Mr. Dayton to Mr. Seward
Sir: In a recent despatch, No. 467, I informed you that Mr. Drouyn de l’Huys had assured me that the iron-clad rams at Bordeaux had been disposed of to a neutral power, and that I might rest assured that the other four vessels building there should not go into the possession of the confederates. As these assurances were very explicit, they relieved me, for the time being, from much anxiety; but our consul at Bordeaux recently informed me that one of these vessels was about to leave port, on the 6th or 7th of this month, and I then recollected that the above assurances were all verbal, and liable to be misunderstood or controverted. I thought that, in announcing the fact of the early departure of this vessel to M. Drouyn de l’Huys in writing, I would refer to what he had in conversation said to me on this subject. I did so, and herewith send you a copy of my communication, marked A. In reply, I received a communication from him, a translation of which I send you herewith, marked B. This reply not being satisfactory, but, as it seemed to me, in opposition to, [Page 96] or at least in restriction of the verbal assurances he had given me, I addressed him another communication, a copy of which, marked C, I send you. To this I have, of course, received as yet no written reply. In the mean time I was telegraphed that Mr. Morse, our consul at London, said that orders were about being issued to discharge the Rappahannock, and my anxiety on the whole subject was such that I went this morning immediately to the Foreign Office to see if the facts were as stated, and, if so, whether some change could not be made in the condition of things. M. Drouyn de l’Huys opened the conversation at once by telling me that the two vessels, Yeddo and Osacca, were sold in Holland, not to the government, but to a neutral, and they were to be delivered at Amsterdam, unarmed. I made to him the same or like suggestions as contained in my communication, letter C. He said he had fully examined the contract of sale, and that the same was entirely regular, and this government could not, under the circumstances, prevent their delivery. It had no right to do so; if they did, they would be responsible in damages to the parties injured. In response to my remark, that it was probably a sham sale, a mere cover to get the vessels into the hands of the confederates, he said no, he was entirely satisfied the sale was in good faith. He added, that he could not swear to it, of course, but his “conviction” was that it was so. He was, satisfied, he said, that the transaction was a fair one, and that the vessels would not go to the confederates, and we would never receive detriment from them. Still he said, he did not ask us to relax at all in our vigilance. I asked him of what possible use vigilance could be, when we had not even the slightest idea who it was alleged had bought these vessels. He then said simply, they were sold to a house in Holland, and to be delivered at Amsterdam. Mr. Forbes, who had conversation with him on the same subject, informs me he said to him, “a respectable house” in Holland, &c. As I was about leaving, he said he had known the name of the house, (implying of course, that it was now forgotten,) and that he would endeavor to get it again, and let me know it; but I do not expect to receive it.
I endeavored to impress upon the mind of M. Drouyn de l’Huys the serious consequences which would follow the escape of these vessels, and their passage into the hands of the confederates as privateers. He said he had no wish for that, and did not at all believe it would occur. He added, that if they wished to help the south, they certainly would not attempt it in this petty, indirect way, but they would acknowledge them at once. He said that would do them a substantial service; it would give them a position and standing among nations; but this petty mode of proceeding, with a view to help the south, would be unworthy of a great nation like France, and amount to nothing. That to permit them to buy some ships of Mr. Arman, paying a full price, would have no serious effect on the war in the United States, while it would exasperate the north, and bring no thanks, no gratitude, from the south. No, said he, if we purpose aiding the south, we would say that we could not look upon this war, which has now lasted between three and four years, as an ordinary rebellion, and that the south was entitled to recognition; and we would recognize them and abide the consequences. But he said they had no wish or purpose to aid the south, but would maintain their neutrality; and in permitting these vessels to be delivered to a neutral in Holland, they did only what they were bound by law to do.
After conversing with Mr. Forbes and another intelligent business man, (Mr. Beckwith, a brother-in-law of M. Forbes,) both having some knowledge of Holland and its business relations, I told Mr. Drouyn de l’Huys that if these vessels were permitted to go out of the French ports, (against which I protested, of course,) I would prefer they should be taken to Amsterdam under command of French officers, or with a French escort, and not trusted to the promise of the parties to take the vessels there. If the latter were done, I feared the [Page 97] vessels would go immediately to sea, and we might lose an opportunity of further interfering with them; to which Mr. Forbes and Mr. Beckwith attached some importance. He said he would consult the minister of marine on the subject.
I thought M. Drouyn de l’Huys was rather disposed to find fault with late proceedings of our government. He referred again to your refusal of coal to their fleet, and to your giving up, as he said, to be hanged, the secretary of Vidaurri, who had fled to Brownsville for protection, although now there was scarcely a war against France in Mexico—nothing against them but some roving marauding bands. He said, too, after their military officers were on the ocean to visit our country, with a view to examine what was to be seen there, and with our assent and assurance of welcome, they were then informed that this line or that could not be examined. M. Drouyn de l’Huys said it would have been more agreeable if notice had been sooner given, &c., &c. I could not but feel that this querulousness was in part the result of a consciousness that we, and not they, really had just cause of complaint. He was disposed to anticipate me in these matters—to complain rather than be complained of.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
Hon. William H. Seward Secretary of State, &c., &c., &c.