Mr. Dayton to Mr. Seward.
Sir: Your despatches, Nos. 409 and 410, have been duly received. No. 409 refers more especially to the evidence received at your department in reference to the war steamers now being built at Bordeaux and Nantes for the rebels of the south, and you express the hope that I will “lose no time unnecessarily in bringing the transaction to the notice of Mr. Drouyn de l’Huys, and asking for the effectual interposition of the government to prevent the departure of the [Page 798] hostile expedition.” My despatches, especially that dated September 22, last, and received by you doubtless after the writing of your despatch above referred to, will satisfy you that no time whatever has been lost; my application to Mr. Drouyn de l’Huys was immediate, before even copies of the papers were ready for him. And I am bound to say that his general answer, that they would maintain their neutrality, was equally prompt. I have already informed you that I told Mr. Drouyn de l’Huys this question was of so much importance that I was not content it should rest merely on my memory and report of conversations between us; that I had requested him to put his answer in writing, and to apply it not to general principles merely, but to the specific case—to the question of what would be done in respect to these vessels. He has constantly held to me the same language, to wit, that the building and arming of these vessels was a breach of neutrality which the government of France would not tolerate. In our last conversation (Tuesday, the 20th instant) he said that he and the minister of marine had agreed upon their course of action as to this matter; that the minister of marine would withdraw, (and I think he said he had already withdrawn,) as I had requested, the authorization to arm these vessels, and that he (Mr. Drouyn de l’Huys) had already made the minute or rough draft of a note to the proper department, which would be completed and sent the next day, requiring that his (the foreign) department should be properly notified and advised with before any of these vessels should be permitted to leave port. He said that these vessels could not, and would not, be permitted to leave port without the usual papers properly authenticated. He has promised me copies of the order of the minister of marine, withdrawing the authorization, and of his own note, in time for the mail of to-day. If they shall be received in season, they will be hereunto attached.
He informs me that Mr. Arman, member of the corps legislatif, and Mr. Voruz, either a present or ex-member of that body, the parties contracting for these vessels and the armament, deny all knowledge of the existence of any such papers as we have submitted to the government, and yet continue to say that these vessels are for the China seas, and ultimate sale, if possible, to the government of China or Japan. They profess, I understand, to be quite indignant at the charges against them. I have myself no doubt of the genuineness of the papers; and Mr. Bigelow has been advising (with my assent) with Mr. Berryer, (the distinguished lawyer, and now an opposition member of the corps legislatif,) as to the propriety of prosecuting these parties in a French court of law, with a view to making an example of them, and in the hope of deterring others from like offences. The building and arming of these vessels for the rebels is, I think, a clear violation of certain penal enactments, but whether we can prosecute successfully or not I do not know. It has to be done through the intervention of the French procureur general. What would you advise in reference to this matter?
* * * * * * *
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
Hon. William H. Seward, &c., &c., &c.