Mr. Seward to Mr. Dayton
Sir: Your despatch of the 24th of April, No. 301, has been received. It communicates the impressions which have been made upon the French government by a paper under the signature of Mr. Adams, of the date of the 9th of April last, which has appeared in the journals of London.
Candor obliges me to commence my observations upon the subject with an acknowledgment of the very generous manner in which Mr. Drouyn de l’Huys has opened the way to a dispassionate and friendly consideration of the complaint which he has preferred. He has not only reassured you of the friendly spirit of the Emperor towards the United States, but he has also, with marked decision and energy, reaffirmed to you that France has no purpose in Mexico beyond asserting just claims against her, obtaining payment of the debt due, with the expenses of the invasion, and vindicating by victory the honor of the French flag, and that France does not mean to colonize in Mexico, or to obtain Sonora or any other section permanently, and that all allegations propagated through the newspapers conflicting with these assurances are untrue.
Your reply to these remarks of Mr. Drouyn de l’Huys, namely, that in all my correspondence with you, whether public or private, I have averred that this government has no purpose to interfere in any way with the war between France and Mexico, was as truthful as it was considerate and proper. The United States have not disclaimed, and can never under existing circumstances disclaim, the interest they feel in the safety, welfare and prosperity of Mexico, any more than they can relinquish or disown their sentiments of friendship and good will towards France, which began with their national existence, and have been cherished with growing earnestness ever since. When the two nations towards which they are thus inclined are found engaged in such a war as Mr. Drouyn de l’Huys has described, the United States can only deplore the painful occurrence, and express in every way and everywhere their anxious desire that the conflict may be brought to a speedy close by a settlement consistent with the stability, prosperity and [Page 736] welfare of the parties concerned. The United States have always acted upon the same principle of forbearance and neutrality in regard to wars between powers with which our own country has maintained friendly relations, and they believe that this policy could not in this, more than in other cases, be departed from with advantage to themselves or to the interests of peace throughout the world. * * * * * *
The French government has justly assumed that the first knowledge which this government had of the paper of which Mr. Drouyn de l’Huys complains was derived from its publication in London. It is notorious that the insurgents of the United States derive their munitions of war and other supplies chiefly through a contraband trade of merchants and others residing or sojourning in Great Britain, carried on in vessels which pretend not a direct destination to the ports of our own country which are blockaded or held in military occupation by the government forces, but to neutral ports of Great Britain, Spain, and Mexico. Matamoras is chief among these neutral ports, and being situated on the right bank of the Rio Grande, which is our national boundary, contraband freights of vessels ascending to or approaching Matamoras through that river are with much facility transferred to the insurgents of the United States, for whose use they are designed. The blockade has been until this moment our chief protection against this danger, although we are now obtaining a new security against it by recovering the exclusive navigation of the Mississippi river, which divides the country west of that river from the principal field of war.
We understand that two persons named Zirman and Howell appeared in London, and presented themselves to Mr. Adams, Zirman claiming American citizenship by naturalization, and Howard claiming it by birth. We do not know that they were, or that they avowed themselves to be agents of the Mexican government, as Mr. Drouyn de l’Huys seems to have supposed. Zirman is now recognized here as an adventurer destitute of all pretensions to morality or character. We know nothing of the other’s antecedents. They represented to Mr. Adams that they were freighting a British ship with British merchandise, not for the insurgents, but for the Mexicans, and that they found it difficult if not impossible to effect an insurance in London, because a general suspicion attending the Matamoras trade exposed all vessels engaged in it to seizure by the cruisers who are maintaining our blockade. They therefore asked of Mr. Adams a private note which would show that they are loyal Americans, and that their venture was not contraband as against the United States, and which being confidentially shown to the underwriters, might remove the aforementioned difficulty of insurance. Mr. Adams, acting at once upon the suggestion without waiting for further information or prolonged reflection, wrote, signed, and put into their hands the paper of which Mr. Drouyn de l’Huys complains, with no expectation that it would in any case become public.
The transaction being viewed in the light cast upon it by these circumstances, seems to me to lose something of the gravity with which it might otherwise be invested. It must certainly be allowed to be an act not of deliberation, but of inadvertence. The paper shows on its face that it had for its chief, if not its only object, to remove an embarrassment which two of his supposed countrymen had encountered in a mercantile transaction in the distant country to which Mr. Adams was accredited, which embarrassment resulted in part from proceedings in that country, and in part from the action of our own government. It seems at least possible that the bearing of the transaction upon the war between France and Mexico did not at all occur to Mr. Adams, pre-occupied as he was with its relations simply to Great Britain and the United States, for he confines himself in the paper to those relations.
[Page 737]The French government, however, has adopted a different conclusion. In announcing it to you Mr. Drouyn de l’Huys assumes that the cargo of Zirman and Howell was composed, or was at least understood by Mr. Adams to consist, of military stores and munitions of war. I am not able, with the light now enjoyed, to affirm or to deny this fact. Mr. Drouyn de l’Huys derives further evidence of a purpose, or at least of sentiments, on the part of Mr. Adams hostile to France, from certain expressions in the paper, namely, these: “It gives me pleasure to distinguish one [meaning one enterprise] which has a different and a creditable purpose. I therefore very cheerfully give them [Howell and Zirman] this certificate at their request.” These expressions are grounded upon the statement which Mr. Adams makes, that these persons have presented him with evidence which is perfectly satisfactory to him that they are really bound to Matamoras with a cargo intended for the Mexicans. While I deem it possible that these expressions were conceived and used without any consciousness on the part of Mr. Adams that they would be taken as alluding to the war existing between France and Mexico, it must be admitted, on the other hand, that to insist upon this point would be to stand upon a question of verbal criticism. The United States have no motive for assuming such a position. Striving to conduct their affairs frankly and cordially with all parties, and especially with France, it is enough for them that the construction put upon the expressions of Mr. Adams by Mr. Drouyn de l’Huys is by no means a violent or an unnatural one, and therefore the French government is entitled to the explanation it has asked. You will consequently say to Mr. Drouyn de l’Huys, that having taken the President’s instructions upon the subject, I am of opinion that the giving of the paper complained of to Zirman and Howell was in effect an unfriendly act towards France, which was not in harmony with the sentiments and policy of this government, and which it therefore views with disfavor and with regret, while it regards the proceeding on the part of Mr. Adams as having been one of inadvertence, and not of design or motive injurious to France.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
William L. Dayton, Esq., &c., &c., &c.