The British minister here, Sir Andrew Buchanan, expressed incredulity and
surprise when I informed him this government had issued the order in
question. He declared the British government would not do it, and that
the United States would not under similar circumstances. He said it was
giving us an advantage, and was not therefore neutral conduct. He added
that Russia asked Sweden to close her ports against both belligerents
during the Crimean war, and England would not permit it, alleging that
as Russia did not want to use them, and England did, it gave the former
an advantage to which that power was not entitled. The British
government held that Sweden, as a neutral, had no right to alter the
natural situation unless it operated equally.
You see herein how thoroughly English officials (and it seems to me all
others) are imbued with the idea that the rights of a mere belligerent
are the same as the rights of a nation, in cases like the one under
consideration.
I have received to-day a letter from our consul at Paramaribo, dated
September 20, in which he says the United States steamer Powhatan
arrived there on the 14th in search of the Sumter, and left for Brazil
the same day; also that the Keystone State arrived on the 18th on the
same errand, and left on the 19th for the West India islands.
Your despatch of the 28th of September, acknowledging receipt of mine of
the 4th, has arrived. As you make no mention of mine of the 11th, it
would seem another mail has missed. I wrote our despatch agent at London
on the subject several days ago.
He replies that my despatch of the 4th of September went on the 7th, and
that of the 11th on the 14th, which was in regular order.
I have the honor to be, with great respect, your most obedient
servant,
Baron Van
Zuylen to Mr. Pike.
[Translation.]
The
Hague,
October 15, 1861.
Sir: By your despatch of the 8th of this
month you have fixed my attention, on the arrival of the “Sumter” at
Paramaribo, and you complain that on this occasion the said vessel
was admitted into ports of the Netherlands during eighteen days out
of the forty-six in which the Sumter had shown herself in the West
Indian seas.
You suppose that this is not a fortuitous case, and you demand that
the government of the Netherlands, in accordance with the intentions
mentioned at the close of my communication of the 17th September
last, may not permit
[Page 379]
its
ports to serve as stations or as base of hostile operations against
the United States.
You have not deemed it your duty to enter for the moment on the
discussion of the arguments contained in my above-mentioned
communication, but you say that you wish to await preliminarily the
reply of the cabinet at Washington.
I may, therefore, on my part, confine myself for the moment to
referring, as to what regards the admission in general of the Sumter
into the ports of the Netherlands and the character of this vessel,
to the arguments contained in my communication of the 17th
September, from which it follows, that if we do not choose to
consider prima facie all the ships of the
seceding States as privateers, and if, in the present case, the
Sumter could not be, in the opinion of the government of the
Netherlands, comprised among such, entrance to the ports of the
Netherlands cannot be prohibited to that vessel without a departure
from neutrality and from the express terms of the proclamation of
the royal government.
It has already been observed that the latter, in forbidding access to
the ports of the Netherlands to privateers, favors the United States
much more, among others, than the declaration of the 10th of June by
the French government, which, not permitting any vessel-of-war or
privateer of the one or the other of the belligerents to sojourn with prizes in the ports of the empire for
longer time than twenty-four hours, except in case of shelter
through stress, (relâche forcée,) admits them
without distinction when they do not bring prizes with them. But,
without entering here into useless developments, I think I may
observe to you, sir, that the royal government, whilst refusing to
treat as pirates, or even to consider as privateers, all the vessels
of the southern States, has striven, as much as the duties of strict
neutrality permit, to keep the Sumter away from our ports. When this
vessel arrived at Paramaribo, the commanders of two ships of the
French imperial marine, which were there at the time, declared to
the governor of Surinam that the Sumter was a regular vessel-of-war
and not a privateer. The commander of the Sumter exhibited
afterwards, to the same functionary, his commission as commandant in
a regular navy.
Although there was no reason, under such circumstances, to refuse to
the Sumter the enjoyment of the law of hospitality in all its
extent, the governor, before referred to, strove to limit it as much
as possible. Thus, although pit coal is not reputed contraband, if
not at most, and within a recent time only, contraband by accident,
it was not supplied to the Sumter except in the very restricted
quantity of 125 tons, at the most sufficient for four days’
progress.
However, the government of the Netherlands, wishing to give a fresh
proof of its desire [to avoid] all that could give the slightest
subject for complaint to the United States, has just sent
instructions to the colonial authorities, enjoining them not to
admit, except in case of shelter from stress, (relâche forcée,) the vessels-of-war and privateers of the
two belligerent parties, unless for twice twenty-four hours, and not
to permit them, when they are steamers, to provide themselves with a
quantity of coal more than sufficient for a run of twenty-four
hours.
It is needless to add that the cabinet of the Hague will not depart
from the principles mentioned at the close of my reply of the 17th
September, of which you demand the application; it does know and
will know how to act in conformity with the obligations of
impartiality and of neutrality, without losing sight of the care for
its own dignity.
Called by the confidence of the King to maintain that dignity, to
defend the rights of the Crown, and to direct the relations of the
state with foreign powers, I know not how to conceal from you, sir,
that certain expressions in
[Page 380]
your communications above mentioned, of the 23d and 25th
September last, have caused an unpleasant impression on the King’s
government, and do not appear to me to correspond with the manner in
which I have striven to treat the question now under discussion, or
with the desire which actuates the government of the Netherlands to
seek for a solution perfectly in harmony with its sentiments of
friendship towards the United States, and with the observance of
treaties.
The feeling of distrust which seems to have dictated your last
despatch of the 8th of this month, and which shows itself especially
in some entirely erroneous appreciations of the conduct of the
government of the Netherlands, gives to the last, strong in its good
faith and in its friendly intentions, just cause for astonishment.
So, then, the cabinet of which I have the honor to form part deems
that it may dispense with undertaking a justification useless to all
who examine impartially and without passion the events which have
taken place.
The news which has reached me from the royal legations at London and
at Washington, relative to the conduct of the British government in
the affair of the Sumter, can only corroborate the views developed
in my reply of 17th September last, and in the present
communication.
It results from this, in effect, that not only has the British
government treated the Sumter exactly as was done at Curaçoa, since
that vessel sojourned six or seven days at the island of Trinidad,
where she was received amicably and considered as a vessel-of-war,
but that the crown lawyers of England, having been consulted on the
matter, have unanimously declared that the conduct of the governor
of that colony of England had been in all points in conformity with
the Queen’s proclamation of neutrality.
According to them the Sumter was not a privateer but a regular
vessel-of war, (duly commissioned,) belonging to a state possessing
the rights of war, (belligerent rights.)
The Sumter, then, has been treated as a vessel-of-war of the United
States would have been, and that vessel had the same right to obtain
supplies at Trinidad as any vessel belonging to the navy of the
northern States.
Accept, sir, the fresh assurance of my high consideration.
Mr. Pike,
Minister Resident of the United States of America.
