17 SEPTEMBER 1864, Page 18

THE CRUISE OF THE ALABAMA.*

WE venture to hope that few Englishmen will read this authentic narrative of the cruise of the Alabama without a feeling of shame that any of their countrymen should have been found will- ing to co-operate in organizing or sending forth from our shores an expedition which has been so successful in preying upon the commerce of a friendly ally, and disturbing the relations between this country and the United States. Without entering into the vexed question whether any of the persons concerned in this affair were within the express words of the Foreign Enlistment Act so as to render themselves liable to its penal consequences, butt look- ing at the transaction as a whole, it cannot, we think, be doubted that it was precisely that which it was the object of that Act to prevent, and which if the powers given by the Legislature to the Executive do not prevent, the whole Act becomes a dead letter, a pretence, and a sham.

Captain Semmes' work adds little to what was known before. We all knew that the Alabama was "built expressly for the Con- federate Navy by Messrs. Laird and Sons, of Birkenhead " (Vol. I., p. 266); that it was paid for in money obtained in this country by means of a loan raised upon the faith of cotton certificates which would only be good in the event of the success of the Confederacy ; that it was obviously a war vessel, and so far as its armament was completed in this country fit for nothing else; that it left Liver- pool on pretence of making a trial trip with its builders and a party of ladies on board on the very day on which orders were issued by the Government for its detention, and of which infor- mation had been obtained in some irregular and clandestine manner; that instead of returning into port she proceeded 'to Moelfra Bay, where she shipped her crew and sailed on an ostensible voyage to Nassau ; that she made for Terceira, and met there by previous arrangement the sailing vessel Agrippina and the steamer Bahama, bringing her guns, ammunition, and coal, all supplied by English firms, and the remainder of her crew ; that there Captain Semmes, whohad been commissioned to the vessel before she left England, took command, went through a form of re-engaging his crew, hoisted the Confederate flag, and then commenced his career of destruction ; that with the exception of the Captain and two other officers all her crew, officers and men, were Englishmen—Captain Semmes calls them " the most reckless from the groggeries of Liverpool " (Vol. II., p. 33) ; and that wages were regularly paid to their families through a firm at Liverpool, that the vessel was constantly supplied with coal from England by the Agrippina, that she made a prac- tice of luring her victims by flying the British flag, that she never once entered a Confederate port, but made constant use of British and other neutral ports, and was received with hospitality by British officers, that no attempt was ever made to send her prizes into port for condemnation according to the recognized usage of belligerents at sea, but that Captain Semmes constituted a .quasi court of condemnation on his own quarter-deck without due regard for the property of neutrals, and then burnt the vessels and their cargoes.

On all these points Captain Semmes' log only confirms what

• Cruise of the Alabama and the Sumpter, from the Prirate Journals of Commander Semmes, C.S.N. Two vole. London : Saunders, Otley, and Co.

was matter of notoriety, and those who can read with patience this great scandal to our laws and disgrace to the shipbuilders and merchants engaged in this transaction, will find little more than a • dreary and monotonous account of the burning of vessels through- out a lengthened cruise. That there was anything heroic in the action of Captain Semmes we entirely deny. The vessel was built for the purpose only of destroying the commerce of the United States, and that a vessel could be built which should for a length of time out- pace any of its opponents at sea, taking advantage of the law of neutrality which gives twenty-four hours' start to a belligerent from any neutral port, cannot be a matter of surprise to any one acquainted with the efficiency of British steamship builders, and more especially of the Messrs. Laird ; it is, or ought to be, more morti- fying that such a vessel armed and manned by Englishmen should have had eventually to succumb to an opponent as nearly equal as possible in size, armament, and number of men, of which the iron- plating turns out to be nothing more than the festooning of its own iron cable about the most vulnerable portion of its hull, a device equally open' to the Alabama; and that its loss was wholly due to the superior gunnery of the American sailors over those of the Alabama, notwithstanding the training which many of the latter had received as Naval Reserve men.

It is worthy of remark how ready 'was this great violator of . international law and usage to appeal to that law for his own protection ; we find Captain Semmes constantly lecturing colonial governors upon their duties as neutrals ; when at St. Pierre, in the 'Island of Martinique, the Sumpter was virtually blockaded by the United States steamer Iroquois. Captain Semmes protested against such a course to the Governor, and requested " that he would cause the Iroquois to cease hovering about the coast for the purpose of watching his movements, in other words, to withdraw herself out of sight." " It is the duty of France to exercise surveillance over her own waters both by night and by day when an enemy's cruiser is blockading a friendly belligerent who had sought the asylum in their• waters accorded to him by the law of nations" (Vol. I., p, 151). Again he complained of the Iroquois sending her boats to watch him :---" It is a mere subterfuge for him to remain in the offing and supply himself with all he needs, besides reconnoitring me closely by means of his boats." Another time he complains of the Iroquois sending his pilot on shore to act as a spy upon his move- ments :—" An act of reconnaissance for purpose of giving informa- tion by signal is an act of war."

When at Gibraltar he complained to the Governor of the United States Consul having tampered with his crew and persuaded them to desert :—" Great Britain having proclaimed a strict neutrality in the war is under the obligation not only to abstain herself from Any unneutral conduct, but to see that all persons whatever within her dominions so abstain. No act of war, proximate or remote, should be tolerated in her waters by the one belligerent against the other, or by any citizen or resident against either belligerent" (V01.1. p. 223).

We could not more cursorily condense the enterprise of the Alabama and her sister vessels, the Florida and Georgia, than in these words. It would be well that those who thus appeal to international law should take care that their own conduct is free from reproach. Has it never occurred to Captain Semmes that having never taken the Alabama into a Confederate port, he was from the outset to the close of his cruise of necessity making a station of hostilities of neutral ports?

With regard to the practice of burning his prizes without at- tempting to send them into port for condemnation, Captain Semmes' book furnishes the most abundant justification to those who have contended that a condemnation in a prize court, adjudicating according to the law of nations is, ex debito justitia3, and for the due security to neutrals against the im- proper destruction of their property, a necessary incident to the right of capture. Of the eighty-five vessels captured and burned by the Alabama, we find that fourteen were vessels carry- ing cargoes not from or to ports of the United States, but from one neutral port to another, such as the Amanda with cargo from Manilla to Queenstown, the Chastelaine with cargo from Mar- tinique to Cienfuegos, the Gildershiene from Sunderland to Calcutta, the Texan Star with cargo from Moulmein to Singapore. What- ever may be the presumption at law in a prize court, when due time has been given for the production of evidence, the presumption to every man of common sense must be that such vessels were carrying cargoes the property of neutrals, .yet we find that in all these cases Captain Semmes has in the most reckless manner taken upon himself to decide upon what are the most difficult questions that can arise in prize courts. Perhaps the most curious passages

• in this work are the judgments which Captain Semmes affects to

have given in these cases. We will give one out of a number of similar cases as an example. The ease of the ship Express (Vol. II., p. 165) :—" Ship under United States colours and register, cargo guano shipped by Senan, Valdeavellano and Co., at Callao, and con- signed to T. Sescau and Co., at Antwerp." On the back of this bill of lading is the following endorsement," Nous soussignds, Chargd d'Affaires et Consul-Generale de France h Lima, eertitions que le chargement de mine soixaute douse de register de Huano specifi6 au present connaissement est propriet4 neutre. Fait h Lima le 27 Janvier, 1863. Signed and impressed with Consular seal." Captain Semmes proceeds to pass the following judgment upon the cargo :- " This certificate fails to be of any value as proof for two reasons ; first it is not sworn to, and secondly it simply avows the property to be neutral instead of pointing out' the owners. A consul may authenticate evidence by his seal, but when he departs from' the usual functions of a consul, and becomes a witness, he must give his testimony under oath, like other witnesses. This certificate does not even amount to an ex-parte affidavit. If the property had been in the shippers or consignees' name it would have been quite as easy to say so as to put the certificate in its present shape. Why, then, was the simple declaration that the property was neutral made use of, the law, with which every consul, and more especially a chargé d'affaires, is supposed to be acquainted, declaring them to be insufficient ?" " Now the presumption of law being that goods found in an enemy's ship belong to an enemy, unless a distinct neutral character be given to them by pointing out the real owner by proper documentary proof, as neither the bill of lading nor the certificate, which is a mere statement of a fact, like the bill of lading not under oath, nor the master's testimony, who knows nothing except as lie has been told by the shipper, amount to proper documentary proof, the ship and cargo are both condemned. It must be admitted that this is a case in which perhaps a prize court would grant further proof; but as I cannot do this, and a distinct neutral character is not impressed upon 'the property by former evidence, I 'must act under the presumption of law. (See 3 Phillimore, p. 596.)" Accordingly the ship and cargo, valued at 121,000 dols.,'were burnt. We will not discuss with Captain Semmes this burlesque upon justice. But the question arises, ought such a course to be per- mitted by neutral powers,—ought they not for the security of their subjects to insist upon all prizes being taken to port for condemna- tion in a prize court? Is it sufficient justification for not doing so that the belligerent has no ports open to him ? It may be true that between belligerents there is no law and no means of enforcing a due observance of the usages of war except by reprisal ; but the rule has been established for the security of neutrals, and we think that they ought not to permit a course of action which cannot 'be carried out without injury to their own subjects. It would 'be easy to prevent it by agreeing among themselves to forbid access to their porta to vessels which are given to such practices. Without neutral ports -to resort to the Alabama could not have done 'her work. We can only regret that our Government in 'not doing so has at once laid itself open to the suspicion of conniving at such practices, and has neglected to-give a precedent which we are satis- fied will in time to come, when this country is again engaged in war, be found sadly wanting to the security of our commerce.