substantial deviation, either from the letter or from the spirit of those. regulations, was permitted to or did take place."

With the evidence now submitted to the Tribunal, which are the original vouchers for the purchases made at Bermuda by the Florida, it is evident that Earl Russell must have been misinformed when he stated that there had been no deviation from the regulations. The five days' stay which was granted was extended to nine. Twenty days' carpenter-work were done instead of five; supplies for a cruise were taken instead of supplies for immediate use; clothing, rum, medicines, and general supplies were taken, as well as supplies for the subsistence of the crew; one hundred and thirty-five tons of coal were [362] *taken instead of twenty. In all this the United States find

fresh and cumulative cause of complaint on account of this vessel. They also call the particular attention of the Tribunal to the fact that at that time there was no necessity of making any repairs to the Florida. The experts employed by the Governor to make the examination reported, "She can proceed to sea with safety in her present state under steam." The repairs, therefore, were only necessary to enable her to use her sails, banking her fires,2 and laying to for the purpose of watching and destroying the commerce of the United States. Permitting any repairs to be made at that time was another violation of the duties of Great Britain as a neutral toward the United States.

The Florida left Bermuda on the 27th of June, 1864. On the 1st of July she destroyed the Harriet Stevens; the Golconda on the 8th; the Margaret Y. Davis on the 9th; the Electric Spark on the 10th; and the Mondamin on the 26th of September, all being vessels belonging to the commercial marine of the United States. On the 7th of October, 1864, her career as an insurgent cruiser terminated at Bahia.

During her cruise, three tenders were fitted out and manned [363] from her officers and crew. The *Clarence was captured by her

off the coast of Brazil on the 6th of May, 1863. She was then fitted out with guns, officers, and men, and during the first part of the month of June, 1863, captured and destroyed the Kate Stewart, the Mary Alvina, the Mary Schindler, and the Whistling Wind. On the 10th of that month she captured the Tacony. The Clarence was then destroyed, and the Tacony was converted into a tender, and, in the same month, destroyed the Ada, the Byzantian, the Elizabeth Ann, the Goodspeed, the L. A. Macomber, the Marengo, the Ripple, the Rufus Choate, and the Umpire. On the 25th she captured the Archer. The crew and armament were transferred to that vessel, and the Tacony burned. On the 27th the United States revenue-cutter Caleb Cushing was destroyed by the Archer.

The amount of the injury which the United States and its citizens suffered from the acts of this vessel and of its tenders will be hereafter stated. The United States with confidence assert that they have demonstrated that Great Britain, by reason of the general principles above stated, and in consequence of the particular acts or omissions herein before recited, failed to fulfill all of the duties set forth in the

three rules of the sixth article of the Treaty, or recognized by the [364] *principles of International Law not inconsistent with such rules,

and they ask the Tribunal to certify that fact as to the Florida and as to its tenders. Should the Tribunal exercise the power conferred upon it by Article VII of the Treaty to award a sum in gross to

be paid to the United States, they ask that in considering the amount so to be awarded, the losses of individuals in the destruction of their vessels and cargoes, by the Florida, or by its tenders, and also the expenses to which the United States were put in the pursuit of either of those vessels, may be taken into account.

THE ALABAMA, AND HER TENDER, THE TUSCALOOSA.

The Alabama, and caloosa.

The Alabama, a vessel which has given the generic name to the claims before this Tribunal, is thus described by Semmes, her comher tender, the Tus- mander: "She was of about 900 tons burden, 230 feet in length, 32 feet in breadth, 20 feet in depth, and drew, when provisioned and coaled for cruise, 15 feet of water. She was barkentinerigged, with long lower masts, which enabled her to carry large fore and aft sails, as jibs and try-sails. The scantling of the vessel was light compared with vessels of her class in the Federal Navy, but this was scarcely a disadvantage, as she was designed *as a scourge [365] of the enemy's commerce rather than for battle. Her engine was of 300 horse-power, and she had attached an apparatus for condensing from the vapor of sea-water all the fresh water that her crew might require. Her armament consisted of eight guns; six 32pounders in broadside, and two pivot-guns amid-ship, one on the forecastle, and the other abaft the mainmast, the former a 100-pounder rifled Blakeley, and the latter a smooth-bore 8-inch."

*

*

The Alabama was built and, from the outset, was "intended for a Confederate vessel of war."2 The contract for her construction was "signed by Captain Bullock on the one part and Messrs. Laird on the other." The date of the signature cannot be given exactly. The drawings were signed October 9, 1861, and it is supposed that the contract was signed at or about the same time. "The ship cost in United States money about $255,000." The payments were made by the agents of the insurgents. Bullock "went almost daily on board the gun-boat, and seemed to be recognized in authority;" in fact, "he superintended the building of the Alabama."3

On the 15th of May she was launched under the *name of the [366] 290.4 Her officers were in England awaiting her completion, and were paid their salaries "monthly, about the first of the month, at Fraser, Trenholm & Co.'s office in Liverpool."5

The purpose for which this vessel was being constructed was notorious in Liverpool. Before she was launched she became an object of suspicion with the Consul of the United States at that port, and shè was the subject of constant correspondence on his part with his Goverument and with Mr. Adams.

The failure of Mr. Adams to secure in the previous March the interference of Her Majesty's Government to prevent the departure of the Florida, appears to have induced him to think that it would be necessary to obtain strictly technical proof of a violation of the municipal law of England before he could hope to secure the detention of the then

1 Semmes's Adventures Afloat, pages 402, 403.

2 Journal of an officer of the Alabama. See Vol. IV, page 181.

* Dudley to Edwards, Vol. III, page 17; Vol. VI, page 383.

* Dudley to Seward, Vol. III, page 1; Vol. VI, page 371.

5 Vol. III, page 146; Vol. VI, page 435.

• See Vol. III, passim.

nameless Alabama. That he had good reason to think so is not open to reasonable doubt. On the 23d of June he thought he had such proof. He wrote to Earl Russell that day,1 recalling to his recollection the fact that notwithstanding the favorable reports from the Liverpool customs

in regard to the Florida, there was the strongest reason for [367] *believing that she had gone to Nassau, and was there "engaged in completing her armament, provisioning, and crew," for the purpose of carrying on war against the United States. He continued, "I am now under the painful necessity of apprising your Lordship that a new and still more powerful war-steamer is nearly ready for departure from the port of Liverpool on the same errand." "The parties engaged in the enterprise are persons well known at Liverpool to be agents and officers of the insurgents of the United States." "This vessel has been built and launched from the dock-yard of persons, one of whom is now sitting as a member of the House of Commons, and is fitting out for the especial and manifest object of carrying on hostilities by sea." He closed by soliciting such action as might "tend either to stop the projected expedition, or to establish the fact that its purpose is not inimical to the people of the United States."

Earl Russell replied that he had referred "this matter to the proper department of Her Majesty's Government," and on the 4th of July,

1862, he inclosed the customs report on the subject, in which it [368] is stated that "the officers have at all times free access to the

building-yards of the Messrs. Laird, at Birkenhead, where the vessel is lying, and that there has been no attempt, on the part of her builders, to disguise, what is most apparent, that she is intended for a ship of war." It was further said that "the description of her in the communication of the United States Consul is most correct, with the exception that her engines are not constructed on the oscillatory principle." "With reference to the statement of the United States Consul that the evidence he has in regard to this vessel being intended for the so-called Confederate Government in the Southern States is entirely satisfactory to his mind," it was said that "the proper course would be for the Consul to submit such evidence as he possesses to the collector at that port, who would thereupon take such measures as the Foreign Enlistment Act would require;" and the report closed by saying "that the officers at Liverpool will keep a strict watch on the vessel."4 The point that the vessel was intended for a vessel of war being thus conceded, Mr. Adams thereupon, at once, relying upon the promise to keep watch of the vessel, instructed the Consul to comply with the directions indicated

in the report of the Commissioners and furnish all the evidence [369] in his *possession to the Collector of Customs at Liverpool. 5

Mr. Dudley did so on the 9th of July, in a letter to the Collector of Liverpool, and the attention of the Tribunal of Arbitration is called to the fact that every material allegation in that letter has been more than borne out by subsequent proof. The Collector replied that he was "respectfully of opinion that the statement made was not such as could be acted upon by the officers of the revenue unless legally sub

1 Adams to Russell, Vol. III, page 5; Vol. VI, page 375.

2 The Florida arrived at Nassau April 28, and the Bahama with her armament a few days later. These facts were undoubtedly known to Lord Russell and to Mr. Adams when this letter was written.

3 Russell to Adamıs, Vol. III, page 6; Vol. VI, page 376.

+ Vol. III, page 7; Vol. VI, page 379.

Adams to Wilding, Vol. III, page 8; Vol. VI, page 381. "Dudley to Edwards, Vol. III, page 17; Vol. VI, page 383.

stantiated by evidence." And again, a few days later, he said to Mr. Dudley, "The details given by you in regard to the said vessel are not sufficient, in a legal point of view, to justify me in taking upon myself the responsibility of the detention of this ship."2

Thus early in the history of this cruiser the point was taken by the British authorities-a point maintained throughout the struggle that they would originate nothing themselves for the maintenance and performance of their international duties, and that they would listen to no representations from the officials of the United States which did not furnish technical evidence for a criminal prosecution under the Foreign Enlistment Act.

*The energetic Consul of the United States at Liverpool was [370] not disheartened. He caused a copy of his letter to be laid be

fore R. P. Collier, Esq., one of the most eminent barristers of England, who, a few months later, became Solicitor General of the Crown, under Lord Palmerston's administration, and who is now understood to be the principal law adviser of the Crown.

*

Mr. Collier advised that "the principal officer of the customs at Liverpool * be applied to to seize the vessel, with a view to her condemnation," and, "at the same time, to lay a statement of the fact before the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, coupled with the request that Her Majesty's Government would direct the vessel to be seized, or ratify the seizure if it has been made.”3

It was useless to attempt to induce the collector to seize the vessel. Mr. Dudley thereupon set about to get the direct proof required by the authorities as to the character of the Alabama or 290. There were

men enough," he said, "who knew about her, and who understood her character, but they were not willing to testify, and, in a preliminary proceeding like this, it was impossible to obtain process to compel them. Indeed, no one in a hostile community like Liverpool, *where the feeling and sentiment are against us, would be a will- [371] ing witness, especially if he resided there, and was any way dependent upon the people of that place for a livelihood." At last Mr. Dudley succeeded in finding the desired proof. On the 21st day of July, he laid it in the form of affidavits before the Collector at Liverpool in compliance with the intimations which Mr. Adams had received from Earl Russell. These affidavits were on the same day transmitted by the Collector to the Board of Customs at London, with a request for instructions by telegraph, as the ship appeared to be ready for sea and might leave any hour. Mr. Dudley then went to London, and on the 23d of July laid the affidavits before Mr. Collier for his opinion. Copies of the affidavits will be found in Vol. III, page 21 to 28, and Vol. VI, page 391, et seq.

It is not necessary to dwell upon the character of this proof, since it was conclusively soon passed upon by both Mr. Collier and by Her Majesty's Government. It is sufficient to say that it showed affirmatively that the 290 was a "fighting vessel;" that she was going out to the Government of the Confederate States of America to *cruise and commit hostilities against the Government and people [372]

1 Edwards to Dudley, Vol. III, page 19; Vol. VI, page 385.

2 Vol. VI, page 389.

3 Vol. III, page 16; Vol. VI, page 388.

Dudley to Seward, Vol. III, page 13.

5 Dudley to Seward, Vol. III, page 13; Vol. VI, page 390.

66

6 Collector to Commissioners, Vol. III, page 20; Vol. Vl, page 395.

7 Vol. III, page 29; Vol. VI, page 398.

of the United States of America;" "that the enlisted men were to join the ship in Messrs. Laird & Co.'s yard;" that they were enlisting men "who had previously served on fighting-ships;" that the enlistments had then been going on for over a month, and that there was need of immediate action by the British Government, if action was to be of any service in protecting its neutrality against violation.

Mr. Collier said immediately, "It appears 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. It well deserves consideration whether, if the vessel be allowed to escape, the Federal Government would not have serious grounds of remonstrance." The 290 was at this time nearly ready for sea, and time was important. Mr. Dudley, through his counsel, in order that no time might be lost, on the same day laid Mr. Collier's new opinion before the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and before the Secretary of the Board of Customs. The Under Secretary "was not disposed to discuss the

matter, nor did he read Mr. Collier's opinion.” The Secretary [373] of the Board of *Customs said that the Board could not act without orders from the Treasury Lords. The last of these answers was not communicated until the 28th of July.

3

The additional proof and the new opinion of Mr. Collier were also officially communicated to Her Majesty's Government through the regular diplomatic channels. On the 22d of July copies of the depositions of Dudley, Maguire, DaCosta, Wilding, and Passmore were sent to Lord Russell by Mr. Adams; and on the 24th of July copies of the depositions of Roberts and Taylor were in like manner sent to Lord Russell. These were acknowledged by Lord Russell on the 28th.

On that day "these papers were considered by the Law Officers of the Crown; on the same evening their report was agreed upon, and it was in Lord Russell's hands early on the 29th. Orders were then immediately sent to Liverpool to stop the vessel."5

Thus it appears that this intelligence, which Great Britain regarded as sufficient to require the detention of the 290, was communicated to

Her Majesty's Government in three ways: first, on the 21st of July, [374] through the channel at Liverpool, *which had been indicated by

Earl Russell; second, on the 22d by the solicitor of Mr. Dudley in person to the Customs and to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at the Foreign Office; and thirdly, on the 23d and on the 24th by Mr. Adams officially. It also appears that the information communicated on the 21st was transmitted to London by the Collector, with the statement that the vessel might sail at any hour, and that it was important to give the instructions for detention by telegraph; and it still further appears that notwithstanding this official information from the Collector, the papers were not considered by the law advisers until the 28th, and that the case appeared to them to be so clear that they gave their advice upon it that evening. Under these circumstances, the delay of eight days after the 21st in the order for the detention of the vessel was, in the opinion of the United States, gross negligence on the part of Her Majesty's Government. On the 29th the Secretary of the Commission of the Customs received a telegram from Liverpool

1 Vol. III, page 29; Vol. IV, page 398.

2 Squary to Adams, Vol. III, page 29; Vol. VI, page 397.

3 Vol. III, page 31; Vol. VI, page 406.

4 Vol. III, page 21; Vol. VI, page 397.

5 A speech delivered in the House of Commons on Friday, August 4, 1871, by Sir Roundell Palmer, M. P. for Richmond, page 16.