Mr. Seward to Lord Lyons.
My Lord: I have already had occasion to apologize to your lordship for unavoidable delays of attention to such of your lordship’s favors as were received during my recent absence from the department on a short visit to the State of New York.
Among those favors was a note which was addressed to me, on the 23d of December last, by you on the subject of the alleged violation of the sovereignty of Great Britain, in May last, by Captain Trenchard, of the United States steamer Rhode Island, in the chase of the blockade runner Margaret and Jessie,
That transaction was first brought to the notice of this department by the consul of the United States residing at Nassau, in a despatch written on the 16th of May last. [38th Congress, 1st session, House Ex. Doc. No. 1, page 644.] The case having been made the subject of communication (oral, if I remember rightly) between your lordship and myself, I had the honor to inform you, by a note bearing date on the 16th of June last, [38th Congress, 1st session, House Ex. Doc. No. 1, page 644,] that Captain Trenchard, in writing of the chase of the Margaret and Jessie to the United States consul at Nassau, gays that he did not chase that vessel within British jurisdiction. I added that, if reports should be made conflicting with this statement, I should think they would prove to be erroneous, as Captain Trenchard had been distinguished for his caution and correct exercise of his authority. Nevertheless, I concluded with saying that if it should appear that any act of hostility or of pursuit was committed within the maritime jurisdiction of Great Britain, the act would be disavowed, and ample redress would be promptly given.
In reply to this note, the honorable Mr. Stuart, charged with the conduct of her Majesty’s legation here, in your lordship’s absence, on the 12th of September last, [38th Congress, 1st session, House Ex. Doc. No. 1, page 693,] ad dressed to me a note, in which he stated that the evidence which had been laid [Page 495] before her Majesty’s government seems to put beyond all doubt the fact that a very grave violation of international law and of the Queen’s territorial rights and jurisdiction was committed upon the occasion in question, and that he had, consequently, been instructed to press for immediate explanations from the United States government. Mr. Stuart proceeded to observe that the fact which appears certain, that the shot and shell of the United States war steamer repeatedly struck the shore and objects on the shore of her Majesty’s territory, makes it very difficult to understand how the captain of that vessel could have honestly reported that he did not chase the Margaret and Jessie within British jurisdiction. Mr. Stuart concluded with saying that unless the captain of the war steamer could rebut thi3 testimony, which does not appear possible, her Majesty’s government would of course expect that the redress which is usual in such cases of violation of territorial rights and jurisdiction would be promptly given by the United States, as announced by you in your note above mentioned. On the 15th of September [38th Congress, 1st session, House Ex. Doc. No. 1, page 694,] I had the honor to acknowledge the receipt of Mr. Stuart’s note, and to inform him that the Secretary of the Navy had been called upon for information on.the subject, and to assure him that this government would lose no time in ascertaining the merits of the case, and rendering such decision upon it as justice and the law of nations require.
On the 22d of September last I addressed to Mr. Stuart a further note, in which I had the honor to inform him that the Secretary of the Navy had requested that the Navy Department might be supplied with a copy of the testimony which had been laid before her Majesty’s government, in order that an opportunity might be afforded to the accused party to rebut it before a court-martial or court of inquiry, as might be directed, and therefore I had the honor to request that Mr Stuart would be good enough to furnish me with a copy of the evidence in question for communication to the Secretary of the Navy. Mr. Stuart, on the 22d of September, informed me that the evidence referred to had not been furnished to him by his government, but he would not fail to communicate my request to Earl Russell by the first opportunity. Your lordship’s note, just above acknowledged, gives the answer of her Majesty’s government to the request which I had just made for a copy of the evidence upon which the claim of that government rests. In this note your lordship informs me that her Majesty’s government readily comply with that request, and accordingly you have submitted to me in the original all the documents containing evidence bearing on the case.
You proceed in your note to inform me that it is your duty, in execution of instructions, to state distinctly that her Majesty’s government cannot consent that the demand for redress which they have preferred should be in any way affected by the proceedings of the government of the United States relating to the conduct of any officer or other person who may be responsible to this government for his misconduct in the matter, and that you are further directed to express the confident hope of her Majesty’s government that upon receiving evidence of the facts so clear and decisive as that contained in these documents the government of the United States will, without further delay, give proper satisfaction for so very serious an outrage upon the territorial rights of her Majesty.
In acknowledging the receipt of this important testimony I have to inform your lordship that a copy of it will be immediately taken for the use of this government, and thereupon, in compliance with your request, the original will be promptly remitted to your lordship’s care. The Secretary of the Navy will be furnished with the testimony submitted. If the honor and interests of the United States shall permit of a decision of the case, upon that testimony, without waiting for evidence supporting or combatting, it will give the President pleasure to make such a decision. If, on the contrary, further investigation [Page 496] shall be found necessary it will be made without injurious delay, and will be made in such a form as shall seem best calculated to elicit the exact truth and prepare the way for a disposition of the subject which shall be just and honorable to both countries.
I have the honor to be, with high consideration, your lordship’s obedient servant,
Right Hon. Lord Lyons, &c., &c., &c.