Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams
Sir: This government has had under consideration the proceedings in the trial of the case of the Queen against Rumble, upon a very elaborate indictment for violation of the neutrality laws of Great Britain in the equipment and enlistment of men for the piratical steamer Rappahannock.
It is the opinion of this government that the acquittal of Rumble was contrary to the law, and contrary to the evidence submitted in the case. But this government acknowledges with pleasure that it finds in the report of the trial abundant evidence that her Majesty’s government have acted with diligence and entire good faith in instituting the prosecution and carrying it on to its satisfactory conclusion. It is a pleasure also to this government to admit its high appreciation of the manner and form in which the indictment was prepared, and the prosecution was conducted by the solicitor general and other counsel for the Crown.
In the opinion of this government the defeat of justice which occurred in the case is due in no small degree to the proceeding of the presiding justice in adjourning [Page 255] the trial of the case for the long period of fifty-eight days after important testimony had been given for the prosecution, and with the view to enable the defendant to procure contradictory evidence. That long delay left the jury free and open to be practiced upon by the defendant and his abettors— an experiment sure to be resorted to in a case attended by high political excitement. It is the opinion of this government that the adjournment thus granted was not warranted by reliable precedents in the administration of criminal justice. And, again, this government thinks that if the allegation of surprise was sufficient to arrest the trial, the jury ought to have been dismissed, and that a new jury should have been summoned to try the issue, when the time arrived, at which the court thought proper that the prosecution should proceed. This government acknowledges that it does not otherwise find any sufficient ground for questioning the learning or the impartiality of the presiding judge in the conduct of the trial.
The guilt of the accused was clearly proved. It was proved by witnesses who in the main were credible; and when the case rested in any degree upon the testimony of witnesses, whose character or deportment was suspicious, that testimony was corroborated by facts and circumstances which, in the judgment of this government, left no reasonable doubt of its truth.
The responsibility for the failure of the prosecution seems, therefore, to fall upon the jury. They announced an opinion adverse to the prosecution upon a cardinal point, with unbecoming impatience, not only without waiting for the instructions of the judge, but even without waiting to hear the argument of the counsel for the Crown upon that topic.
It was only by resorting to a subterfuge, of which a candid mind would be incapable, that they found the defendant innocent of knowledge that the vessel he was so industriously supplying with seamen was preparing for a cruise of piracy, instead of a mere trial-trip or a peaceful voyage to China. The readiness with which they came to this conclusion, and the popular applause which greeted it, leaves little room to doubt that the jury rendered their unjust verdict under the influence of a national enmity towards the United States, which the counsel for the defendant so artfully labored to awaken in the panel.
Such was the end of this trial—the only remedy which her Majesty’s government opened to the United States to save themselves from piratical warfare by British subjects. So far as the defendant is concerned, he goes unpunished, and another judicial triumph is given in a British court to subjects of the Crown who are diligently engaged and systematically combined in fitting out hostile expeditions against the United States. It remains for us only to say that the United States cannot hereafter deem themselves called upon to appeal to British tribunals for the enforcement of the British neutrality laws. This government cannot again voluntarily bring the American people before a tribunal where justice is denied them with evasion, contumely, and insult. In communicating these opinions of this government to Earl Russell, you will remind him that the Shenandoah is still at large upon the high seas; that the Rappahannock, now virtually used as a receiving ship under the direction of insurgents at Liverpool and London, is detained at Calais, only through the good offices of the French government, and that the Olinde, alias Stoerkodder, alias the Stonewall, with her British armament and crew, is detained at Ferrol, not at all through British interposition, but only by the watchfulness of the United States navy. This government, therefore, again appeals to her Majesty’s government for a rescinding of such great national wrong.
1 am, sir, your obedient servant,
Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &c., &c., &c.