Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1915-07-17

great quantities of goods of all classes.
including war material, whlch were
shipped there in British ships, ana !.
was well understood that the port OF
Nassau was but a port for the trans
shipment of goods intended for the Con-
federacy. despite the blockade.
Replying to the British merchants
| and shfpowners. a. H. Iayard, oy ~
rection of Earl Russell, for the British
government, said to the British mer-
| chants and shipowners:
Complaint has on the other mana
been made on the part of the onlted
States that ships had been sent OUT
from Great Britain to the United states
| with n fixed purpose to run the block
ade; that high premiums of insurance
| have been paid with this view, ana
| that arms and ammunition have been
thus conveyed to the southern states
| to enable them to carry on the war.
Lord Russell's Acquiescence.
Lord Russell, it was pointed out. was
unable either to deny the truth Of those
allegations or to prosecute to convic-
actions. But he could not be surprised
it was said, that the cruisers OF the
United States should watch with vigil
ance a port which was said to be the
great entrepot of this commerce.
This letter. which is quoted in
MooreS Digest of International Law,
volume Z. page 500. the language being
that of Mr.. Layard for Lord Russell,
states the latters opinions to be as FOL
lows:
"Her majesty's government have no
reason to doubt the equity and adher-
ence to legal requirements OF the
United States prize courts. But ne Is
aware that many vessels are subject
to harsh treatment and that If cap
tured the loss to the merchant Is far
from being compensated even o!
favorable decision in a prize court.
1.-The true remedy would be that the
merchants and shipowners of Liverpool
should refrain from this species OF
trade. 1t exposes innocent commerce
to vexatious detentions and search by
American cruisers; it produces 1rrita-
ton and i'll will on the part of the
population of the northern states OF
America: it is contrary to the spirit OF
her majesty's proclamation cor neu-
trality). and it exposes the British
name to suspicious of bad faith. TO
which neither her majesty's govern
ment nor the great body of the nation
are justly obnoxious. -.
'It is true. indeed, that supplies of
arms and ammunition have been sent
to the Federals equally in contraven-
ton of that neutrality which her maj
esty has proclaimed. 1t is true, also.
that the Federals obtain more freely
and more easily that of which they
stand in need. But If the Confederates
had the command of the sea they would,
no doubt, watch as vigilantly and cap
ture as readily British vessels going to
New York as the Federals now watch
Charleston and capture vessels seeking
to break the blockade.
There can be no doubt that the
watchfulness exercised by Federal
the Confederates by sea will occasion
ally lead to vexatious visits of mer-
chant ships not engaged in any pur-
suit to which the Federals can properly
object. This. however, is an evil to
which war on the ocean is liable to eX-
pose neutral commerce, and her maj
esty's government have done all they
can fairly do, that is to say, they have
urged the Federal government to en-
join upon their naval officers greater
caution in the exercise Of their bel
ligerent rights.
Her majesty's government having
represented to the United States gov
eminent every case in which they were
justified in interfering, have only fur
Their to observe that it is the duty of
her majesty's subjects to conform to
her majesty's proclamation (of neu-
trality), and to abstain from furnish
ing to either of the belligerent parties
any of the means of war which are pro-
hibited to be furnished by that procla-
nation
Lists Of Vessels Submitted.
December 80, 1852. the United States
minister at London communicated to
the British government two lists of
vessels. containing eighty-two names,
which he said were believed to have
left British ports with supplies for the
Confederacy-"supplies principally con-
traband of war, with the intention of
either running the blockade directly or
Of going to a neighboring Atlantic or
gulf port and there discharging their
the more easily to get such cargoes to
their places of destination"
The case of the Dolphin brought up
''the first judicial application during
Digest. of the doctrine of continuous
voyages" That case is quoted in the
Digest. in part. as follows:
she was captured March %, 1863. at
Fleming Of the L. S. s. Wachussett be-
tween the islands of Culebra and Porto
Rico. while ostensibly on voyage
from Liverpool to Nassau" She had on
board cases containing 920 rifles and
2,240 cavalry swords. She was sent to
la prize court at Key West, and Judge
Marvin of the district court of the
United States for the southern district
cargo were owned as claimed and il
there was no intention on the part
of the owner that the vessel should
proceed with the cargo to a port of the
enemy" there would be no justification
for the capture or condemnation of
either, but that "if on the other hand
it was the intention of the owner that
the vessel should simply touch at Mas
sau and should proceed thence to
Charleston or some other port of the
enemy, then the voyage was not a
voyage prosecuted by neutral from
one neutral port to another, but was a
voyage to a port of the enemy, begun
and carried on in violation of the belli-
gerent rights of the United States to
blockade the enemy's ports and pre-
vent the introduction of munitions of
war" Ship and cargo were condemned
and no appeal was taken. -
The Bermuda Case.
Again. during the civil war, the steam
ship Bermuda. nominally owned by
Edwin Haigh, a British subject. al
| though South Carolinians had an own
| ership interest in the vessel, was cap
tured by the United States war vessel
| Mercedita and sent into Philadelphia
as prize. The allegations of the cap
tors were that the vessel was enemy s
property. and. with, her cargo. largely
| been intending. either directly or by
then established by the United States
i and that both vessel and cargo were
hi do, ltitr a