do not possess a very strong claim on the consideration of Parliament. But in the case of persons who are clearly British subjects, and who on mere suspicion have been arrested, put into prison, subjected to indignities and hardships-sometimes even imperiling their lives-her Majesty's government, I think, are bound to require the amplest compensation and redress at the hands of the federal government. Then, again, there is another class of British subjects who are in a position to make claims for redress. There are British subjects who have engaged in a legitimate trade, and who, while acting in conformity with international law, have, nevertheless, seen their ships condemned in American prize courts on principles which, if correctly reported, are of a very questionable nature. I have indeed always thought that we, who in former wars have jealously maintained certain principles of international jurisprudence, ought not to depart from those principles now that our position is reversed, and we have become neutrals instead of belligerents. But at the same time, if the statements we have received of the judgments in the American prize courts be correct, there can be no doubt that neutral rights are almost brought to the verge of extinction. I will not now go into that question, but there are two cases on which I must say one word. *Transmitted with dispatch No. 599 from Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward, February 18, 1864, see vol. III,

p. 245.

The first is that of the Saxon, which must be familiar to all your lordships, inasmuch as it has already appeared in every newspaper. If that case be correctly reported, it appears to me one of the most monstrous that has ever appeared before Parliament. That ship was an English ship, and was taking in a cargo at an island at no great distance from one of our settlements on the coast of Western Africa. It is said that the island (Angra Pequena) had been annexed by proclamation to the Cape Colony in 1861, by Sir George Grey, but that that proclamation had never been confirmed by the colonial office. I believe that, looking to the practice of the colonial office, it will be found that proclamations of this sort have not been ratified sometimes till one, two, and three years afterward. But however this may be, the ship was taking in her cargo, and on the point of sailing, when she was boarded by an armed boat's crew, from a federal vessel, the Vanderbilt. The captain was sent down and the American lieutenant ordered the crew below. The mate of the Saxon was going down the ladder when the lieutenant pushed him on the shoulder, and, as the unfortunate man turned round to see who it was that touched him, the American officer drew a revolver and shot him dead. If this statement be true, there certainly never was a more wanton, atrocious, or barbarous murder committed on the high seas. The captain of the Vanderbilt is said to have expressed his regret at the occurrence, but I hope that the government will require something more than a mere expression of regret. The only compensation which can satisfy the honor of the country and the justice of the case is to bring the offender to speedy trial and to execution, if the case be proved against him. This transaction took place in the middle of September five months ago. It is hardly a case which can require much communication or negotiation; and I hope, therefore, that the noble earl will be able to lay the correspondence on the table, or name an early day for its production. There is also another case to which I wish to call the attention of the House, and in doing so I will take the opportunity of asking the noble earl a question with respect to it. I see it stated in the newspapers that a confederate vessel, the Tuscaloosa, has been seized by order of the government, in Simon's Bay, near the Cape of Good Hope. That ship is referred to in the papers recently laid before Parliament, and she is stated to have been a federal ship originally, captured by the Alabama, and converted into an armed tender to that vessel. She appeared at the Cape last year, when the United States consul demanded that she should be detained. The governor, however, did not consider himself at liberty at that time to take that course. The facts were brought under the consideration of her Majesty's government, and this is what the noble earl wrote on the subject:

"As regards the Tuscaloosa, although her Majesty's government would have approved the British authorities at the Cape if they had adopted towards that vessel a course different from that which was adopted, yet the question as to the manner in which a vessel under such circumstances should, according to the tenor of her Majesty's orders, be dealt with, was not one altogether free from uncertainty. Nevertheless, instructions will be sent to the British authorities at the Cape for their guidance in the event of a similar case occurring hereafter, and her Majesty's government hope that under those instructions nothing will for the future happen to admit of a question being raised as to her Majesty's orders having been strictly carried out."-Correspondence No. 1, (1864,) p. 43.

It is, no doubt, under the instructions here mentioned that the authorities of the Cape acted when they arrested the vessel, and I trust that the noble earl will have no objection to lay them on the table. I come now to the second part of my notice, which refers to claims put forward by the United States government upon the British government for damages alleged to have been done to American ships by the confederate cruiser the Alabama. Your lordships have doubtless seen the correspondence relating to the Alabama, which was placed upon the table of the House a few days ago. It is not long, but it contains matter of serious importance. It comprises five different series of applications from Mr. Adams on the part of the United States government. The first application was made on the 19th of February last year, and was presented in consequence of the destruction of the Brilliant and the Manchester, and repayment was demanded for the value of the cargo and the ship, with interest thereon. On the 9th of March the noble earl replies to Mr. Adams, and disclaims all connection with the Alabama, and all responsibility for the mischief she may have done. On the 29th of April another claim was made by Mr. Adams on account of the destruction of the Golden Rule, which was simply acknowledged by the noble earl. Again a third application was made on the 7th of July, and on the 13th of July the noble earl returned an answer referring to his first dispatch, and again disclaiming all responsibility for the acts of confederate cruisers. On the 24th of August there caine another claim for the destruction of the ship Nora by the Alabama, and I should like to read to your lordships the description there given of the Alabama. The owners of the ship, in their memorial to Mr. Seward, say:

*

#

"The vessel calling herself the Confederate States man-of-war Alabama is an English vessel, and no other. The said steamer was allowed to leave port under the pretense of making a trial trip and has never been in any port of the