The Sun.
London, England, 1863-08-22 00:00:00

NEW YORK AND THE BARAIdAS.

There was published yesterday a very in teresting
and important Parliamentary paper upon the in-
terference of the Federal Government with the trade
between these ports. The correspondence, opens
with a letter from Lord Lyons to Earl Russell, dated
Washington, May 20, 1862, stating that he c nclosed
copies of President Lincoln's Proclamation and
Treasury regulations, ,in virtue of which f:be ports
of Beaufort, Port Royal, and New Orleans were to
be opened to trade on the Ist of the following June,
and that the blockade, as regarded those ports, was
from that date so far to cease that commercial in-
tercourse with them, except as to persons and things
and information contraband of war, might be car-
ried on subject to the laws of the United States and
to the regulations prescribed by the Secretary of
the Treasury, Mr. S. P. Chase, in his order ap-
pended to the Proclamation. Those regulations set
forth that to vessels clearing for foreign ports and
destined to the ports opened by the Proclamation,
licenses would be granted by the Consuls of the
United States upon satisfactory evidence that the
vessels so licensed should convey no persons, pro-
perty, or information contraband of war either to
or from the said ports. It is, moreover, stipulated
that the licenses thus granted should be exhibited
to the collector of the port to which the vessels
might be respectit ely bound immediately on arrival,
and, if required, to any officer in charge of the
blockade; that on leaving either of the said ports
every vessel should be required to have a clearance
from the collector of Customs, according to law,
showing that there had been no violation of the
conditions of the license, and that any violation of
those conditions should involve the forfeiture and
condemnation of the vessel and the cargo, and the
exclusion of all parties concerned from any further
privilege of entering the United States during the
war for any purpose whatsoever. The regulations
further prescribe the form of the license to be
granted, and intimate that the existing blockade
must be regarded as remaining in fall force and
effect, as previously established, save as relaxed by
the Proclamation in favour of the ports particularly

mentioned.
Then follows in the correspondence a second
letter from Lord Lyons to Earl Russell, dated
Washington, May 26, in which he encloses an ex-
tract from a despatch which he had received a day
or two previously from Mr. Bayley,Governor of the
Bahama Islands, on the subject of a report which
prevailed there, that the Customs authorities at
New York had determined to prevent or impede the
exportation of ordinary supplies from that city to
the port of Nassau. Lord Lyons adds that he had
directed her Majesty's acting Consul at New York
to ascertain and let him know as soon as possible
whether there was any fonndationfor such a report.
and in his next despatch be transmits a copy of a
letter written to Mr. Bayley by Messrs. Adderley
and Co., complaining that a bond had been ex-
acted from their agent by the Customs autho-
rities at New York, restricting the disposal of a
cargo of coals shipped for Nassau. The Messrs.
Adderley, while fully admitting the right of
the American Government to make such cus-
toms' laws and regulations as they think fit,
contend that such laws and regulations s'aould be of
general application, and that Great Britain, being
placed by international treaty on the footing of the
most favoured nations, the American Government
had no right to single out any particular British
colony and make regulations applicable to that
colony alone. The circumstances which led them to
make these remarks are stated in a letter to Mr.
Bayley, dated Nassau, New Providence, May 12,
1862.

Lord Lyons, in forwarding the letter to Earl
Russell, encloses copies of an Act of Congress ap-
proved on the 20th of May, 1862, conferring on the
Secretary of the Treasury extensive powers to im-
pose restrictions on trade, with a view to prevent
supplies being carried to the Southern States, and
accompanies a subsequent despatch, dated June 2,
with copies of the instructions given by the Secre-
tary of the Treasury to refuse clearances to vessels
laden with contraband of war or other specified ar-
ticles, as well as to vessels believed to be in fact
bound to Confederate ports, whatever might be
their ostensible destination, or which happened to
be laden with merchandise of whatever description,
in cases which there appeared to be imminent
danger of the cargoes coming into the poszession of
the insurgents.
Having transmitted this information, Lord Lyons
informs Earl Russell, in a despatch dated the sth of
June, that he had received the report of acting
Consul Edwards, whom he had instructed to in-
quire into the truth of the statement brought under
his notice by the Governor of the Bahamas, that
the Customs' authorities at New York had deter-
mined to prevent the exportation of supplies to
those islands.

Mr. Edwards, in the report mentioned by Lord
Lyons, states that the Customs' authorities at New
York had upon several occasions thrown seriousim-
pediments in the way of shipments of coal and or- I
dinary merchandise to Nassau, and had even in
some cases where the goods were already embarked,
and even cleared, refused to permit the vessel to go
to sea until the goods had been re-landed.
Then follows a despatch from Lord Lyons to
Earl Russell, containing a copy of a circular ad-
dressed to consuls of the United States by Mr.
Seward, with a list of the articles which, as contra-
band, were to be refused clearances from the ports
already named. Next in order is a despatch of June
21, from Mr. Stuart to Earl Russell, forwarding a
letter from Mr. S. P. Chase, stating that the re-
strictions on coal had been enforced by collectors,
under orders from the Treasury Dspartmant, alike
upon domestic and foreign shipping clearing to ports
north of Cape St. Roque, on the eastern coast of
South America, and west of the 15th degree of
longitude east ; and that all restrictions to trade
would be removed when the necessity which had
rendered them imperative should cease.
A despatch of Mr. Edwards, given at length, enu-
merates several cases of recent occurrence, the date
being the 26th of June, 1862, in which British inte-
rests had suffered inj uryat the hands of the Customs'
authorities at New York. Among other cases he
quotes that of the China, which arrived at New
York from Liverpool on the 18th inst., carrying a
quantity of merchandise, in transitu for Nassau by
the Royal Mail steamer British Queen.
Matters having arrived at this point, we find Mr.
Stuart writing informally to Mr. Seward as fol-
lows

"My dear Sir, "Washington, July 1, 1862.
on the 20th ulu
,----You did me the honour to forward to me
of the Trees t.; a.
transcripthda of a letter which the Secretary
certain restricti addressed to you upon the subject of
the export of tniBwhich he had thought fit to impose upon
p°o4:zizticles of commerce to Nassau and
other British
I have duly transmitted a copy
of Mr. Chase's letter txto
alearat Resell, and Lord Lyons had
also furnished to her
whid:tshGo,vernment a copy of the Act of Congress under
: Secretary of the Treasury
becomes authorised to exercise
spent to the export of merchandise powers is re-
the ports of the
United States. Such being the sceasehfr:l: is
not my wish to
anticipate any instructions which
m:ulslajesty'S Govern-
.th.e subject in
'nest may decide upon sending to
question ; but as further interference witlPl7l'
occurred
coping
the e facts
of a most annoying and injurious nature hasritlsho,,connerce
at Now York, I trust you will permit me
to you as contained in the accompanying
spatch, and its enclosures, which I have received fromoa de-
British Acting Consul at that port,and to add a few informaltile
obser cations, having reference to the question in an intnt
Cigna! point of view. It appears, then, that British vessel;
lawfully trading between the port of Now York and the
British West Indira are in some instances refused clearances
at the former port, and that in others they are detained and
searched, and required to relend portions of their cargoes,
after bovine. been regularly cleared with full knowledge of
the articles' on board, or to give bonds that no pact of the
cargo shall at any indefinite time be. used, by the enemies of
the United States. According the the Treasury. instructions
these proceedings are left entirely to the discretion er caprice
of the collector of customs, or to the suspicions which he
may choose to entertain as to the ultimate cr indirect desti-
nation or employment of the cargo; and that subordinate
officer is thus enabled arbitrarily to interrupt the trade be-
tween Great Britain and the United States, and even be-
tween Great Britain and her West Indian possessions, 93
in the case mentioned of the merchandise brought to New
York by the Royal Mail steamer China for transshipment
on board the Royal Mail steamer British Queen. I was
not before aware that the interruption of the legitimate
trade of a neutral could be effected otherwise than in the
manner and to the extent prescribed by the international law
of blockade, and as Great Britain has declared herself to bo
a neutral in the present state of war, and has granted belli •

gerent rights, which have been ace opted and utilized by the
United States, she seems clearly entitled to claim for her
commerce exemption from any interruption not in accord-
ance with the principles which usually apply to neutrals. It
is difficult to suppose that a belligerent may without any
blockade at all, upon mere suspicion or belief, possibly ill-
founded, that certain merchandise will ultimately find its
way into the enemy's country,cm; off the trade of neutrals,
either in whole or in part, from ports of which it is in un-
disturbed possession, This would be a cheap and easy sub-
stitute for an effectual blockade. When, however, such a
novel substitute is applied in its application to a particular
nation, whether on account of the geographical position of
its territories, or for other reasons, the case becomes one in
which the neutral thus invidiously injured has just grounds
of complaint, as of an unfriendly, if not of an almost hostile
act. In the particular case now reported by Mr. Edwards,
' peculiar grievances are recited, which it cannot be the de-
sire of the United States Government to apply to the legiti-
mate trade carried on from the United States by British
suijects in British bottoms to British ports. The hardship,
connected with the bonds required by the collector of cus-
toms is forcibly explained by Mr. Edwards that I need not
specially refer further to it. The teats stated in the protest
of the master of the William 11. Clear, relative to the de-
tention end search of that vessel, show, if true, an indiscreet
zeal and want of courtesy on the part of certain subordinate
officers which you will doubtless look upon as deserving of
censure. But I venture to recommend the whole question to
your favourable attention, feeling convinced that you will
be anxious to redress any manifest injury towards Great
Britain, trusting you will remember that my present obser-
vations are merely informal ones, intended for the friendly
consideration of yourself and Mr. Chase, and having by no
means in view to provoke a discussion upon points which
have been already referred to my Government.—l avail, &c.
"W. STUART."
Next in order comes the first despatch of Earl
Russell to Mr. Stuart:—

"Foreign.office, July 18, 1862.

" Sir,—Her Majesty's Government have considered, in
communication with the law officers of the Crown, Lord
Lyons' despatches of 20th and 26th May and 2d and sth
June respectively, relative to the restrictions placed upon
the export trade of the United States, and more especially
that from New York to the Bahamas,in consequence of the in-
structions given bythe Secretary o t the Treasury-of the United
States to refuse clearances to vessels laden with contraband
of war or other specified articles, as well as to vessels which
are believed to be in fact bound to Confederate ports, or
which are laden with merchandise of whatever description,
when there appears to be imminent danger of the cargoes
coming into the possession of the so-styled Confederates.
I have now to state to you that her Majesty's Government
are of opinion that is competent to the United States as a
belligerent Power to protect itself within its own ports and
territory, by refusing clearances to vessels laden with
contraband of war or other specified articles, as well
as to vessels which are believed to be bound to Con-
federate ports, and that so long as such precautions
are adopted equally and indifferently in all cases, with-
out reference to the nationality or origin of any par-
ticular vessels or goods, they do not afford any just ground
of complaint. But her Majesty's Government are unable to
understand how the refusal of clearances to vessels laden
with ordinary merchandise can be justified upon the mere
assumption or surmise of some imminent danger of the
cargoes coming into the possession of the insurgents;' unless,
indeed, there be reasonable ground for alleging and believ-
ing that some Confederate por t is the true destination of said
vessels or of their cargoes. Under so vague and indefinite a
pretext as that of ' imminent danger of the cargoes coming
into the possession of the insurgents,' any kind and amount
of arbitrary restrictions on British trade might be introduced
and practised. With reference to the measures that appear
to have been taken by the United States Government as to
the trade with the Bahama Islands, her Majesty's Govern-
ment consider that a distinci ion ought to be made between
shipments of coal and other articles aneipitis uses, the export
of which may have been prohibited as contraband by gene-
ral orders of the United States Government to any places
within geographical limits, and shipments to the Bahamas
or any other part of the British dominions of provisions and
other articles of innoeent use not prohibited or made contra.
band by any such general order. The prohibition of the for-
mer class of shipments is public and general, and it falls
equally upon the shipping and commerce of all nations, and
may be justified upon the ground of the exigencies of a bel-
ligerent. But her Majesty's Government cannot so regard
the interference of the New York Custom-house with the
ordinary exports to the Bahamas of dry goods, plain and
printed fabrics, &c., shoes, medical drugs, flour, and pro-
visions. Trade between the United Stales and the Bahamas
is regulated by the Treaty of 1815 between the United
States and Great Britain, the stipulations of the Treaty
having been extended to the Bahamas in 1830 by the mutual
acts of both Governments. By the proclamation of Presi-
dent Jackson, dated the sth of October, 1830, pursuant to
the Act of Congress of the 29th of May, 1830, it was ex
pressly declared to be lawful for British vessels from the
Bahamas to import into the United States, and to export
therefrom, any articles which might be imported or exported
in vessels of the United States. This engagement is still
in force, and any prohibition of or interference with exports
of ordinary commodities, not contraband of war, from New
York to the Bahamas in British vessels is plainly inconsis-
tent with that engagement. Her Majesty's Government
cannot, therefore, in the absence of any evidence, that the
articles in question were destined for- the so-called Confede-
rate States, pass unnoticed the general restriction which has
been imposed on their export from New York to the Baha-
mas, and I have accordingly to instruct you to address a
representation on the subject to Mr. Seward.—l am, &c.,
" RUSSELL."

We are at this point furnished with letters from
Messrs.. Chalmers, Guthrie, and Co., and Messrs.
Shorter and Co., of London, addressed to Earl Rus-
sell, in which it is stated that, trading as British
merchants, they had shipped from Liverpool toNew
York by the Cunard steamship China, which sailed
on the 7th of June, 1862, sundry goods in transit
to Nassau, that these goods did not come under the
designation of contraband, but that they had never-
theless been se:zucl by the Federal Government on
the ground that the merchants of Nassau might re-
sell them to parties who might ship them to the
Confederate States; that they had waited patiently
for a return mail from Nassau in the hope that the
Federal Government would reconsider what ap-
peared a very arbitrary and illegal proceeding, but
that it seemed they had no intention of allowing
the goods to go forward in the usual course of
commerce; and they therefore entreated that the
English Government would take such steps as they
might deem necessary to obtain the release of
the
goods,
aswell as compensation for the loss
their
detention had naturally caused. In reply
to these representations Mr. Layard states that
" the matter is under the consideration of her
Majesty's Government." On the Ist of July Mr.
Bayley, writing
Naddressed
representing te
hi
el
by
to Mr. Stuart, encloses a memorial
injury which was beingin
a
ileetne
ea,s of three firms in
the heads
forcible light the great
to British trade by the
proceedings of the co
York, while there is a letterho,or effh iNlCru.sctoumnasrdattuN:iwr.
in w
Chase, dated June 19,he begs that the
subject of the transhipment oire
Part of the cargo per
the China to the British Queen might receive its
earliest consideration. Mr. Stuart su.ulblu3weguegntdley.,
on the 21st of August encloses the
Russell in
spatch of Mr. Seward to Earl
vessels
andta ti ou is
have the honour to acknowledgr e the e
your note of the Ist inst., in which, erteh
o in
81
tr
icie t:
ci
tPi
o no
of her Britannic Majesty's Government,a ps rn s
made to me on the subject of clearances of vl
car-
goes from New York to the Bahamas. No time was lost in
submitting your note to the Secretary of the Treasury' who
referred it to the Collector of Customs at New York for ex
planation. I now have the honour to enclose to you a cop)
of that officer's report on the subject, and to state that, as
his proceedings therein set forth appear to have been in
strict conformity with the instructions of the Treasury De-
partment, his conduct has been accordingly approved by
that department. I, however, give you the collector's reply
for the better information of your Government as to the
exigencies which have rendered the proceedings complained
of necessary in a crisis of great public danger. The exclu-
sive order is applied to the Island of Nassau only, because
there is no complaint of abuse of neutrality laws elsewhere,
and not at ad invidiously or because it is a British posses-
sion. The restriction is a measure adopted for the public
safety, endangered by insurrection, and not at all as in any
sense a measure of trade, and I think it justifiable on the
same grounds with the inhibition of certain exports referred
to by the British Government. So soon as the abuses
which have rendered the order necessary shall have coasid
it will bo at once reseindel. I shall, however, cheerfully
bestow a further consideration upon the subject if your
Government shall require.--I have, &c.,

ViED "
The collector of Custoui"sW ILAiiirul
. Barney,B.rE in .the
reply alluded to in Mr. Seward'd despatch, endea-
doing ao,
yours to justi
Basfsy the course
"It may not be inap
the leading causes which have complaint is now
Government, and I
the significant fact that the trardef
tish West Indies during the last year
any former period,
to that point during the first quartera
1E62 showing an excess in favour ofoe
400,000 dols. Extraordinary largo which he took, and, in
priate here to enumerate some of
made
led to this state of affairs of
ore Call your attentinn to
would atdh: by her Britannic Majesty's
of this port with the Bri-
an
exports
a aamparativyeesatrtexceeds by far that of
frathtellen: o 1
years 1860 and
shipmelatter period of
I Nassau, the principal port in said islands, have
go:.ds to
during the last year, of a character entirely difreeren ma"
those of former years, and such as were not Suitedenttofrom
h
wants of tie inhabitants. Nearly all vetisals arriving herete
from that port were freighted with the p, &action of the
rebel States, and no atteopt at coneea:ment has been
made by any of the traders with resent to the place of

their origin, or the manner of their reaching Nassau.
traders becoming more bold, their vessels were freighted
here with cargoes suited to the wants of the States in
rebellion against the Government, were cleared from
Nassau, and in some instances went directly to
Brazos, on the Rio Grande in Texas, or in another case
the British schooner Time, ovmed by H. Adderley and
Co., of Nassau, as shown by the letter of our Consul at
that port, dated on the 6th of May last, discharged her
entire cargo into the rebel steamer Cecile, then lying in the
harbour of that port, awaiting a favourable opportunity to
run the blockade to Charleston. It is a very generally
acknowledged fact, and fully established by letters from
our Consul, as well as by the marine reports of the Nassau
papers, that the port of Nassau has been for the last year,
and still is, a rendezvous for both armed and unarmed ves-
sels sailing under the British flag from ports of England
laden with arms, ammunition, and assorted cargoes ; their
destination, in many instances, as shown by the letters and
papers referred to above,
,b,ellini Alt
gRBAIt
Charleston,Nzy ,ocroslolemcteorother
port ire the so-called Confederate States.—l have, Zce.,
Then comes the following communication from
Mr. Stuart to Mr. Seward :

" September, 1862.
"The undersigned has received instructions from her
Britannic Majesty's Principal Secretary of State to address
to the Secretary of State of the United States a further re-
presentation respecting the restrictions imposed by the
United States Government on trade between New York
theinstructedi tno
tsay
et ho ante
ohte
great
Majesty'sreat importance,
Governmentundersigned
ac
to: consider
.
ever desirous they may be of making every allowance for
the difficulties of the position of the United States' Govern-
ment, it is impossible for them to acquiesce in the system
ofinterference with the legitimate trade of Great Britain
which. is now practised by the United States authorities,
such hmterference being not only in contravention of the
existing treaties between Great Brftain and the United
States, but being also contrary to the established princi-
ples of international law. It appears that British vessels
lawfully trading between New York and the Bahamas are
in some instances refused clearances at New York, and in
others, after having been regularly cleared with full know-
ledge by the United States' authorities of the articles on
board, are detained and searched, and are required either to
re-land portions of their cargoes or to give bonds that no
part of the cargo shall at any indefinite time to be used by
the enemies of the United States, and these proceedings are
not claimed to be prescribed by any general law or regula-
tion of commerce, but are avowed to be wholly discretionary
with the Collector of Customs, to be enforced by him when-
soever he shall entertain the suspicion and belief that the
real destination of the cargo is mediately or immediately to
some port in the possession of the enemies of the United
States, or if he shall be satisfied that " there is imminent
danger that the goods, wares, and merchandise of whatso-
ever description laden on such vessels will fall into the pos-
session or under the control of the insurgents,' &c. The
Collector of Customs in his report of the 12th June states
that in the exercise of the discretion devolved upon him as
an officer of the Government of a Sovereign people, he had
prohibited the shipment of coals and dry goods and shoes,
and quinine and other drugs, and tin-ware and munitions of
war, and sundry other articles to Nassau. and the 'West
Indies, and to other foreign ports, when he had reason to
suspect that they were intended by individual enterprise
or the special contracts of British subjects to contribute
directly to the welfare of the enemies of the United States.'
The undersigned is instructed to state that her Majesty's
Government cannot call to mind any principle of interna-
tional jurisprudence, nor any precedent approved by inter-
national law, to justify such interference with the trade of
neutrals. The undersigned would submit to the considera-
tion of the Cabinet of Washington that trade between Great
Britain and the United States—at least as to ports and
places in the undisturbed pcssession of the United States—
is not in any degree affected by the state of war in which
the United States aro engaged; and moreover that trade
between Great Britain and an enemy of the United States
—the former preserving a strict neutrality or indifference
between the belligerent parties—can be affected only in the
manner and to the extent prescribed by the international
law of blockade. The United States Government will ad-
mit that shipments similar to those now subjected to inter-
ference, from New York to Nassau and other British ports,
if made in time of peace, could not be prohibited without
giving manifest cause of just complaint to Great Britain,
especially while such shipments remain open to other na-
tions not having with the United States treaties of a
more favourable nature. It follows that to prohibit such
shipments to British subjects while permitting them to
the subjects of other nations is to assume a state of
quasi hostility to Great Britain on account of geographical
or other circumstances supposed to mix her up with
the interests of the enemy of the United States, &c. . • •
The President cannot expect that Great Britain should al-
low British trade with her own colonies by way of the
United States, or the trade between her own colonies and
the United States, to be fettered by restrictions and condi-
tions inconsistent with the treaties between the United
States and Great Britain, and repugnant to international
law. Her Majesty's Government expect, therefore, that the
President, in the exercise of his discretion, will prohibit the
imposing of ail such restrictions and conditions as have been
complained of in the present note."

To this note Mr. Seward returns the following
reply :
"After considering the arguments of Mr. Stuart in the
most careful manner, it is not apparent to the undersigned
that they invalidate the Act of Congress, the substance of
which has been recited. By the law of nations every State
!s sovereign over its own citizens and strangers residing
within its limits, its own productions and fabrics, and its
own ports and waters and its highways, and generally
within all its proper territories. It has a right to maintain
that sovereignty against sedition and insurrection by civil
preventives and penalties and by armed force, and it has a
right to interdict and prohibit within its own borders ex-
portation of its prcductions and fabrics, and the supplying
of traitors in arms against itself with materials and muni-
tions, and any other form of aid and comfort. It has a right
within its own jurisdiction to employ all the means neces-
sary to make these prohibitions effective. It does not ap-
pear to the undersigned that the United States have sur-
rendered this right by the convention between themselves
and Great Britain which has been recited. It is true
that by the first article of the convention of 1815 British
merchants have liberty fully and freely to come with their
ships and cargoes into ports, rivers, and places within
the territories of the United States, and to be protected
in their commerce there; but this right is expressly
restricted to the ports, rivers, and places only into which
other foreigners are permitted to enter, and in which
they are permitted to reside and trade; and they are more•
over expressly declared, while entering, residing, and trading
in such ports, rivers, and places, to be subject to the laws
and statutes of the two countries. So, by the third article
of the convention of 1815, it is stipulated that prohibitions
shall not be imposed on the exportation or importation of
any articles the growth, produce, or manufacture of either
country; this stipulation, however, is not absolute, but only
a stipulation that any such prohibition shall extend equally
to all other nations as well as Great Britain. The law of
Congress seems to be free from the special objections which
are raised by Mr. Stuart. It does not confine its prohibi-
tions or its requirements to British vessels trading between
New York and the Bahamas, but applies them to all
vessels of all nations, including the -United States, wherever
trading, whether with the Bahamas or any other part of
the world. The prohibitions and requirements are not un-
certain as to the authority which prescribes then or the
f, rm of the prescription, but they are declared and promul-
gated in solemn enactment by the Congress of the United
States. The conditisns on which the prohibitions and re-
quirements are suspended are not left to caprices, suspicions,
or beliefs, but they are dependent on' satisfactory evidence
of ascertainable facts. They involve no question of neutral
rights, because no neutral has or can have a right more
than any citizen of the United States to do an act within
their exclusive jurisdiction which is forbidden by th a statutes
and laws ot the country. The Act has nothing to do with
the blockade of the insurrectionary ports, because it con-
fines its prohibitions and requirements to transactions oc-
curring and to persons residing or being within the ports
actually yossessed by the United States and under their
unquestioned protection and control Fully
rauu admittingnsetnot
raiali discriminate
finds r at
tihe principle for which Mr. Stuart so earnestly
contends, tshcatinmdaisn no
all proceedings
to the
and even regulations and
ltahwesporfinthciepli: nisitvediolSatteadteisn which affect foreign commerce
tions issued April and
adequategroundsforof
supposingofßritain,
o the
geographical limits
pwroohrlidb,
exportation of coals to ports within
, which leavessefermeedtoomf of eseftort to more
ofre
exception.thanor
one-half
Butof
the
ee
prohibition applies to allrn Amegwrreijclualanasantdo
all foreign merchants, vessels, and cargoes, a
those of Great Britain, and to all the Stateas which are
situated within the assigned limits, as well as to British de-
pendencies situated therein. It is understood to be an ac-
cepted maxim that no law reaches in effect beyond the point
whet e the reason of the law fails, especially if the law so
extended should be productive of injuries without object
and without compensation or benefit. There is not the
slightest reason to supposo that the insurgents of the
United States could in any way derive a benefit from the
exportation of anthracite coal to Archangel, or to Shanghai,
or to Japan, Nor is it manifest that the British nation, its
merchants and vessels,
do not, in common with other na-
tions, their merchants and vessels, derive benefits and ad-
vantages from the export:, permitted to all ports, of what-
ever nation, beyond the limit assigned by the Secretary ot
the Treasury. Nevertheless the President, desirous to re-
move all possible grounds for misconstruction, has directed
that these two instructions shall be rescinded, so that the
case will stand altogether upon the Act of Congress and the
general instruction of the Treasury which have been recited.
In regard to the special proceedings of the Collector of the
Customs at New York -which are complained of, the infor-
mation presented to the undersigned is vague and uncertain,
there is no satisfactory evidence in the papers under consi-
deration that he has in anycase denied a clearance or exacted
a bond which involved any infringement of the law of Con-
6rees and the regulations of the Treasury. This Govern-
rs ent will clue:fully examine upon its merits any case of

infringement which maybe presented to it, and will promptly
render the redress which shall be due, if the complaint
should be sustained ; it will further cheerfully instruct all
its collectors that, in performing their duties, they will be
governed by not merely the letter, but the spirit of the re-
gulations of the Treasury and of the Act of Congress, so as
to make no injurious or invidious discrimination to the
prejudice of Great Britain."

Earl Russell, in his despatch to Lord Lyons of
the 17th of December, replies reriatim to the argu-
ments advanced by Mr. beward,
and winds up by
saying,—

" The conclusion come to by her Majesty's Government
upon the whole matter is, that there has been a serious vio-
lation of Article 1 of the Treaty of 1815, which it is ad-
mitted, is now to be read as extending to the British West
Indies. It has been attempted to disguise that violation of
treaty under pretence of the right of domestic legislation.
Her Majesty's Government, however, contend that the case
is not really one of domestic legistation at all ; but is one in
which the forms of domestic legislation have been made sub-
servient to an endeavour to control a particular branch of
neutral trade as cerned on, not within the territory of the
United States, but in the proper territory of the neutral
Power; that it is, in fact, as to such British goods as have
been stopped in transitu from Great Britain to the Baha-
mas, an embargo, for causes not justified by international
law ; and,Ds to innocent and lawful exports from the United
States, a denial of the commercial intercourse guaranteed
by treaty, except on terms to which no independent foreign
nation could consent without compromising the rights of
neutrality and her own sovereignty within her own do-
minions. In the concluding paragraph of his letter, Mr.
Seward seems to draw a distinction between the actual pro-
ceedings of which her Majesty's Government have com-
plained, and the abstract terms of the Act of Congress and
Orders of the United States' Treasury, with which her
Majesty's Government have no concern, except so far as
they may be made the pretext for any violation of the treaty
rights of this country; confining himself to the defence of
the latter,and professing to be, as to the former, as yet but
imperfectly informed. Her Majesty's Government do not
conceive that any real doubt or obscurity can rest upon the
facts; especially after the broad and general avowals con-
tained in Mr. Barney's letters. The distinction, how-
ever, now drawn by Mr. Seward may justify the hope
that although the proceedings of the New York
Custom-house towards the Bahamas trade have not been
hitherto disavowed or condemned by the United
States' Government, the remonstrances of her Ma-
jesty's Government may, nevertheless, have the practical
effect of preventing the continuance or repetition of similar
proceedings in any future case in which British trade may
be concerned."

Mr. Seward comments on this despatch at con-
siderable length, and says he must again declare
that he is unable to find in the papers which the
discussion has produced any evidence whatever that
the Act of Congress had been administered so as
to apply invidiously or even discriminatingly against
Great Britain.

Subsequent to this despatch, there is one from
Lord Lyons, enclosing a copy of a letter addressed
to Consul Archibald, by the firm of Tootal, Broad-
hurst, and Lee, British merchants, Manchester,
carrying on business at New York, complaining of
the difficulties thrown in the way of the shipment
of goods hence to Nassau, and the correspondence
concludes with the following despatch from Earl
Russell :
"Foreign-office, July 18, 1863.
"My Lord,—You will have learnt from my despatch of
the 10th ult., that as her MajesTy's Government saw reason
to hope that their representations respecting the interference
exercised by the United States Government with the trade
carried on between New York and the Bahamas would not
remain without effect, they had not considered it necessary
to continue the controversy with t hat Government. In
this expectation, however her Majesty's Government are
disappointed ; for' it would' appear trom the representation
of Messrs. Tootal Broadhurst and Co., which accompanies
your despatch of 'the 22d that the interference of the
United States authorities with this trade is still persisted
in, and I have acclrdingly to instruct you to address a fresh
remonstrance on this subject to the United
6S, tates Govn-
ment. —I am, &c., RUSSELL," er