William L. Dayton to M. Drouyn de l’Huys, September 28, 1864

Mr. Dayton to M. Drouyn de l’Huys

Monsieur le Ministre: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter, dated the 22d instant, which encloses the copy of a letter received by your excellency from the minister of marine, &c., under date of the 17th instant, and this last letter your excellency informs me “contains the answer of the government of the Emperor to the observations” in my letter of the 29th August last, In that letter I stated to your excellency that the two vessels at Nantes, and the two iron-clads at Bordeaux, built under contract for the confederates, still remained, so far as I had knowledge, “the property of the confederates,” and one or more of them, as I was informed, was about to go to sea, and under these circumstances would be “subject to capture by our cruisers.” I then added that, “in the hope of preventing any unpleasant questions between our governments, I begged your excellency to state, in reply, if you had knowledge of any change of ownership in either of the vessels above referred to.”

This letter, written in the kindest spirit and for the express purpose of avoiding all occasion for complaint on the part of France, does not seem to have been received by his excellency the minister of marine in a like spirit, but rather in the spirit of complaint and crimination. He says: “We have shown sufficient loyalty when, in a recent circumstance, we stopped all sale, all departure of a ship, in order that our sincerity might not be doubted,” &c. I beg to assure his excellency that nothing in my note of inquiry, to which his is or purported to be an answer, implied the slightest doubt of the sincerity of his government. The only tear I ever expressed on this subject was, that the French government might put more faith in the representations of the parties interested in these vessels than I believed him entitled to. His excellency does not stop here, but, proceeding in a like spirit, goes out of his way to inform you that it would be fortunate not to find in Mexico more American arms and more American combatants than the States of the north have met of French combatants and French arms among the confederates. In answer to this suggestion, I am constrained to remind his excellency that the government of the United States not only stopped the exportation of arms to Mexico, but it promptly stopped even an incipient movement towards the organization of men within its territory to take part in the war in that country. They did not wait until the organization was complete and ready to move; and tell France, in the mean time, we will prevent, or try to prevent, the passing of this force into Mexican territory. I am constrained, likewise, to remind his excellency, that when, in the late war between France and England on the one side, and Russia on the other, complaint was made by the allies that a ship-of-war was being built in one of the ports of the United States for Russia, the United States did not delay its action until the ship was complete and ready for delivery, but they acted at once, and the construction of the ship was stayed until the end of the war. (See papers accompanying my communication of April 13, 1863.)

If as his excellency implies, more of American arms and American combatants are found in Mexico than of French arms and French combatants are found among the confederates, (of which I have no knowledge,) it would, I should think, be readily accounted for without imputing any neglect to the government of the United States. While France is separated from the confederates by from three to four thousand miles of sea, the United States has, with Mexico, its next neighbor, a coterminous boundary of some fifteen hundred miles, next to and adjoining which is the nomadic and adventurous population of our western country.

The communication of his excellency then calls your attention to the terms of my letter, which, he says, imply a “menace,” (being a threat of seizing these vessels,) which he says they cannot accept, and thus the very object of my letter, which was to prevent by preliminary inquiry a wrongful seizure of these vessels, is itself converted into offence. Having been informed that our naval officers, on the evidence that our government had received of the ownership of these vessels by the confederates, would feel themselves justified in seizing them if met in the open sea, and supposing, as I did, that the property in these vessels, or some of them, might have passed (as in the case of the Yeddo and Osacca) into neutral hands, I thought to avoid all just cause of complaint by the inquiry if the authorities of France knew of any such change of property, meaning in that event to advise or direct that they be not interfered with. There was no menace and no implication of menace to seize these vessels except as confederate property, and it so expressly appeared on the face of my communication. I cannot conceive, therefore, how this could be justly construed into an offence to France. It is true, his excellency says in his letter that it should not, indeed, be forgotten that these vessels under the French flag and manned by a French crew are still French, and that we have no right to seize them until after delivery to an enemy. I do not so understand the law. The vessels in question are contraband of war—contraband in the strictest sense of that word. When found steaming on the open sea, every presumption is that they are destined to their owner. Nor does the fact that they fly a French flag and are navigated by a French crew change that legal presumption. If his excellency’s principle be right, nothing in a neutral’s possession can be seized at sea, and the whole doctrine of contraband is abolished. His excellency the minister of marine then gives us notice that if a menace to seize these ships be yet persisted in, “the ships will none the less make their trial trips, but then under the protection of one of the iron-clad vessels” of France; and, in fine, he says that “from the moment an attempt shall be made against a vessel under such circumstances, we would find ourselves under the necessity of forbidding all American vessels of the north to remain any longer in French waters.” Were I disposed to take exception, this language of express menace would be justly open to complaint; but I prefer rather to consider it as simply a statement in advance of the policy or purpose of the French government, without supposing it to mean or imply that the action of the government of the United States may be influenced or controlled by the threat contained in it. Viewed in this light, I can only say, in reply, that France will, doubtless, in the event contemplated, take such course (subject, I should hope, to the rules of international law) as her dignity and interests may require; but she will not fail, I trust, to remember that the ports and waters of the United States are of quite as much importance to the ships of France as are those of France to the ships of the United States. International right and courtesy are of necessity reciprocal; when, therefore, she speaks of closing her ports against us, she cannot doubt, however much we would regret the necessity, that the same measure of justice and courtesy which she metes out to us will, of necessity, be measured to her in return.

But notwithstanding the general tone of his excellency’s communication, I am rejoiced to perceive that, to avoid, as he says, new difficulties, he has given orders to suspend the trial trips of the San Francisco and of the Shanghai, and has, at the same time, given me the “assurance that the four vessels in question will not be delivered to the Confederate States,” and this assurance he has repeated with emphasis, adding, at the same time, that this “our declaration ought to suffice.” This does not leave me to rely on the verbal assurance or good faith of the parties interested in these vessels, but substitutes in lieu thereof the direct assurance and responsibility of the French government, and I am sure that I but anticipate the wishes of my government when I say promptly it does “suffice.”

Immediately upon the receipt of the communication containing this assurance, I sent to the commander of the United States ship Niagara, at Antwerp, a letter, informing him that if, “under the circumstances, the vessels in question or either of them are met at sea on their trial trips, under a French flag and with a French crew, it would be expedient and proper, in my judgment, not to interfere with them.” This letter has been received by the commander of the Niagara, and a copy of it sent, as I am informed, to the captain of the Sacramento. These are the only two ships-of-war of the United States now remaining, so far as I know, in these waters, the Iroquois, recently here, having been ordered in service elsewhere.

I avail myself of this occasion to renew to your excellency the assurance of my highest consideration.

Your very obedient servant,