Right Hon. Lord Lyons to His worship the Mayor of Halifax, December 31, 1863
Lord Lyons to Mr Seward.
Sir: On the 3d of July last I had the honor to submit to you a protest made by the master of the brig Isabella Thompson against the capture of that vessel by the United States ship-of-war United States, and on the 10th of the same month you were so good as to communicate to me a copy of a letter from the Secretary of the Navy, stating that the parties interested must abide the decision of the prize court, which tribunal would, without doubt, give a just decision upon the seizure, and award ample damages should the seizure have been illegal and wanton.
The judge of the district court at New York, by a decree made on the 31st July last, restored the vessel and cargo to the claimants, but without damages or costs, and he gave the libellants leave to move that further proofs should be introduced by them as to the illicit dealing alleged against the brig. On the 18th of August (the libellants not having in the mean time moved for leave to introduce further proofs) the decree was made final and absolute.
Her Majesty’s government having been furnished by the claimants with copies of the depositions, and with notes of the opinion of the judge, and having taken the whole case into consideration, have directed me to address to the government of the United States a demand for compensation for the parties interested.
Her Majesty’s government apprehend that an appeal is open to the claimants, and that this is a legal mode of obtaining redress yet unexhausted; but they conceive that the miscarriage of the judge in not awarding costs and damages is so dear, that the parties injured should at once have justice done to them, without incurring the delay and expense which would be incident to further legal proceedings, and which might serve only to augment the ultimate demand of her Majesty’s government for compensation.
Her Majesty’s government presume that the notes of the judge’s opinion with which they have been furnished are correct. If so, the premises respecting the entire innocence of the vessel, and the absence of any legal ground for detention, are so plainly at variance with the conclusion of relieving the captors from the legal and proper consequence of a wholly unjustifiable seizure, that her Majesty’s government cannot but hope that the government of the United States will perceive at once the justice of giving the costs and damages in the case.
Her Majesty’s government observe that the Isabella Thompson was engaged in a lawful trade between two neutral ports, neither of them even in the neighborhood of any blockaded port. Her cargo was taken on board in the ordinary course of trade in neutral waters, and there is not any trace in the evidence of anything having occurred, when she was visited and captured, which could afford the slightest pretext for the capture. It appears to her Majesty’s government that, in support of the single plea of justification put forward, (viz: the suspicion of a complicity between this vessel and the blockade runner from which she is stated to have received a great part of her cargo in British waters,) no evidence was produced except that of one witness, the cook, which the judge himself did not rely upon, and which, by itself, even if fully credited, had no tendency to identify the voyage and adventure of the one ship with that of the other; and her Majesty’s government conceive that it is apparent, from the omission of the captors to avail themselves of the opportunity of going into further proof which was offered them by the decree, that there was no ground in fact for any such charge. Moreover, her Majesty’s government deem it to be impossible to refrain from noticing, as worthy of reprehension, the course adopted in obtaining, previously to the regular examination, and while the witness was on board, in the power of the captors, a deposition (however voluntary it may purport to be) from this cook, evidently intended to offer some sort of pretext for a seizure which it had been discovered could not be defended upon the facts and the law. Her Majesty’s government consider that such a deposition is very objectionable in principle, and they believe it to be contrary to the practice of the American prize courts as well as to that of the prize courts of Great Britain.
The case of the Isabella Thompson appears to her Majesty’s government to be simply that of a neutral vessel sailing from one neutral port to another, with a cargo free from all suspicion and with perfectly regular papers, which it seized upon the high seas and compelled to incur very heavy expenses and damages, without a colorable, pretext on the part of the captor, as to whom the most favorable suggestion is that he was entirely ignorant of the law.
Her Majesty’s government conceive that it would be difficult to say in what case the award of costs and damages, the only protection of the neutral, ought to be made in a prize court, if not in this. Her Majesty’s government apprehend that, even if the captor’s conduct in such a case could be excusable in the eyes of the judges of his own country, this could be no reason why all indemnity should be refused to the injured party, who did not by any improper or objectionable conduct whatever contribute to the captor’s error.
For the above reasons her Majesty’s government deem it to be their duty to invite the government of the United States to make immediate reparation in the case.
I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obedient, humble servant,