The New York herald., 1870-11-14

answers have taken exhaustive steps 10 TEST tnelr
from the Customs oficias from the Board or Trade,
from the police and from the small Aiins Dopass NJ
sources from which your Excellencys Information
Is derived. do not, OF course, suppose tias any
| importance weuld be attached by you to reports
given in return for pecunlary rewards, such as have
| been offered IN newspaper advertsemenlo, uus
think u cannot DC .a ey I9 ~ ba orm trns
worthy than those 10 which the aplo ana active oo-
suls OF the North German confederation nave ACCESS
the 1st 10 the 9th Of september you brought 10 my
notice series OF rrefutabe facts. 1t must have es-
caped your recollection that, IN my answer OF the
9th OF that month showed that the majority OF those
alleged facts were unfounded.
In your note, to which l am now replying, you
make two further SPECIFIC statements, the truth OF
which have also felt 1t to be my duty TO investl-
gatenat respecting tae order ths 10 con" ayo
try the 23d OF August for 900 rifles 10 be de-
hvcred within week, and that In which ,he NUM-
Der or firearms shipped from this country 10 france
between the 3otn OF August and the Sth inst s cal.
culated at from 10000 to 100000 AS regards the
kao's statement as reported in the Journal 0rcsal,
was merely that these arms had been Orderea "a
ii6lan0er'' i have to state that no trace % can be
this country, and IT Is certain tnat, ~ was
n Sas ne S' @ now oeors me
| show. that the supply OF arms drawn by france
from this country between 5ne Two he rateI
States, whence no exports have been MADE ap-
preaching the figures mentioned by your Excelency.
i Is,
tivity at Birmingham in the manufacture OF fire.
arms, owing to thesincreasng demand; but expert
OF the recent stagnation OF the trade, Its present
producing power Is very limited. may here remark
some surprise that, while your Excellency has been
instructed make sucn constant complaints on the
subject Of the exports OF munitions OF war from
this country, such Instructions had up to ue7v
recent date been addressed to your colleague in the
United States, aohO had ollly made personal rep
resentduons to the United States government, al.
though the latter hare adhered IN the same man.
rer as her Majestys government to the principle
ana practice or neutrals, ana have consequently
nottteered 10Th the exports to tohc1s haze above
rersrred. The President OF the United States, in
his proclamation OF ed August last. expressly
states that the laws or the United States, without
interfering with the free expression OF opinion and
sympathy, or with the open manufacture or sale OF
all persons who may be within their territory and
jurisdiction the duty Of an impartial neutrality dur
ing the existence OF the cOntest.o
VIII next proceed to examine the fresh complaint
preferred by YOU against her Maiesty's government
OF violation OF international and British law Of
which trust that can briefly dispose. Your COM
plant refers to the sale OF the HYpatia and Morse
man to the French government TO be used as store
ships. Previously to the receipt of your present
note had received .but one Communication from
you on this subject, that or the 10Th OF August, In
reply to which / Informed you On the 29th OF the
same month that the attention OF her MaJestys gov
ernment had already been drawn by Their own oil-
cas to the circumstances OF these Sales and that on
Investigation II had been ascel ained that In both
cases the vessels were despatched from England be-
fore the Foreign Enlistment act Of 1870 came into
IL, ~,
were not liable TO penalties under the previous En-
istment act, could not be successfully prosecuted
under the provisions of the new act, Having heard
nothing further from your Excellency on the sub
ject concluded that You were satisfied with this
explanation; but as now learn tnat you are dis
satisfied on certain points, think 1t due to you that
] should explain that the information In possession
OF her MaJestYs goyernmenc shows that the vessels
sailed from England under the British nag pecaus g
the actual sale effected at Cherbourg, at which
port the vessels handed over to the purchasers
before the passing Of the new act. do not under
v
in stating athat, a ''up to the Sth utimo, the
transfer OF the property to the French owners
the steps which the law requires were duly complied
with by the vendors the certificates OF registry hav
Ing been given up In the month OF August to the
proper officers with the notifications that the vcs-
sells had been sold abroad To your EXcellency's re.
mark, therefore, that declined TO proceed against
these vessels, have only to reply that there was
and is no ground whatsoever upon which prosecu-
ton could be based ! will not follow your Excel
lency through the passages OF your note in which
you show tnat her Malesty's government have the
power TO prohibit tho export OF arms, fact which
! have constantly stated to you; nor do think 1t
necessary refer the passage which you quote
the French lawiof l4th Jay 1850 further than to OBJ
serve that the clauses OF that are like pos
sessed by the British executive, merely permissive,
aud that system Of bonds Is nee essarily open to
the objection that II merely serves TO enhance tho
price OF arms, matter of little account when their
acquisition IS or national Importance. i may refer
incidentally TO your Excellency's remark that you
do net find In the printed report OF the Neutrality
| Laws Commissioners any confirmation OF my state
| ment that the opinion OF those commissioners was
"
fmpractlcable and impolitic 1t Is true that that
opinion not embodied in their report; but 1t is
none the less true that The subject was discussed by
the Commission, and that the opinion pronounced
upon 1t was that which have recorded, as Is SHOWN
by the report not containing any recommendation
or the alteration OF the law in this respect.
I now come TO the points III your Excellency's
note which appear to me to demand full expiana-
tion. had stated in my note OF the 18th that the
practice OF Great Britain as neutral mad always
been that which she now follows. Your Excelleacy
disputes this position and in support OF your argu
ments you adduce two docuuents-a letter from
the Duke OF Wellington to MI. Canning, dated Both
August 1925 and an instruction from the Board Of
Treasury TO the Customs, dated "a June ls4s.
have not failed to examine most carefully the in
stances which You specify, and the following is the
result Of the examination.
A laborious scared has rahed to d,scocer anv
trace or letter rom the Duke or wellington OF the
30th or August, 1925; but paper has been found,
| dated August 3, 1925, which contains the passage
qoted by you. This paper is a minute written by the
Duke OF Wellington upon draft despatch addressed
| by Mr.. Secretary Canning to Mr.. Stratford Canning
then British Ambassador at Constantinope, at the
time of the war between Turkey and Greece, IN
beng sent from England for the purpose OF equip
ping abroad vessels TO be commanded by Lord
! Cochrane, in the service Of Greece MIR. Canning
| stated that such proceeding was not contrary to
law, and could not be prevented by her Majesty's
government. To the latter part Of this statement
the Duke Of wellington demurred, referring to the
fact that when spain was at war with her colonies
England had prohibited exports TO both beligerents
| and making use OF The words quoted by your
Mr. Canning, however insisted his view, stat
| portation OF arms as merchandise, and l must au-
thoriZe Stratford to say II he Is 10 state the case
! OF his country truly" The Duke gave way, and no
order Council prohibiting the export Of arms was
| issued by the government
| II Is also incidentally important to observe that
the precedent for such prohibition to which refe-
renee was made py the Duke was one in which Great
Britain had option in the matter. She had bound
herself by article three OF the additional articles,
signed at Madrid, August %, 1914 to the treaty
with Spain OF 5th July OF the same year. to take
the most erectua measures for preventing her sub.
| jects from furnishing arms, ammunition or any
other warllke article to the reyolted IN America"
| aud being thus compelled when Spain was at war
with her colonies prohibit the expectation OF arms
to the latter she subsequently extended the prohlbi-
tion to Spain herself IN order TO avoid the imputa-
tion OF favoring one Degerent TO the exclusion Of
| the other
| The second apparent instance adduced by your
Excelency Of departure from what have stated to
be the ordinary practice OF Great Britain Is the issue
OF orders to the Customs officials on the % or June,