Letter

Cushing to the tribunal by Mr. Cushing, in the name of the counsel of the United States, on the 21st August, 1872, and memorandum as to the enlistments for the Shenandoah at Melbourne, August 21, 1872

Author

Cushing

Recipient

the tribunal by Mr. Cushing, in the name of the counsel of the United States, on the 21st August, 1872, and memorandum as to the enlistments for the Shenandoah at Melbourne

Date

August 21, 1872

Type

Letter

Language

English

[Translation.]

VIII.—Observations addressed to the tribunal by Mr. Cushing, in the name of the counsel of the United States, on the 21st August, 1872, and memorandum as to the enlistments for the Shenandoah at Melbourne.

[August 21, 1872.]

Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Tribunal: The present discussion has its origin in the doubts expressed at the last meeting on the subject of the number of men enlisted for the Shenandoah at Melbourne. Previously to the expression of those doubts, all the members of the Tribunal in succession had announced their opinion on the points involved in the general question of the responsibility of Great Britain with regard to the prizes made by the Shenandoah after her departure from Melbourne.

We have prepared a Memorandum, which proves conclusively the correctness of the statements of Temple, the perfect agreement between his statements and those of Nye, who, in support of these same statements, produces the evidence of Hunt, an officer of the Shenandoah. This Memorandum also adduces the declarations of other witnesses, which confirm the evidence of Temple, Nye, and Hunt. In fact, it is beyond doubt,—

1. That the Shenandoah enlisted at least forty-three men at Melbourne. This number is indeed now admitted by Sir Rounded Palmer.

2. That the Shenandoah discharged at Melbourne only seven men of her crew, although thirteen others left her; but that these thirteen were prisoners of war, who did not form part of the crew, and there is reason to believe that the six or seven others who, it is asserted, were discharged at Melbourne, were also prisoners of war.

It follows that the strength of the crew of the Shenandoah was increased by forty-three men.

3. That the word “seamen” employed by Nye means “sailors,” in addition to whom there were on board the Shenandoah, according to Nye’s own account, sixty or fifty-five other persons, officers, firemen, &c., in conformity with the narrative of Temple and Hunt.

4. That without the re-enforcement of her crew effected by means of these enlistments at Melbourne, the Shenandoah could neither have continued her cruise, nor consequently have captured the American whalers in the North Pacific.

5. That all this constituted a flagrant violation of international law, and even of British municipal law, in the opinion of the Governor, Sir Charles Darling, himself.

6. That finally, and above all, it constituted a manifest violation, on the part of the British authorities, of the second Rule of the Treaty, which runs thus:

A neutral Government is bound not to permit or suffer either belligerent to make use of its ports or waters as the base of naval operations against the other, or for the purpose of the renewal or augmentation of military supplies or arms, or the recruitment of men.

The Counsel of Great Britain has just addressed to the Tribunal observations, not merely with regard to the number of men enlisted at Melbourne, but also on the subject of the legal bearing of the question of these enlistments as a thesis of the law of nations, or of that laid down by the Treaty.

We frankly confess that we did not contemplate so wide a discussion. We therefore respectfully beg the Tribunal to inform us if the new questions raised by Sir Roundell Palmer remain open before the Tribunal.

C. Cushing.

Recruitment of men for the Shenandoah at Melbourne.

Mr. Grattan, British Consul at Teneriffe, gives the earliest account of the number of the men who were on board the Shenandoah when she parted from the Laurel. He says that the Laurel brought “seventeen seamen and twenty-four supposed officers,” and that “some of the crew of the Laurel joined the Sea King.” (British Appendix, vol. i, p. 477.) He makes no mention of any of the crew of the Sea King remaining on her; but the depositions of two persons transmitted by him in his dispatch (Ellison, p. 455, and Allen, p. 479, Brit. App,, vol. i) show that one officer came out from London on the Sea King, and that three of the crew of the Sea King remained on her.

William A. Temple, a sailor on board, gives the next account, in a deposition sworn to in Liverpool on the 6th day of December, 1865. He gives the names of two officers who came out in the Sea King from London, of twenty-two officers who joined her from the Laurel, of ten petty officers who joined her from the same vessel, of four seamen and two firemen who joined her from the same vessel, and of one seaman and two firemen who came out in her from London. It appears by the affidavit of George Sylvester (Am. App., vol. vi, p. 608) that he also came out in the Laurel as a common sailor, and left the Shenandoah at Melbourne. His name, therefore, should be added to Temple’s list. Assuming, what is undoubtedly the fact, that Mr. Gratton, under the term “crew,” embraced petty officers, seamen, and firemen, there is no discrepancy between these statements. Mr. Gratton gives twenty-four officers to the Shenandoah; Temple gives twenty-four also, twenty-two of whom are from the Laurel. Mr. Gratton says that out of seventeen seamen by the Laurel “some did not join the Shenandoah.” Temple, adding Sylvester’s name to his list, gives the names of sixteen petty officers, seamen, and firemen who did join from the Laurel, and also of three seamen and firemen who joined from the Sea King. So far as the Sea King is concerned this account is confirmed by Sylvester’s affidavit. (Vol vi, Am. App., p. 609.)

The next account of this event is contained in a book called the “Cruise of the Shenandoah,” written by Hunt, one of her officers, after her cruise was finished, and published in London and in New York in 1867. He says that when they parted from the Laurel, “officers and men only numbered forty-two souls, less than half her regular complement.” (Cruise of the Shenandoah, page 24, cited in the American Case.)

Temple’s detailed account as corrected gives the names of forty-three persons on board. There is, therefore, almost absolute identity of recollection of three independent witnesses on this point.

We have two accounts of the number of men enlisted between the time of leaving the Laurel and the arrival of the vessel at Melbourne, which are thus stated in the American Case:

The author of the Cruise of the Shenandoah says that fourteen were enlisted in this way: ten from the Alina and the Godfrey, two from the Susan, and two from the Stacey.

Temple, in his affidavit, gives the names of three from the Alina, five from the Godfrey, one from the Susan, two from the Stacey, and one from the Edward; in all twelve.

Here, again, the trifling discrepancy confirms the general truthfulness of the recollection of each witness. According to Hunt’s account, she had, on arriving in Melbourne, fifty-five men all told. In Temple’s affidavit, with the addition of Sylvester, we have the names of fifty-four men, viz, twenty-five officers and thirty men.

Other corroborating testimony sustains the truth of the statements. In the sixth volume of the American Appendix there are several affidavits of persons who left the ship at Melbourne. Brackett (on page 615) says, “during the whole time I was on board, out of about thirty-five, making the crew of the said steamer, there was,” &c., &c. He also states that he, and four others named by him, to avoid punishment, consented to serve as seamen on the steamer. Bolin, (page 615,) Scandall, (page 615,) Ford, (page 612,) Scott, (page 616,) Lindburg, (page 617,) Wicke, (page 625,) and Behiecke, (page 626,) say the same thing; in all twelve persons. Two of the names mentioned by Brackett are on Temple’s list of enlisted men. Adding ten to Temple’s list, it makes forty, or five more than the number given by Brackett as “about” the crew. Adding it to Hunt’s list it gives forty-one.

An estimate derived in a roundabout way from the United States Consul at Rio de Janeiro, from the accounts of masters of vessels captured by the Shenandoah, who had reached there on their way home, confirms the truth of these figures. He says: “The following statement in regard to the Shenandoah is made by ship-masters who have been prisoners on board of her. * * * She has forty-three men, nearly all English, besides the officers.” These statements were made to Consul Munro by persons who left the Shenandoah after she had received the additions made to her crew before arriving at Melbourne.

We are justified in assuming that Hunt’s and Temple’s accounts represent the number of men she had on board on arriving in Melbourne.

The next inquiry is how many did she lose there.

Police-Officer Kennedy, of Melbourne, in his report dated February 13 states that “twenty men have been discharged from the Shenandoah since arrival at this port. (Brit. App., vol. 5, p. 108.)

Temple gives us the names of two who were discharged, Williams and Bruce, and says, in addition, “there were some men who left the ship at Melbourne, whose names I do not know.” Sylvester says that he left at Melbourne. (Am. App., vol. 6, p. 609.) Brackett gives us the names of himself, Madden, and Flood, three in all. Bolin, Scandall, Scott, Landberg, Wicke, and Berucke make twelve. It appears by the affidavit of Bruce (Am. App., vol. 6, p. 605) and of Colby (same, p. 607) that they also worked on the vessel as part of the crew, and left at Melbourne. Thus it appears that out of the twenty thirteen were prisoners who had been captured and forced to serve on the Shenandoah, and who seized the first opportunity to leave the compulsory service.

We have no means of positively knowing the circumstances under which the others enlisted; but from the identity of result which will hereafter appear as derived from several independent sources, we think that they were not among the persons either referred to by Hunt or named by Temple as among the permanent crew of the vessel when she arrived in Melbourne, but were, like the thirteen whose names we can give, prisoners who had been forced into an unwilling service.

We feel perfectly convinced that, except Sylvester, no person was discharged from the Shenandoah at Melbourne except persons enlisted from captured vessels of the United States against their own will.

We next direct our inquiries to the number of enlistments made at Melbourne.

On the 27th of February, 1865, which was about a week after the Shenandoah left Melbourne, and when the facts were fresh in his mind, Governor Sir Charles Darling said that the reports and statements and letters from the chief commissioner of police in Victoria left “no doubt that the neutrality had been flagrantly violated by the commander of the Shenandoah,” who had * * * received on board of his vessel, before he left the port on the 18th instant, a considerable number of men destined to augment the ship’s company. (Brit. App., vol. i, p. 565.)

The report which is referred to in this statement is probably the one found on page 117 of vol. 5, of the British Appendix. In this report the detective states that five boat-loads of recruited men were seen to go on board the Shenandoah on the night of the 17th, one of which had ten or twelve men in it, of whom two returned; and that seven men had gone on board on the morning of the 18th. He concludes thus: “In preparing this report the detective has confined himself to facts; but it is stated that in all between sixty and seventy hands were shipped at this port.”

The “facts” stated by the detective were true, and are supported by other proof. The rumors to which he referred were exaggerated.

The author of the “Cruise of the Shenandoah” says that “the ship’s company had received a mysterious addition of forty-five men.” (Cruise of the Shenandoah, p. 113, referred to in the American Case.) This would seem to be about the number seen by the detective’s informants.

Temple gives the names of thirteen petty officers, nineteen seamen, seven firemen, and three marines; in all, of forty-two persons who were recruited at Melbourne. This account agrees nearly with Hunt’s, and is incidentally confirmed by Forbes’ affidavit concerning Dunning, Evans, and Green, referred to in the American Case.

According to the figures to be gathered from Hunt’s narrative, in various parts of it, the Shenandoah then had, after the Melbourne recruitments were added, one hundred and one officers and men. According to Temple’s account, she had twenty-five officers, thirty petty officers; twenty six seamen, nine firemen and three marines; in all, ninety-three persons.

The slight discrepancy may be accounted for by the fact that Hunt, in his rapid narrative, makes no mention of the discharge of men at Melbourne.

On the 27th of May, the Shenandoah captured and burned the whaler Abigail. Mr. Ebenezer F. Nye, the master of the Abigail, in an affidavit sworn to on the 7th of September, 1871, says: “The Shenandoah at the time I was taken on board had a full complement of officers, but was very much in want of seamen, having only forty-five or fifty, not half the number she needed. The officers told me that her full complement of officers and crew was one hundred and eighty-five, but at that time she had one hundred and five all told.”

It appears from Temple’s affidavit that after leaving Melbourne and before the capture of the Abigail, the crew was increased by the enlistment of one petty officer and seven seamen from captured vessels, viz: Park, officer, and Welch, Morris, Adeis, Delombaz, Roderick, Stevenson, and Rossel, seamen. According to the calculations derived from Hunt’s narrative, therefore, she should have had at that time, with this addition, 108 persons, officers and crew.

According to Temple’s account she had one hundred and one such persons, of whom fifty-seven were officers and petty officers, and forty-four were either seamen, marines, or firemen. This result confirms the accuracy of Mr. Nye’s estimates and recollection in a striking manner.

After that time. Temple represents the Senandoah as receiving recruitments from captured vessels, as follows: one officer, twenty-one seamen, one fireman, and nine marines; in all, thirty-two persons. He represents the vessel as arriving at Liverpool with one hundred and thirty-three persons on board.

In an official report made by Captain Paynter to the Controller-General of the British Coast Guard, dated November 7, 1865, (Brit. App vol. 1, page 675,) it is stated that “the Shenandoah has a complement of one hundred and thirty-three officers and men.”

Temple, in his affidavit sworn to the 6th day of the following December, gives the identical number, and adds the names of the officers and men. When this affidavit was communicated to the British Government an attempt was made to impeach his veracity by efforts to show that his general character did not entitle his statement to credit; but no attempt was made to show that the list attached to his affidavit was in any respect incorrect, undoubtedly because the persons in Liverpool who knew the facts knew it to be true. The attempt was made by Captain Paynter, the officer who took charge of the Shenandoah after she was abandoned by Waddell, and under whose direction the crew was discharged. He therefore either knew whether the facts were correct, or, if they were incorrect, where the persons could be found who could show that they were so. In discharging the crew he undoubtedly had the crew list. If Temple’s list had varied from the ship’s crew list, it is certain that such variance would have been shown by an officer anxious to prove him unworthy of credit.

Temple’s list is supported, 1st. By its intrinsic truthfulness. 2d. By its substantial agreement with Hunt’s account. 3d. By the shipmaster’s statements reported to Consul Munro, at Bio Janeiro. 4th. By the affidavits of several captured seamen released at Melbourne from involuntary service on the Shenandoah. 5th. By the letter of the Governor, Sir Charles Darling. 6th. By the report of Detective Kennedy. 7th. By the affidavit of Forbes. 8th. By the affidavit of Nye, the commander of the Abagail. 9th. By the report of Captain Paynter to the controller-general of the coast guard. 10th. By the fact that Captain Paynter was not able to disprove it when he had the motive to do so, and when the means were within his power. If this account is to be believed, forty-three persons recruited at Melbourne, in violation of the duties of Great Britain as a neutral, joined the Shenandoah, namely, one officer, thirteen petty officers, nineteen seamen, seventy-five men, and three marines from that port, and, with one exception, no person left it there who had not been first captured as a prisoner, and then compelled under duress to do involuntary service on board.

The figures in this paper are the result of a critical examination of the documents referred to. Where they differ from those hitherto presented, they are to be taken as a revision of our former documents.

Geneva, August 21, 1872.

Analysis of the list accompanying the affidavit of William A. Temple.

Came out in the Laurel—22 officers: Waddell, Grimball, Lee, Chen, Scales, Lining, McUlty, O’Brien, Codd, McGuffney, Bullock, Brown, Mason, Hunt, Minor, Colton, Smith, Howard, Guy, Lynch, O’Shea, Alcott; 10 petty officers: Moran, Warren, Bronnan, Hall, Crawford, Wiggins, Fenner, Griffith, Fox, Jones; 2 firemen: Marshall, Rawlinson; 3 seamen: Simpson, Rose, Oar—37.

Came out in the Sea King—2 officers: Whittle, Hutehinson; 1 seaman: Jones; 2 firemen: Martin, Clark—5.

Enlisted from captures made before arriving at Melbourne—9 petty officers: Rowe, Raymond, Wert, Davy, Hanson, Taft, Hopkins, Williams, Bruce; 3 seamen: Way, Blacking, Floyd—12.

Discharged at Melbourne—2 petty officers: Williams, Bruce—2.

Enlisted at Melbourne—1 officer: Blackar; 13 petty officers: Dunning, Strong, Collery, James, Spring, Burk, Exshaw, Glover, McLaren, Marlow, Smith, Alexander, Canning; 19 seamen: Collins, Foran, Kerney, McDonald, Ramsdale, Kilgower, Swanton, Moss, Fegan, Crooks, Simms, Hill, Hutchinson, Evans, Morton, Gifford, Ross, Williams, Simmons; 7 firemen: McLane, Brice, Green, Burges, Mullineaux, Southerland, Shatton; 3 marines: Riley, Kenyon, Brown—43.

Enlisted after leaving Melbourne and before capture of the Abagail—1 petty officer: Park; 7 seamen: Welch, Morris, Adies, Delombas, Roderick, Stevenson, Rosel—8.

Enlisted after capture of the Abagail—1 officer: Manning; 21 seamen: Hawthorn, Seaman, Graft, Kelley, Dowden, Colar, Patterson, Hilcox, Canning, Vanerery, Bill, Givens, Mahoe, Long, California, French, Sailer, Brown, Kanaca, Boy, Wicks; 1 fireman: Carr; 9 marines: Murray, Silver, Burnet, Barry, Floyd, Ivors, Poulson, Clury, Grimes―

Died on the voyage—1 petty officer: Canning; 1 seaman: Bill—2.

Notes

1. Observations adressees au tribunal par M. Cushing, au nom du conseil des u00c9tats-unis, le 21 aou00fbt 1872, et mu00e9morandum sur les enru00f4lements pour le Shenandoah u00e0 Melbourne. Monsieur le Pru00e9sident, Messieurs du Tribunal: La discussion actuelle a son origine dans les doutes exprimu00e9s lors de la derniu00e8re su00e9ance au sujet du chiffre des enru00f4lements que le Shenandoah a faits u00e0 Melbourne. Avant du2019u00e9mettre ces doutes, tous les membres du tribunal, lu2019un apru00e8s lu2019autre, avaient annoncu00e9 leur opinion u00e0 lu2019u00e9gard des points compris dans la question gu00e9nu00e9rale de la responsabilitu00e9 de la Grande-Bretagne au sujet des prises faites par le Shenandoah apru00e8s son du00e9part de Melbourne. Nous avons pru00e9paru00e9 un mu00e9moire qui du00e9montre, jusquu2019u00e0 lu2019u00e9vidence, lu2019exactitude des du00e9clarations de Temple, le parfait accord entre ses du00e9clarations et celles de Nye, et qui, u00e0 lu2019appui de ces mu00eames du00e9clarations, produit le tu00e9moignage de Hunt, officier du Shenandoah. Ce mu00e9moire fait valoir aussi les du00e9clarations du2019autres tu00e9moins, qui confirment le tu00e9moignage de Temple, de Nye et de Hunt. En effet il est hors de doute: 1. Que le Shenandoah a enru00f4lu00e9 au moins 43 hommes u00e0 Melbourne. Ce chiffre est admis aujourdu2019hui, mu00eame par Sir Roundell Palmer. 2. Que le Shenandoah nu2019a licenciu00e9 u00e0 Melbourne que 7 hommes de son u00e9quipage, quoique 13 autres lu2019aient quittu00e9; mais que ces 13 u00e9taient des prisonniers de guerre, qui ne faisaient point partie de lu2019u00e9quipage, et il y a lieu de croire que les 6 ou 7 autres, que lu2019on pru00e9tend avoir licenciu00e9s u00e0 Melbourne, u00e9taient aussi des prisonniers de guerre. Il su2019ensuit quu2019il y eut une augmentation de 43 hommes dans lu2019effectif de lu2019u00e9quipage du Shenandoah. 3. Que le mot u201cseamen,u201d employu00e9 par Nye, veut dire u201cmatelots;u201d en dehors desquels il y avait u00e0 bord du Shenandoah, du2019apru00e8s le ru00e9cit de Nye lui-mu00eame, 60 ou 55 autres personnes, officiers, chauffeurs, et cetera, conformu00e9ment au ru00e9cit de Temple et de Hunt. 4. Que, sans le renfort apportu00e9 u00e0 son u00e9quipage au moyen de ces enru00f4lements u00e0 Melbourne, le Shenandoah nu2019aurait pu ni continuer sa croisiu00e8re ni, par consu00e9quent, capturer les baleiniers amu00e9ricans dans le haut Pacifique. 5. Que, dans tout ceci, il y a eu une violation flagrante du droit des gens, et mu00eame de la loi municipale britannique, de lu2019avis mu00eame du gouverneur sir Charles Darling. 6. Quu2019enfin, et surtout, il y a ici une violation manifeste, de la part des autoritu00e9s du00e9 la Grande-Bretagne, de la seconde ru00e8gle du traitu00e9, ru00e8gle ainsi conu00e7ue: u201cUn gouvernement neutre ne doit ni permettre ni tolu00e9rer que lu2019un des belligu00e9rants se serve de ses ports ou de ses eaux comme du2019une base du2019opu00e9ration navale contre un autre belligu00e9rant; il ne doit ni permettre, ni tolu00e9rer non plus, que lu2019un des belligu00e9rants renouvelle ou augmente ses approvisionnements militaires, quu2019il se procure des armes ou bien encore quu2019il recrute des hommes.u201d Maintenant le conseil de la Grande-Bretagne vient du2019adresser au tribunal des observations, non-seulement u00e0 lu2019u00e9gard du chiffre des enru00f4lements u00e0 Melbourne, mais aussi au sujet des relations juridiques de la question de ces enru00f4lements, comme thu00e8se du droit des gens ou du traitu00e9. Nous avouons franchement quu2019une discussion aussi u00e9tendue nu2019entrait pas dans nos pru00e9visions. Du00e8s lors, nous prions le tribunal tru00e8s-humblement de nous faire savoir si les questions nouvelles soulevu00e9es par sir Roundell Palmer restent ouvertes devant le tribunal. C. CUSHING. Mu00e9morandum Sur les enru00f4lements pour le Shenandoah u00e0 Melbourne. M. Grattan, consul britannique u00e0 Tu00e9nu00e9riffe rend compte le premier du nombre des hommes qui se trouvaient u00e0 bord du Shenandoah lorsque ce vaisseau quitta le Laurel. Il dit que le Laurel amena u201cdix-sept matelots et vingt-quatre officiers supposu00e9s;u201d et u201cque quelques hommes de lu2019u00e9quipage du Laurel montu00e8rent sur le Sea King.u201d (Brit. App., vol. 4, u00a7. 477.) Il ne dit pas su2019il resta des hommes faisant partie de lu2019u00e9quipage du Sea King u00e0 bord de ce vaisseau; mais les du00e9positions de deux personnes transmises par lui dans sa du00e9pu00eache (Ellison, p. 478; Allen, p.479; Brit. App., vol. 1) montrent quu2019un officier arriva de Londres sur le Sea King et que trois hommes de lu2019u00e9quipage restu00e8rent u00e0 bord de ce vaisseau. William A. Temple, matelot u00e0 bord du vaisseau, dans une du00e9position faite sous serment u00e0 Liverpool, le 6 du00e9cembre 1865, donne les noms de deux officiers qui arrivu00e8rent de Londres sur le Sea King, de vingt-deux officiers qui passu00e8rent du Sea King u00e0 bord du Shenandoah, de quatre matelots et de deux pompiers-mu00e9caniciens qui firent de mu00eame, et du2019un matelot et deux pompiers-mu00e9caniciens qui arrivu00e8rent de Londres u00e0 bord du mu00eame vaisseau. Il parau00eet par lu2019affidavit de George Silvester (Am. App., vol. 6, p. 608) que ce dernier arriva aussi sur le Laurel comme matelot et quu2019il quitta le Shenandoah u00e0 Melbourne; ce serait donc encore un nom u00e0 ajouter u00e0 la liste de Temple. En supposante ce qui est u00e9videmment le fait, que M. Grattan, sous le terme u00e9quipage, a compris les officiers subalternes, les matelots et les mu00e9caniciens-pompiers, il nu2019existe aucune contradiction entre ces du00e9clarations. M. Grattan donne vingt-quatre officiers au Shenandoah, Temple lui en donne vingt-quatre aussi, dont vingt-deux sont du Shenandoah. M. Grattan dit que des dix-sept matelots du Laurel, il y en eut qui nu2019entru00e8rent pas dans lu2019u00e9quipage du Shenandoah; Temple, en ajoutant u00e0 sa liste le nom de Sylvester, donne les noms de seize officiers subalternes, matelots et mu00e9caniciens-pompiers, qui quittu00e8rent le Laurel pour su2019embarquer sur le Shenandoah et aussi de trois matelots et mu00e9caniciens-pompiers, qui quittu00e8rent le Sea King dans le mu00eame but. Quant au Sea King, ce compte est confirmu00e9 par lu2019affidavit de Sylvester (vol. 6, Am. App., p. 607). Un troisiu00e8me ru00e9cit de cet u00e9vu00e8nement se trouve dans un livre intitulu00e9 u201cCroisiu00e8re du Shenandoahu201d u00e9crit par Hunt, lu2019un de ses officiers apru00e8s la fin de sa croisiu00e8re, et publiu00e9 u00e0 Londres et u00e0 New York en 1867. Il dit que lorsquu2019ils quittu00e8rent le Laurel, il nu2019y avait en tout en fait du2019officiers et de matelots que quarante-deux hommes, moins de la moitiu00e9 de lu2019effectif ru00e9gulier (Croisiu00e8re du Shenandoah, p. 24, citu00e9 dans le cas amu00e9ricain). Le ru00e9cit du00e9taillu00e9 de Temple ainsi corrigu00e9, donne les noms de quarante-trois personnes se trouvant u00e0 bord. Les souvenirs de trois tu00e9moins indu00e9pendants sont donc sur ce point presque absolument identiques. Nous avons deux rapports quant au nombre des hommes enru00f4lu00e9s entre le du00e9part du Laurel et lu2019arrivu00e9e du vaisseau u00e0 Melbourne; ils se trouvent exprimu00e9s comme suit dans le cas de lu2019Amu00e9rique: u201cLu2019auteur de la Croisiu00e8re du Shenandoah dit que quatorze hommes furent enru00f4lu00e9s de la maniu00e8re suivante: dix furent triu00e9s de lu2019Alina et du Godfrey, deux de la Susan et deux du Stacer. u201cTemple dans son affidavit, donne les noms de trois hommes tiru00e9s de lu2019Alina, de cinq du Godfrey, du2019un de la Susan, de deux du Stacer, et du2019un de lu2019u00c9douard, en tout douze.u201d Ici encore, la petite diffu00e9rence confirme lu2019exactitude des souvenirs de chaque tu00e9moin. Selon Hunt, le Shenandoah avait en arrivant u00e0 Melbourne, 55 hommes tout compris. Dans lu2019affidavit de Temple, en ajoutant Silvester, nous trouvons les noms de 55 hommes, soit 25 officers et 30 hommes. Du2019autres tu00e9moignages corroborant ceux-ci, du00e9montrent la vu00e9ritu00e9 de ces du00e9clarations. Dans le 6e volume de lu2019appendice amu00e9ricain, se trouvent plusieurs affidavits de personnes qui ont quittu00e9 le vaisseau u00e0 Melbourne. Brackett (p. 615) dit: u201cPendant tout le temps que ju2019ai passu00e9 u00e0 bord du vaisseau, des 35 hommes environ composant lu2019u00e9quipage du dit vapeur, il y avait, etc., etc.u201d Il du00e9clare aussi, quu2019avec quatre camarades dont il donne les noms, ils consentirent, pour u00e9viter du2019u00eatre punis, u00e0 servir comme matelots sur le navire. Bolin (p. 615), Ford (p. 612), Scandall (p. 615), Scott (p. 616), Landberg (p. 617), Wicke (p. 625), et Berucke (p. 626), disent la mu00eame chose, soit en tout douze personnes. Deux des noms mentionnu00e9s par Brackett se trouvent sur la liste de Temple. En ajoutant dix noms u00e0 la liste de Temple nous avons 40, cu2019est-u00e0dire cinq de plus que le nombre donnu00e9 par Brackett comme composant u00e0 peu pru00e8s lu00e9quipage. En lu2019ajoutant u00e0 la liste de Hunt, nous avons 41, qui est le chiffre approximatif donnu00e9 par le consul des u00c9tats-Unis u00e0 Rio Janeiro, du2019apru00e8s les ru00e9cits des mau00eetres de vaisseaux pris par le Shenandoah, qui, en entrant chez eux, avaient passu00e9 par cette ville. Le consul dit: u201cLe ru00e9cit suivant quant au Shenandoah a u00e9tu00e9 fait par des mau00eetres de vaisseaux qui ont u00e9tu00e9 prisonniers u00e0 bord de ce vaisseau * * Il a 43 hommes, presque tous anglais, outre les officiers.u201d Ces ru00e9cits furent donnu00e9s au consul Munro par des personnes qui avaient quittu00e9 le Shenandoah, apru00e8s quu2019il eut augmentu00e9 son u00e9quipage, avant du2019arriver u00e0 Melbourne. Nous pouvons par consu00e9quent supposer que les chiffres indiquu00e9s par Hunt et Temple repru00e9sentent le nombre des hommes que le vaisseau avait u00e0 bord en arrivant u00e0 Melbourne. Cherchons maintenant u00e0 savoir combien il en perdit dans cette ville. Lu2019officier de police, Kennedy de Melbourne, dans son rapport du 13 fu00e9vrier, du00e9clare que vingt hommes ont u00e9tu00e9 renvoyu00e8s du Shenandoah depuis son arrivu00e9e dans le port. (Brit. App., vol. 5, p. 108.) Temple nous donne les noms de deux hommes qui furent renvoyu00e9es, Williams et Bruce; et il ajoute: u201cQuelques hommes quittu00e8rent le vaisseau u00e0 Melbourne, mais ju2019ignore leurs noms.u201d Silvester dit quu2019il quitta le vaisseau u00e0 Melbourne (Am. App., vol. 6, p. 609,) Bracket nous donne avec son nom ceux de Madden et de Flood, trois en tout; Bolin, Scandall, Scott, Landberg, Wicke et Berucke font douze. Il parau00eet, du2019apru00e8s les affidavits de Bruce (Am. App., vol. 6, p. 505) et de Colby (id., p. 607), quu2019eux aussi travaillu00e8rent u00e0 bord du vaisseau comme membres de lu2019u00e9quipage et le quittu00e8rent u00e0 Melbourne. Ainsi il parau00eet que des vingt hommes, treize u00e9taient des prisonniers qui avaient u00e9tu00e9 obligu00e9s de travailler et de servir sur le Shenandoah, pour u00e9viter une punition et quu2019ils saisirent la premiu00e8re occasion de quitter ce service forcu00e9. Nous nu2019avons aucun moyen de savoir positivement dans quelles circonstances les autres su2019enru00f4lu00e8rent; mais du2019apru00e8s les ru00e9sultats identiques, tels quu2019ils du00e9rivent de plusieurs sources indu00e9pendantes, comme nous le verrons plus bas, nous croyons quu2019ils ne faisaient pas partie de ceux indiquu00e9s par Hunt ou par Temple comme composant lu2019u00e9quipage permanent du vaisseau lorsquu2019il arriva u00e0 Melbourne, mais u00e9taient, comme les treize dont nous pouyons donner les noms, des prisonniers qui avaient u00e9tu00e9 forcu00e9s de faire ce service coutre leur gru00e9. Nous sommes parfaitement convaincus, quu2019u00e0 part Silvester, personne ne fut renvoyu00e9 du Shenandoah, u00e0 Melbourne, exceptu00e9 des hommes enru00f4lu00e9s contre leur gru00e9 dans des vaisseaux capturu00e9s. Nous dirigerons maintenant nos recherches sur le nombre des enru00f4lements faits u00e0 Melbourne. Le 27 fu00e9vrier 1865, une semaine environ apru00e8s le du00e9part du Shenandoah de Melbourne, et alors que sa mu00e9moire u00e9tait encore frau00eeche, le gouverneur sir Charles Darling du00e9clara que les rapports et lettres du commissaire chef de police u00e0 u201cVictoria ne laissaient aucun doute que la neutralitu00e9 eu00fbt u00e9tu00e9 violu00e9e du2019une maniu00e8re flagrante par le commandaut du Shenandoah qui * * avait reu00e7u u00e0 bord de sou vaisseau avant de quitter le port le 18 un nombre considu00e9rable du2019hommes destinu00e9s u00e0 augmenter son u00e9quipage.u201d (Brit. App., vol. 1, p. 565.) Le rapport dont il est ici question, est probablement celui que lu2019on trouve u00e0 la page 117 du volume 5 de lu2019appendice britannique. Dans ce rapport, le detective du00e9clare que cinq bateaux remplis du2019hommes ont u00e9tu00e9 vus se dirigeant sur le Shenandoah pendant la nuit du 17; lu2019un du2019eux avait u00e0 bord dix u00e0 douze hommes, dont deux seuls revinrent, et que sept hommes su2019u00e9taient embarquu00e9s le 18 au matin. Il termine ainsi son rapport: u201cEn pru00e9parant ce rapport, le detective su2019est bornu00e9 aux faits; mais lu2019on dit quu2019en tout soixante u00e0 soixante-dix hommes se sont embarquu00e9s sur ce vaisseau, dans ce port.u201d Les fails citu00e9s par le detective sont vrais et corroboru00e9s par du2019autres preuves. Les bruits dont il pariait u00e9taient exagu00e9ru00e9s. Lu2019auteur de la crosiu00e8re du Shenandoah dit que u201clu2019u00e9quipage avait reu00e7u une augmentation mystu00e9rieuse de quarante-cinq hommes,u201d (p. 113, voy. American Case). Ce nombre semble u00eatre celui qui fut remarquu00e9 par ceux qui donnu00e8rent ces informations au detective. Temple donne les noms de 1 officier, 13 officiers subalternes, 19 matelots, 7 mu00e9caniciens-pompiers et 3 soldats de marine, en tout 43 hommes recrutu00e9s u00e0 Melbourne. Ce ru00e9cit su2019accorde assez avec celui de Hunt et se trouve incidemment confirmu00e9 par lu2019affidavit de Forbes au sujet de Dunning, Evans et Green citu00e9s dans le cas de lu2019Amu00e9rique. Selon les chiffres que lu2019on peut recueiller du ru00e9cit de Hunt, dans diffu00e9rentes parties de ce ru00e9cit, le Shenandoah avait alors, apru00e8s les enru00f4lements u00e0 Melbourne, 101 officiers et matelots. Selon le ru00e9cit de Temple, il avait 25 officiers, 30 officiers subalternes, 26 matelots, 9 et 3 soldats de marine, en tout 93 hommes. La petite diffu00e9rence peut su2019expliquer par le fait que Hunt, dans son ru00e9cit rapide ne fait aucune mention du renvoi des hommes u00e0 Melbourne. Le 27 mai, le Shenandoah prit et bru00fbla le baleinier Abigail. M. Ebenezer F. Nye, le mau00eetre de lu2019Abigau00efl, dans un affidavit du 7 septembre 1871 dit: u201cLe Shenandoah, u00e0 lu2019u00e9poque ou00f9 je fus pris u00e0 bord, avait un nombre complet du2019officiers mais manquait passablement de matelots, car il nu2019en avait que quarante ou cinquante, pas la moitiu00e9 de ce quu2019il fallait. Les officiers mu2019ont dit que leur vu00e9ritable effectif du2019officiers et de matelots aurait du00fb u00eatre de 185, mais u00e0 cette u00e9poque, il avait, tout compris, 105 hommes.u201d Il parau00eet, du2019apru00e8s lu2019affidavit de Temple, quu2019apru00e8s avoir quittu00e9 Melbourne, et avant la capture de lu2019Abigau00efl, lu2019u00e9quipage fut augmentu00e9 par lu2019embauchage du2019un officier subalterne et de sept matelots tiru00e9s de vaisseaux capturu00e9s, soit: Park, officier, et Welch, Morris, Adeis, Delombaz, Roderick, Stevenson et Rossel, matelots. Du2019apru00e8s les calculs tiru00e9s du ru00e9cit de Hunt, le Shenandoah devait par consu00e9quent avoir u00e0 cette u00e9poque, avec cette augmentation, 108 hommes tout compris. Du2019apru00e8s le ru00e9cit de Temple, il avait 101 hommes, dont u00e9taiu00e9nt 57 officiers et officiers subalternes, et 44 matelots, soldats de marine et mu00e9caniciens. Ce ru00e9sultat confirme lu2019exactitude de lu2019estimation et les souvenirs de M. Nye de la maniu00e8re la plus frappante. Apru00e8s cette u00e9poque, Temple repru00e9sente le Shenandoah comme recevant des enru00f4lements des vaisseaux capturu00e9s comme suit: 1 officier, 21 matelots, 1 mu00e9canicien-pompier, et 9 soldats de marine, en tout 32 hommes. Il repru00e9sente le vaisseau arrivant u00e0 Liverpool avec 133 hommes u00e0 bord. Dans un rapport officiel u00e9crit par le capitaine Paynter au contru00f4leur gu00e9nu00e9ral des gardes-cu00f4tes britanniques, datu00e9 du 7 novembre 1865 (Brit. App. vol. 1, p. 675) il est declaru00e9 u201cque le Shenandoah a un effectif de 133 officiers et matelots.u201d Temple, dans son affidavit du 6 du00e9cembre suivant, donne des chiffres identiques et ajoute les noms des officiers et des matelots. Lorsque lu2019affidavit de Temple fut communiquu00e9 au gouvernement britannique, on chercha u00e0 mettre eu doute sa vu00e9racitu00e9 en montrant que son caractu00e8re nu2019inspirait pas de la confiance dans ses du00e9clarations; mais on ne chercha nullement u00e0 montrer que la liste annexu00e9 u00e0 son affidavit u00e9tait iucorrect:u2014sans doute parce que les personnes u00e0 Liverpool qui connaissaient les faits savaient que cette liste u00e9tait vraie. Celui qui u00e9leva ces doutes, fut le capitaine Paynter, lu2019officier qui se chargea du Shenandoah lorsquu2019il fut abandonnu00e9 par Waddell et conformu00e9ment aux instructions duquel lu2019u00e9quipage fut renvoyu00e9. Il savait par consu00e9quent si ces faits u00e9taient exacts:u2014ou su2019ils ne lu2019u00e9taient pas, il savait ou00f9 on pouvait trouver les personnes qui pouvaient du00e9montrer leur inexactitude. Eu renvoyant lu2019u00e9quipage, il avait sans doute tenu la liste de lu2019u00e9quipage. Si la liste de Temple avait diffu00e9ru00e9 de celle lu00e0, il est u00e9vident que cette diffu00e9rence aurait u00e9tu00e9 du00e9montru00e9e par un officier du00e9sireux de faire passer Temple comme indigne de foi. La liste donnu00e9e par Temple est appuyu00e9e: 1u00b0, par sa vu00e9racitu00e9 intrinsu00e8que; 2u00b0, par son accord avec le ru00e9cit de Hunt; 3u00b0, par les ru00e9cits des mau00eetres des vaisseaux capturu00e9s, ru00e9cits rapportu00e9s par le consul Munro u00e0 Rio Janeiro; 4u00b0, par les affidavits de plusieurs matelots prisonniers relu00e2chu00e9s u00e0 Melbourne du2019un service forcu00e9 sur le Shenandoah; 5u00b0, par la lettre du gouverneur sir Charles Darling; 6u00b0, par le rapport du detective Kennedy; 7u00b0, par lu2019affidavits Forbes; 8u00b0, par lu2019affidavit de Nye, le commandant de lu2019Abigau00efl; 9u00b0, par le rapport du capitaine Paynter au contru00f4leur genu00e9ral des gardes-cu00f4tes; 10u00b0, par le fait que le capitaine Paynter ne pu00fbt ru00e9ussir u00e0 en contester lu2019exactitude, lorsquu2019il avait les raisons et les moyens de le faire. Si lu2019on doit croire ce ru00e9cit, 43 personnes recrutu00e9es u00e0 Melbourne, en violation des devoirs de la Grande-Bretagne comme puissance neutre, su2019embarquu00e8rent sur le Shenandoah dans ce port: ce furent 1 officier, 13 officiers subalternes, 19 matelots, 7 mu00e9canicienspompiers et trois soldats de marine, et, sans exception, personne dans ce port ne le quitta qui nu2019eu00fbt u00e9tu00e9 du2019abord fait prisonnier et obligu00e9 par force de faire le service u00e0 bord du vaisseau. Les chiffres de cette u00e9criture sont le ru00e9sultat du2019un examen critique des documents citu00e9s; lorsquu2019ils diffu00e8rent de ceux pru00e9sentu00e9s jusquu2019ici, ils doivent u00eatre pris comme une ru00e9vision de nos documents pru00e9cu00e9dents. Genu00e8ve, le 21 aou00fbt 1872.

Topics

19th Century Diplomacy Reconstruction

Sources

FRUS u2014 Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, Transmitted to Congress with the Annual Message of the Pr View original source ↗

U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian. Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, Transmitted to Congress with the Annual Message of the Pr.