Mr. Dayton to Mr.
Seward
No. 345.]
Paris,
September 14, 1863.
Sir: On Friday evening and the morning of
Saturday last the report that the Emperor had acknowledged the south was
general. The bourse became very much excited, and a fall in the public
funds occurred, greater than has been known in so brief a space of time
for some years. It was said that Mr. Slidell had made a cession to the
Emperor, of Texas and part of Louisiana as a consideration for the
acknowledgment. I immediately went to the foreign office. Mr. Drouyn de
l’Huys at once said that the report was wholly groundless; that nothing
new had occurred since our last conference. He further added that within
the last twenty-four hours a series of false reports had been put in
circulation upon this and upon other subjects. He could not understand
for what object, but they were certainly intended for no friendly
purpose towards us. He said he had given orders to Comte Treilhard,
director of the press in the
[Page 770]
ministry of the interior, to contradict such reports, and, if possible,
trace out and punish the authors of them; that there had been a
conspiracy to spread false news. Later in the afternoon of Saturday a
public notice, signed by the prefect of police and the minister of
finance, was put up at the bourse, denying the truth of the several
reports in circulation. This it would seem quieted the excitement. This
agitation at the bourse has had at least one good effect; it has brought
home to the knowledge of the government the serious view taken by
capitalists and others of the probable consequences of a recognition of
the south.
M. Drouyn de l’Huys has promised me a note in writing on this subject, a
copy of which, or its translation, I will send herewith if received in
time.
In the course of conversation reference was made to the almost universal
report that our government only awaits the termination of our domestic
troubles to drive the French out of Mexico. This idea is carefully
nursed and circulated by the friends of secession here, and is doing us
injury with the government. The French naturally conclude that if they
are to have trouble with us, it would be safest to choose their own
time. M. Drouyn de l’Huys referred to these matters, and said the
Emperor had recently asked him if it were true, as the public journals
alleged, that the United States had made a formal protest against the
action of France in Mexico, and he had told him that no such protest had
been made. I told him that, so far as I was concerned, I had received no
orders to make such formal protest. That relying on the constant
assurances of France as to its purposes in Mexico, and its determination
to leave the people free as to their form of government, and not to hold
or colonize any portion of their territories, my government had
indicated to me no purpose to interfere in the quarrel; at the same time
we had not at all concealed, as he well knew, our earnest solicitude for
the well being of that country, and an especial sensitiveness as to any
forcible interference in the form of its government. He said that these
were the same general views held by you to M. Mercier, and reported by
him to this government. I told him that France must well understand that
we did not want war with her; to which he answered that she did not
certainly wish war with us.
When I referred to the rumored cession of Texas and part of Louisiana to
the Emperor, he, in denying the fact, said these rumors were diabolical.
He added that France wanted no territory there.
I enclose you a slip cut from Galignani, containing the substance of what
is, I presume, a semi-official exposition of the government as to its
action in respect to the rebel ship Florida at Brest.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State.
From Galignani’s Messenger.
Paris, September 14, 1863.
The Constitutionel, in a long and elaborate
article, of which we subjoin the salient points, vindicates the
conduct of the French government, which has been charged with
showing undue favor to the confederate cruiser Florida, and argues
that the reception that vessel has met with at Brest is in strict
conformity with the duties of France as a neutral power.
“The fact is unquestionable that the French government, in allowing
the Florida to refit at Brest, without permitting her, as the
Moniteur declares, to re-enforce her armament, is acting in a manner
perfectly consistent with the
[Page 771]
principles of the strictest neutrality. Again:
is this course of action contrary to the special prescriptions of
the declaration of neutrality made by France at the outset of the
war? By no means; and on this point again demonstration is easy.
What does the declaration in question declare? It completely
assimilates men-of-war and privateers of the two contending parties
on precisely the same footing, so that, in order to solve the
question, the proposition might be reversed and the question asked,
what would have been done if, instead of a confederate vessel, one
from the north had presented itself at Brest? Assuredly the
partisans of the federals would have indulged in the loudest
complaints if an attempt had been made to apply to the United States
vessel the treatment which they now demand for the Florida, and if
the liberty of refitting, to enable it to put to sea again, had been
denied. Let us continue; the declaration next states that neither of
the belligerents, according to the French law, shall be received
into our ports with prizes. Now, as we have already said, and it is
well known, the Florida had no prizes with her. The seamen,
prisoners of war, whom she had on board, could not be considered as
a prize according to the meaning of the declaration, nor could their
being landed on French soil he made the subject of a complaint
against her. In this situation, we repeat, all that could be done
was to carry into effect the assimilation between the two
belligerents specified by our declaration of neutrality, and to
treat the Florida exactly on the same footing as we would have
treated a federal vessel-of-war in the same situation. As to the
assimilation in itself, as far as the south and the north are
concerned, there is no need, in order to justify or to explain it,
to resort to the supposition of the recognition of the south as an
independent state. It is sufficient that the south should be a
belligerent, and should be recognized as such, to be considered
entitled to the advantages sanctioned by the laws of war. This leads
us to examine a point which the adversaries of the south have
largely commented on— the fact of the privateer’s burning and
sinking their prizes. Without seeking to excuse a measure which, in
truth, must be considered as the very rigorous exercise of the
rights of war carried to their extreme limits, we cannot refrain
from remarking that as a matter of fact precedents might be found,
and as a matter of law our own legislation tolerates the practice in
more or less urgent cases. Thus Valin, in his “Commentaire de
l’Ordonnance de la Marine,” says that it is only forbidden to burn
or sink captured vessels in the event of the captor wishing to
dispose of his prize; and MM. Duverdy and Pistoye, the authors of
the “Nouveau Traité des Prises-Maritimes,” in alluding to this
passage of Valin, make the following observation: “What Valin
declared, under the régime of the naval ordinance, we must repeat
under the authority of the decree of Prairial, which has preserved
the same expressions.” Our declaration of neutrality forbidding
privateers to enter our harbors with prizes, the captors may thus
consider it as a necessity, or an urgent need for them to burn their
prizes, especially when they have themselves sustained damages which
embarrass or retard them. On that point some questions of interest
to neutrals, the proprietors of the cargoes, may be raised; but the
decision of those questions belongs to another order of ideas.
Whatever may be the case, the fact of the belligerent burning his
prize, constituting one of the rigorous consequences of the rights
of war, it cannot in itself have any influence upon the neutrality
of a foreign government, or modify in any way its duties or its
rights.”
