Charles Francis Adams to Right Hon. Earl Russell, March 15, 1864

Mr. Adams to Earl Russell.

My Lord: I have the honor to acknowledge the reception of your lordship’s note of the 9th instant, in reply to mine of the 20th of January last. I have read it with great attention, and must beg your lordship’s pardon if I fail to find in it any substantial conflict with the principles enunciated in my letter.

The point to which I took the liberty of calling your lordship’s attention was, that the insurgent authorities at Richmond, having received from her Majesty’s government a recognition as a belligerent carrying on war upon the ocean with a power with which Great Britain is at peace, are now detected in an attempt to abuse the rights so obtained. To this end they systematically buy vessels of British subjects, man them with British seaman, fill them with supplies and munitions of war obtained in British ports, and persist in sailing them to their respective destinations in the blockade region, using the protection of the British flag. My government, having been made aware of these extraordinary proceedings, has directed me simply to apprize your lordship of them in order that some check may be applied by the party most interested for the better security of its innocent subjects; for it must be perfectly obvious to your lordship that, without interference of some kind, the duty of self-defence, against such a policy of disguised hostility, becomes imperative. Without the possibility of distinguishing between those vessels bona fide owned by British subjects, intending to violate the blockade, and those made exactly like them by the insurgents for the purpose of better carrying on their warfare, it must be apparent that all must be equally liable to incur the suspicion of being actual enemies, and their crews prima facie to be treated as such on capture.

I understand your lordship not to deny, that to the extent that British subjects may be found in the vessels of the enemy, knowing them to be so, and employed in circumstances which render it practically impossible that they should be ignorant of the work they are doing, the right to treat them as prisoners of war, in case of capture, is a valid right. But if this be once admitted, it necessarily follows that in all cases where suspicion of actually belonging to the enemy attaches to a vessel under certain circumstances, though disguised under British colors, the right of search and seizure is a matter of course. And if it should happen that on board of a vessel so seized are to be found numbers of British subjects, apparently engaged in a work in which it is well known that many of their fellow-subjects are actually enlisted elsewhere, it must be obvious to your lordship that they will not be able, by any care that may be exercised by the captors, wholly to escape the risk of unpleasant consequences that may attend the difficulty of distinguishing between the partially innocent neutral and the wholly guilty enemy.

That I may more clearly present my argument I pray permission to illustrate it by a single example, which has lately been brought to my notice. It has been stated to me, on authority which appears to be trustworthy, that a British subject, named Thomas J. Waters, started from Greenlithe on or about the 17th of January last, in command of a steamer called the Annie, apparently fitted out for ulterior designs in America. After getting as far as Portland a heavy blow compelled him to put back, on the 19th or 20th, to Southampton, from whence he sailed again a few days after. Just before leaving London this gentleman is stated to have applied to be, and to have been, actually gazetted as a lieutenant in the naval reserve. The object in making such an application at the precise moment could scarcely have been other than in case of difficulty to take advantage of the national uniform and flag to protect his ulterior hostile operations against a foreign nation. Whether Lieutenant Waters be or be not acting under the authority of the insurgents at Richmond, it is obviously impossible now to determine. The true facts could only be elicited in case of the capture of him and his vessel. In the mean time it must be obvious to your lordship that, under present circumstances, the flagrant abuse thus committed of the position he holds as a British officer would almost necessarily subject him, in the first instance, to be placed in the category of those who are found carrying on actual war against the United States.

In thus repeating the proposition made in my former note, I beg to be understood as by no means intending to “introduce, to the injury of neutral states, any alteration in the well-established practice of international law.” I am not disposed to contest the doctrine which I find laid down in your note on the treatment of the subjects of a neutral power endeavoring to break a blockade. All that I ventured to suggest to your lordship was that, in the case now in question, all British subjects engaged in this work are made liable, under certain circumstances, to be treated prima facie as persons actually enlisted in the service of the enemy. I never denied that the power would still remain with them to relieve themselves by ultimately proving the contrary. What I wished to point out was the inconvenience of the process of thus shifting the burdens of proof; for, whereas, in common cases, it is the duty of the captor to presume the parties to be neutrals, by the new element now introduced it becomes his duty to presume them to be guilty until they can show the contrary.

I am the more earnest in making this representation that it is my conviction that the power to prevent the occurrence of this difficulty, and of the irritation that must necessarily grow out of it, rests in a great measure with her Majesty’s government. It is by no means the wish of that which I have the honor to represent to resort to unnecessary harshness in the treatment of any persons who become involved in this painful war, and much less neutrals. But after the experience which it is constantly receiving of the manner in which the war has been and is sustained by the aid of men, money, and supplies from her Majesty’s kingdom, it is no more than a simple duty to exercise all legitimate means in its power to suppress such operations. Knowingly to permit the subjects of neutral nations, actually serving in the ships of the enemy, to escape under the shelter of a flag which they wilfully abuse to the end of better effecting their resistance, is a degree of liberality which I am very confident no government would excuse in its own case or expect of the United States. If, as your lordship observes, British property to a very large amount has incurred the penalty of confiscation and condemnation during the present war, I feel sure that this calamith has not been visited upon her Majesty’s subjects without painful, and earnest, and continued warnings, on my part, conveyed by direction of the government which I have the honor to represent.

Just so it is in the present instance. Feeling, as my government does, the serious injury inflicted upon the confidence which should always exist in the sacredness of the flag of a neutral nation by the detection of a plot to degrade it to a most sinister use, I have been directed to make a representation of the facts, as well as of some consequences that may naturally follow if measures of prevention be not adopted.

I cannot for a moment admit, in the view thus taken of the subject, there is the smallest variation proposed from a faithful and scrupulous observance of all the obligations imposed upon belligerents by the law of nations.

Having thus performed this duty to the best of my ability, I pray your lordship to accept the assurances of the highest consideration with which I have the honor to be, my lord, your lordship’s most obedient servant,