Sohenck to Robert C. Schenck, April 10, 1875

No. 264. General Schenck to Mr. Fish.

Sir: I understand that our consul at Liverpool has already reported for your information all the facts attending the case of the American vessel “G. C. Trufant,” which arrived at that port on the 7th of February last, and which, in violation of the law and shipping regulations of the United States, and with defiant refusal on the part of the master and owner to recognize the consul’s authority, has been transferred to the British flag, and been cleared, and sailed on another voyage as a British vessel.

This matter was brought to my attention through the consul-general of the United States at London, and has been the subject of a somewhat voluminous correspondence between Lord Derby and me.

I append hereto copies of all the notes and their inclosures which have passed between us. I do not recapitulate the statement of the affair, nor the points which I presented, because those are fully and specifically set forth in one of my communications to his lordship, under date of the 11th of March, (inclosure No. 9,) and to that I refer you without repetition.

The request which I urged on Her Majesty’s government, was, that inasmuch as the wrong done to the United States Government and to our consular authority appeared to be remediless, under the provisions of British law, the vessel in question should be denied registration in Great Britain until there was a compliance with the consul’s just demands. I represented that a failure to afford this aid would result in allowing the British flag to be used as a protection for outrage and acknowledged fraud on the part of the master and owner of the vessel. But the decision of Her Majesty’s government that, with an anxious disposition to help the Government of the United States in the matter, it was yet not in their power to intervene, or give any aid, will be found finally conveyed to me in Lord Derby’s note of the 19th of March, (inclosure No. 13.) I ask your attention to my answer, sent yesterday, to that last note of his lordship. You will observe that, in replying to his suggestion that Her Majesty’s government would be pleased to have the concurrence of the United States in such legislation by the two countries as would prevent evasion and wrong, such as I have complained of, I have referred him to the act of Congress of March 3, 1817, (Revised Statutes, sections 4209 and 4210,) to show that in the United States protection, in this particular, has been amply provided for foreign consuls in our ports for at least sixty years. I have at the same time taken the occasion to inform his lordship that I must attract the notice of my Government to the fact that under the existing law in Great Britain it seems a like protection is not extended to our consuls in her ports. This may require an application of the rules of reciprocity, on the observance of which depends the enjoyment of the benefit and aid which our law intends to extend to other governments.

Before leaving this matter, I would call your attention especially to an admission which appears to have been made by the owner of the “G. C. Trufant” that she was falsely represented to belong to an American owner in order to enable her builders to obtain a drawback of about six hundred dollars on foreign materials used in her construction. Perhaps if Mr. Trufant is out of judicial reach the builders of the vessel at New-buryport may be found, and subjected to punishment for that fraud.

I have, &c.,