Hammond to Under-Secretary of State
[2464, CO 60/30, p. 118; received 14 March
]
Foreign Office
March.11.1867
Sir,
I have laid before Lord Stanley Your Letter and it's
enclosure of the 5th Instant respecting certain occurences at
the Island of San Juan, and I am to request that you will state to
the Duke of Buckingham that it appears to Lord Stanley that Governor
Seymour has taken the best course both as regards the American
Tariff andas as regards the Deserter from the Marine Force in the Island;
but that the demand made by the Commander of that Force on the
Commander of the American Force for the surrender of the man
was most injudicious, and wholly unwarranted.
As regards the question of a settlement with the United States
of the pending question respecting the possession of the Island,
I am to state for His Grace's information that the manner of
dealing withthis this question involves much difficulty, as he will
see by the perusal of the Memoranda of which I enclose copies.
Sir Frederick Bruce will however be instructed again to
bring before the American Goverment the proposal of January 25 1861,
if he sees no objection to doing so at the present time, and Her
Majesty's Government will be able from his report to judge what
course should be taken, supposing the American Government are still
unwilling to agree to arbitration onthe the basis stated in that proposal.
I am Sir,
Your most obedient
Humble Servant,
E. Hammond
Mr Elliot
Inform, I presume, GovrGovernor Seymour that H.M. GovtGovernment approve the
course pursued by him in regard to the question of duties, &
to the Deserter—& add that they consider the conduct of the
Marine Officer at San Juan was most injudicious & wholly unwarranted.
I conclude that GovrGovernor Seymour may further be informed that
this question of boundary is now under the consn of H.M.G.
ABd
14/3
See Minute annexed.
TFE
March
No doubt Governor Seymour will be approved, and will also
be informed that H.M.'s GovtGovernment will not lose sight of the
desirableness of inducing the Government of the United States to
agree upon some method of settling the right to the Island of San Juan.
But with regard to the Marine Officer, I think that some care
should be used in framing our letters. The Foreign Office write to
us with the freedom of one Department of State writing to another;
but I am not at all sure that their very words are the best to use
in any communication which may eventually be made to the Officer
concerned.He He doubtless acted to the best of his judgement, and the
enclosures of 1992 show that the position of affairs was really very
difficult, and also that he had no wish to give offence to his
American neighbour.
What I suppose the Foreign Office to mean is that the demand
for the deserter was not warranted by the Law of Nations, and
that the act of the Officer was not judicious. But their actual
phrase seems to make both epithets equally applicable to the
Officer himself.
I should therefore prefer saying that a demand for the
deserter was not warranted by the Law of Nations, and that the
application made for himby by the Officer of Marines was injudicious.
It seems to me also that before sending this out to the Governor,
the Admiralty ought to be made aware of the case. I would suggest
that we send them a copy of the Governor's despatch 1992; that we
should say (if His Grace approves it) that the Duke of Buckingham
recognizes the prudence and desire for conciliation exhibited in
Captn Oldfield's letters, but that with regard to the demand for
the deserter made by the Officer of Marines in command at San Juan,
His Grace gathers from a letter from the Foreign Office that it was
not warranted by the Law of Nations, and that he regrets that he
cannot considerit it as otherwise than an injudicious act, although
doubtless prompted by good motives.
TFE
15 March
Duke of Buckingham
Is there any use in referring to the Admiralty? & is it not enough
simply to approve of GovrGovernor Seymour's conduct in both cases & inform
him of the question of boundary being again under consideration.
The demand for the Deserter was not against the
Law of Nations, but outside of our Extradition law—& the
understanding or Acts of the U. States—& we only got the opinion of
the F.O. not a decision or information from them.
Cap Bazalgette acted only injudiciously & without any
proof of the man being the Deserter supposed.
CBA
15/3
Gov. Seymours conduct to be approved. Inform him that the
boundary question is under consideration—express regret that the
officer in command of H.B.Ms troops shdshould have made the demand for
surrender of the deserter which was not warranted by the subsisting
engagement with the U.S. that that proceeding was injudicious and
the form in which the demand was made was such that no foreign
power however well disposed toward us could be expected to comply
with. Communicate to Admiralty.
B&C
12/3
Mr Adderley
I think Captain Bazalgette's letter so injudicious & so
calculated to lead to ill feeling, if not to collision, that it ought
not to be passed over, especially as the demand made by him is one
which he could not have acceded to if made to himself.
Captain B. states that a certain Hughes deserted from his camp
in May 1861—5 1/2 years previously, that it has "come to his
knowledge" that this man "is now serving as an enlisted soldier" in
the U.S. army.
On this allegation, without even tendering any proof of the
identity or of the desertion Capt. B. peremptorily demands—not
inquiry or investigation which would have enabled him to send
home a full report for consideration by H.M. Government, but the
surrender, indeed the delivery as a prisoner of a soldier of the
U.S. Army.
It is very probable that with the mutual good feeling
which appears fortunately to have hitherto characterized the joint
occupation of San Juan, the officers on either side may have handed
back to each other stragglers from their respective camps found on
the island & attempting to desert, or possibly even persons who under
those circumstances have offered themselves for enlistment. But the
delivery to a Foreign Power of a regularly enrolled soldier of several
years service is a very different matter, and one which Captain B.
must have well known, he could not according to the practice—or under
any regulation of the British Service have acceded to in the case
of a similar demand made to himself.
[FR]
I agree & the critical state of things there made caution doubly
necessary.
CBA
20/3
Immediate
Write to Admiralty, transmitting copies of so much of Govrs despatch &
enclosures and letter from F.O. as relates to the conduct of Capt.
Bazalgette & conveying the within written opinion as to it.