Mr. Seward to Mr. Dayton, May 8, 1863

Mr. Seward to Mr.
Dayton

Sir: Your despatch of the 24th of April, No.
301, has been received. It communicates the impressions which have been
made upon the French government by a paper under the signature of Mr.
Adams, of the date of the 9th of April last, which has appeared in the
journals of London.

Candor obliges me to commence my observations upon the subject with an
acknowledgment of the very generous manner in which Mr. Drouyn de l’Huys
has opened the way to a dispassionate and friendly consideration of the
complaint which he has preferred. He has not only reassured you of the
friendly spirit of the Emperor towards the United States, but he has
also, with marked decision and energy, reaffirmed to you that France has
no purpose in Mexico beyond asserting just claims against her, obtaining
payment of the debt due, with the expenses of the invasion, and
vindicating by victory the honor of the French flag, and that France
does not mean to colonize in Mexico, or to obtain Sonora or any other
section permanently, and that all allegations propagated through the
newspapers conflicting with these assurances are untrue.

Your reply to these remarks of Mr. Drouyn de l’Huys, namely, that in all
my correspondence with you, whether public or private, I have averred
that this government has no purpose to interfere in any way with the war
between France and Mexico, was as truthful as it was considerate and
proper. The United States have not disclaimed, and can never under
existing circumstances disclaim, the interest they feel in the safety,
welfare and prosperity of Mexico, any more than they can relinquish or
disown their sentiments of friendship and good will towards France,
which began with their national existence, and have been cherished with
growing earnestness ever since. When the two nations towards which they
are thus inclined are found engaged in such a war as Mr. Drouyn de
l’Huys has described, the United States can only deplore the painful
occurrence, and express in every way and everywhere their anxious desire
that the conflict may be brought to a speedy close by a settlement
consistent with the stability, prosperity and welfare of the parties concerned. The United
States have always acted upon the same principle of forbearance and
neutrality in regard to wars between powers with which our own country
has maintained friendly relations, and they believe that this policy
could not in this, more than in other cases, be departed from with
advantage to themselves or to the interests of peace throughout the
world. * * * * * *

The French government has justly assumed that the first knowledge which
this government had of the paper of which Mr. Drouyn de l’Huys complains
was derived from its publication in London. It is notorious that the
insurgents of the United States derive their munitions of war and other
supplies chiefly through a contraband trade of merchants and others
residing or sojourning in Great Britain, carried on in vessels which
pretend not a direct destination to the ports of our own country which
are blockaded or held in military occupation by the government forces,
but to neutral ports of Great Britain, Spain, and Mexico. Matamoras is
chief among these neutral ports, and being situated on the right bank of
the Rio Grande, which is our national boundary, contraband freights of
vessels ascending to or approaching Matamoras through that river are
with much facility transferred to the insurgents of the United States,
for whose use they are designed. The blockade has been until this moment
our chief protection against this danger, although we are now obtaining
a new security against it by recovering the exclusive navigation of the
Mississippi river, which divides the country west of that river from the
principal field of war.

We understand that two persons named Zirman and Howell appeared in
London, and presented themselves to Mr. Adams, Zirman claiming American
citizenship by naturalization, and Howard claiming it by birth. We do
not know that they were, or that they avowed themselves to be agents of
the Mexican government, as Mr. Drouyn de l’Huys seems to have supposed.
Zirman is now recognized here as an adventurer destitute of all
pretensions to morality or character. We know nothing of the other’s
antecedents. They represented to Mr. Adams that they were freighting a
British ship with British merchandise, not for the insurgents, but for
the Mexicans, and that they found it difficult if not impossible to
effect an insurance in London, because a general suspicion attending the
Matamoras trade exposed all vessels engaged in it to seizure by the
cruisers who are maintaining our blockade. They therefore asked of Mr.
Adams a private note which would show that they are loyal Americans, and
that their venture was not contraband as against the United States, and
which being confidentially shown to the underwriters, might remove the
aforementioned difficulty of insurance. Mr. Adams, acting at once upon
the suggestion without waiting for further information or prolonged
reflection, wrote, signed, and put into their hands the paper of which
Mr. Drouyn de l’Huys complains, with no expectation that it would in any
case become public.

The transaction being viewed in the light cast upon it by these
circumstances, seems to me to lose something of the gravity with which
it might otherwise be invested. It must certainly be allowed to be an
act not of deliberation, but of inadvertence. The paper shows on its
face that it had for its chief, if not its only object, to remove an
embarrassment which two of his supposed countrymen had encountered in a
mercantile transaction in the distant country to which Mr. Adams was
accredited, which embarrassment resulted in part from proceedings in
that country, and in part from the action of our own government. It
seems at least possible that the bearing of the transaction upon the war
between France and Mexico did not at all occur to Mr. Adams,
pre-occupied as he was with its relations simply to Great Britain and
the United States, for he confines himself in the paper to those
relations.

The French government, however, has adopted a different conclusion. In
announcing it to you Mr. Drouyn de l’Huys assumes that the cargo of
Zirman and Howell was composed, or was at least understood by Mr. Adams
to consist, of military stores and munitions of war. I am not able, with
the light now enjoyed, to affirm or to deny this fact. Mr. Drouyn de
l’Huys derives further evidence of a purpose, or at least of sentiments,
on the part of Mr. Adams hostile to France, from certain expressions in
the paper, namely, these: “It gives me pleasure to distinguish one [meaning one enterprise] which has a different
and a creditable purpose. I therefore very cheerfully give them [Howell and Zirman]
this certificate at their request.” These expressions are grounded upon
the statement which Mr. Adams makes, that these persons have presented
him with evidence which is perfectly satisfactory to him that they are
really bound to Matamoras with a cargo intended for the Mexicans. While
I deem it possible that these expressions were conceived and used
without any consciousness on the part of Mr. Adams that they would be
taken as alluding to the war existing between France and Mexico, it must
be admitted, on the other hand, that to insist upon this point would be
to stand upon a question of verbal criticism. The United States have no
motive for assuming such a position. Striving to conduct their affairs
frankly and cordially with all parties, and especially with France, it
is enough for them that the construction put upon the expressions of Mr.
Adams by Mr. Drouyn de l’Huys is by no means a violent or an unnatural
one, and therefore the French government is entitled to the explanation
it has asked. You will consequently say to Mr. Drouyn de l’Huys, that
having taken the President’s instructions upon the subject, I am of
opinion that the giving of the paper complained of to Zirman and Howell
was in effect an unfriendly act towards France, which was not in harmony
with the sentiments and policy of this government, and which it
therefore views with disfavor and with regret, while it regards the
proceeding on the part of Mr. Adams as having been one of inadvertence,
and not of design or motive injurious to France.

I am, sir, your obedient servant,