ELIHU ROOT, United States Attorney to Augustus H. Garland, March 10, 1885

Mr. Root to Mr. Garland.

[Office of the United States attorney for the southern district of New York.]

Sir: I have to-day received from you a telegram, as follows:

“Washington, D. C., March 10, 1885.

“Elihu Root, “United States Attorney, New York, N. Y.:

“Minister of United States of Colombia at this capital states that parties are engaged in purchase of arms to carry on war against his Government. Steamer leaves your port to-morrow or next day. You are directed to immediately adopt stringent measures to prevent any departure of warlike elements intended to assist expeditions against Colombia.

“A. H. GARLAND, “Attorney-General.”

I immediately sent to the collector of this port a letter, a copy of which I inclose. I have received no reply from the collector. I have also caused Special Agent Fox of the Treasury Department, who is attached to this office, to make special inquiry upon the subject. He informs me that the steamship Albano was cleared this morning for a port in the United States of Colombia having arms upon her manifest. He requested that the clearance be stopped and the vessel not allowed to leave until further examination. The collector informed him that he would comply with the request and report the facts to me. I beg that I may receive at the earliest possible moment such further and more particular information as the minister of the United States of Colombia may be able to give. Of course, the mere fact that a steamer cleared for a port in the United States of Colombia having arms among her cargo is no ground for interference. It is highly improbable that the vessel in question, whether it be the Albano or any other steamer, will correspond with the description of section 5290. The Albano I understand to be a vessel of a regular line. The detention for the purpose of examination justified by section 5290 will accordingly be brief.

In order to take any further steps to prevent the arms from going forth, I must have some facts which will establish a violation of some provisions of the neutrality act. The case of the steamship Florida, decided by Judge Blatchford in the district court in this district in 1871, and reported in the 4th of Benedict District Court Reports, 452, illustrates the difficulty of establishing violations of law of this description.

Very respectfully,