Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams, December 8, 1862

Mr. Seward to Mr.
Adams.

Sir: Your despatch of November 20 (No. 262) is
received. The President is content that you shall exercise your
discretion as to the manner of presenting the claims growing out of the
depredations of the “290,” with which you are charged, and he authorizes
me, therefore, to approve the note addressed by you to Earl Russell
which accompanied your despatch.

You have rightly judged that it is no part of the purpose of this
government to harass that of Great Britain by impatient demands for the
immediate adjustment of the claims for pecuniary reparation. The purpose
first is, prevention of similar injuries hereafter. It is clear that
there will soon be no commerce left to the United States if the
transaction of the “290” is to be repeated and reiterated without check
and with impunity.

It ought not to be doubted in Great Britain that a people who are only
second in commerce to the British nation itself cannot quietly consent
to a wrongful strangulation of their foreign trade.

Notices have already been received at this department of the intention of
some foreign powers to demand redress and reparation for commercial
depredations on innocent foreigners which have been committed by the
insurgents, although they were committed by citizens who were, at the
time, in a state of actual armed insurrection and defiant hostility
against the federal authority. Beyond doubt we should have no sufficient
answer to such claims if we had tolerated or excused, or faded to put
forth all the efforts of the government to prevent the acts of piracy
complained of. How does the case of the “290” differ from what, under
other circumstances, would be our own? Great Britain is mistress in her
own ports and waters. We cannot enter those ports and waters with armed
force. Insomuch as steam can only be successfully employed against steam in war, her
rigorous and almost absolute exclusion of our navy from her ports and
waters deprives us of the power to watch for and seize, upon their
appearance in the open sea, the steam war vessels which her own subjects
build, equip, and despatch from her own ports, virtually, though
undesignedly, under the protection of her own government. It seems to
the President an incontestable, principle, that whatever injury is
committed by the subjects of Great Britain upon citizens of the United
States, either within the British dominions or upon the high, seas, in
expeditions thus proceeding from British ports and posts, ought to be
redressed by her Majesty’s government, unless they shall be excused from
liability upon the ground that the government had made all reasonable
efforts to prevent the injury from being inflicted. If it shall appear
in the sequel that the government did make all such reasonable efforts
in the case of the “290,” still this will not meet the case of other and
future depredations in expeditions which, as it is now publicly known,
are being prepared in Great Britain. There would seem to be no answer in
such future cases, except that there is no obligation on the part of
Great Britain to put forth efforts adequate to the prevention of such
unlawful proceedings against friendly nations. Such a principle,
generally accepted by nations, would be followed by universal piracy,
and commercial states would be required thereafter to conduct their
exchanges upon the ocean by the employment of armed vessels or convoys.
The President feels himself all the more at liberty to insist upon such
measures of prevention, because, first, a license to such transaction
would be, while it should continue, only less injurious to Great Britain
than to the United States, the safest possible commerce between the two
nations being equally important to both of them. Secondly, because it is
manifestly the interest of all commercial nations that wars, whether
civil or international, shall be closely confined to the parties who
have voluntarily or necessarily engaged in them. This government is
aware that it is said, that although the “290” was despatched from a
British port, yet she was, nevertheless not armed, equipped, and manned
within the port. But the fact is undisputed that she issued from the
port and proceeded, by pre-concert, to a convenient station, and that
there she received her crew, her equipment, and her arms, all of which
were sent out to her by the same British subjects who built and
despatched her. In criminal law an illegal transaction, as it is none
the less injurious, so it is none the less illegal, because its
preparation is broken up into parts and effected in several places
instead of one. Such subdivision being adopted simply with a view to
evade the law is fraudulent in itself, and an aggravation rather than an
extenuation of the offence.

With these explanations of the views of the President, which you may use
or refrain from using in your negotiations as you deem expedient, I
leave the affair for the present in your own able hands.

I am, sir, your obedient servant,