Morning journal and courier., 1885-05-19
The Pirate Alabama. Letter From the Hon. George Bruce JJpton to
 Earl Russell.

! 1 Letter From the Hon. George Bruce Upton te Earl Russell.
 The following letter, written by the Hon George Bruce Upton of Massachusetts to Earl Russell, is interesting at this time, when some people are attempting to show that England was not very unfriendly to the North during the war of the rebellion: SR-My attention has been called to the introduction" in the selections from your speeches and dispatches, recently published, in which you do me the honor of referring to my petition to the Senate of the United States, in relation to the pirate Alabama and her kindred consorts, in which characterize her and them as being British built, British manned and British armed, and by vessels and armaments which left British ports un- der the protection of the British flag, and burnt American shipping upon the high seas, without taking them into port for eondemna- tion, and without any action being taken on the part of the said British government, when these atrocities were laid before it, to prevent the same; but, on the contrary, these pirates were everywhere received with rejoi- cing when visiting British ports, and when the notorious builder of one of them boasted of the same in the British Parliament, of which he was 8 member, he was received With cheers and expressions of satisfaction. 5 You then proceed to 'sexamine these state ments one by one" They were, as averred stBritish built. , This you admit to be true.
 l next asserted that they were British manned" This you aver "is only true in fact, the vessels were manned by crews con- sisting mainly of American officers and American men,"
 take issue with you upon this ''point of tact"
 From evidence derived from the prisoners folya yhor,4 4In 1al. T that more than three-ouarters of all the per- sons on board the ship when she left the Mersey were British subjects, and of them John Neil, John Emory and Peter Hughes belonged to the Royal Naval Reserve-and of the whole crew at the time of the capture by the kearsarge, between eighty and ninety per cent. were subjects of Her Majesty the Queen, and that W. Crawford, Brent John son, William Nevins and William Hearn be- longed to the Royal Naval Reserve. repeat then that when the Alabama left British ports she was substantially British manned vessel, and that she so continued to be until her destruction, and that the evidence upon that subject is conclusive.
 My next averment is that the captures of American property were made ''by British armed vessels, by vessels and armament which left British ports, under the protection of the British flag"
 To this you are pleased to reply that 'tthers lS uu1OuuOeu dSScfGlOu n0E6. 4Ou then proceed to say: tfThe vessels were un- armed vessels, and the Alabama, when in an llnarmed state, left a British port, without any clearance, with no British protection. to go into other ports under foreign jurisdic- tion, where the British flag gave no more protection than the flag of the United Statesn
 regret to hear statesman of your varied learning and experience make such a denial of the charge I have made. It must be known to you that in building war steamer a part of the armament is built and con structed with the vessel. The magazine and shell-room, the flood cocks, the port stills, the pivot and preaching bolts, are as much part of the armament as the guns themselves. All these the Alabama had: but, more than this, she did, according to the evidence, which is perfectly accessible to you, receive, while lying in British water, in Lynas Bay, and portion of her other arm ament I consider, these being the facts in the case, facts too which are, or ought to be, well known to you, that it is only an at- tempt to impose upon ignorance to say that the Alabama left a British port in an un- armed state.
 My next assertion is that 'these vessels burnt American ships without taking them into port for condemnation" This you ad- init to be quite true.
 The next assertion I made was ''that no ac- tion was taken by the said British govern ment when these atrocities were laid before it to prevent the same" This you say re- quires explanation; the conclusion of which seems to be that if the British government had undertaken to carry out their treaty ob ligations, factions for damages would have been brought, and would in all probability have been successful. /"
 I cannot think that you have in the least disturbed the groundwork of my &C., cusation; but, on the contrary, your ad- l missions would seem to place the then ex- sting administration of the government of l Great Britain in a more objectionable light | than it's worst enemies would desire.
 One other matter, you say, of which Mr. | Upton and his conntrymen complain, is the reception of the Confederate cruisers in the British Colonial ports" The allegation that these pirates were received with re- ioicing when visiting British ports; and hat when the notorious builder of one of them boasted of the same in the British l Parliament, of which he was a member, he 1 was received with cheers and expressions of | "can hardly be considered f proper matter for diplomatic representation | or pecuniary compensation
 In addition to this you say that ''the | exuberant utterances of a free nation must l )e permitted to us by the most jealous ad- l 7ocate of the American claims"
 To all this I can only say that, as an | American claimant, shall draw my own | nferences from these 'exuberant utteran- ;es."
 When Judas betrayed our Saviour, if he | lad boasted of the deed and received the | heers of the Apostles, Christians would be | likely to place the cheerers in the ranks of | Judas.
 When, therefore, it was well known in | he British House of Commons that pi- ate was afoat, that had surreptitiously l eft British waters, destroying the com nerce of a nation with which that govern nent was at profound peace, and when the loings of that pirate received the applause f portion of that body without rebuke rom any quarter, it may eventually be ound out that it will require some ssdiplo, natic representation" to relieve the British | government of the odium attached to those heers.
 I have thus gone over the averments of my ,rotest, and believe the general grounds | hereof unshaken by your representa- ion. An individual who sees the result of | lis labor ruthlessly destroyed is not apt to arefully cu1 language for dainty expres- ion of his wrongs. In something of this pirit have, perhaps, written. My desires, I lowever, are for peace,-but it must be such l n one as springs from disposition on the ne part to make due reparation for wrong, l nd on the other to make no reasonable de- hands to prevent such 8 consummation.
 In this communication have confined my | elf to the wrongs committed by the Alaba- 1a. need not add here that the evidence . regard to the nationality of other British essels and their illegal acts in consequence | hereof is quite as conclusive.
 I am sir your obedient servant,
 GEORGE B. UPTON.