Sir,—I have the honour to state for the information of his Excellency the Governor of Gibraltar, that I am informed and believe that the United States Consul, at this place, has, by means of his emissaries, tampered with, and seduced from their allegiance, several of the crew of my ship who have visited the shore on liberty. The impropriety and illegality of such conduct is so manifest that I take it for granted his Excellency will interpose his authority for my protection. Great Britain, having proclaimed a strict neutrality in the war now pending between the United States and Confederate States, is under the obligation, I respectfully suggest, not only to abstain herself, from any un-neutral conduct, but to see that all persons whatsoever within her dominions so abstain. No act of war, proximate or remote, should be tolerated in her waters by the one belligerent against the other, or by any citizen or resident against either belligerent. His Excellency will doubtless concur with me in the justice and propriety of the rule thus stated. To apply this rule to the present case. Being prompted by motives of humanity to send my crew on shore, in small detachments, for exercise and recreation, after a long confinement on shipboard, my enemy, the United States Consul, sends his agents among them, and by specious pretences persuades them to desert their ship, and take refuge under his Consular flag. This Has been done in the case of the following seamen:—Everett Salmon, John G. Jenkins, Thomas F. Kenny, and perhaps others. Here is an act of war perpetrated against me in neutral territory, and the consular residence, or office, has become quoad hoc a hostile camp. And this conduct is the more objectionable in that the nationality of most of these men is not American. His Excellency, as a soldier, knows that no crime is regarded with greater detestation in the present civilized age of the world, than the one here described. As between contending armies in the field, an offender caught in the perpetration of such an act, would be subjected to instant death; and this, not only because the act is an act of war, but because it is a dishonourable act of war. And can an enemy make use of neutral territory to do that, which would subject him to an ignominious death, if he were without such territory, and within reach of the opposite belligerent? When my men come within his Excellency's jurisdiction I lose all control over them, and must rely upon his comity to regain possession of them. If they leave me of their own freewill, in the absence of the recognition of my Government, and of treaty stipulation, perhaps I have no remedy. But when I permit them to go on shore, and enter the jurisdiction of a neutral and friendly power, I do so with the just expectation that they will receive the shelter and protection of the neutral flag; and that they will not be permitted to be run off by my enemy; and to wheedle and entice a sailor from his ship, and that too when, perhaps, he is half drunk, is little better than kidnapping him. In the present case, the violation of the neutral jurisdiction is as complete as if the Consul had seized my men by force; for he has accomplished the same object; to wit, weakening his enemy by stratagem—a stratagem practised by one belligerent against another. If this act had been committed by a military or naval officer of the enemy, transiently within the limits of Gibraltar, every one would have been surprised at it, and would have exclaimed against it as a flagrant violation of the law of nations. And is the offence of less magnitude when committed by a Consul, who is peculiarly favored by the law of nations, as an officer of peace, and one whose pursuits lie wholly in the walks of commerce? Mr. Sprague, the United States consul, is a gentleman whom I have heard favourably spoken of, and it is barely possible I may do him injustice in imputing to him the conduct described, but the evidence came to me in a very satisfactory shape, and I shall be ready to produce it if the allegation be denied. Should the proof be made out to his Excellency's satisfaction, I shall deem it my duty to request that the Consul be suspended from his functions, and that the question of withdrawing his Exequatur be referred to the British Government.

I have, &c., &c.,
(Signed) R. SEMMES.

To Capt. J. Freeling, Col. Sec.

C.S. Steamer Sumter, Bay of Gibraltar.
Feb. 10th.

Sir,—I have the honour to inform you that I have made every effort to procure a supply of coal, without success. The British and other merchants of Gibraltar, instigated I learn by the United States Consul, have entered into the un-neutral combination of declining to furnish the Sumter with coal on any terms. Under these circumstances, I trust the Government of her Majesty will find no difficulty in supplying me. By the recent letter of Earl Russell (31st January, 1862), it is not inconsistent with neutrality for a belligerent to supply himself with coal in a British port. In other words, this article has been pronounced, like provisions, innoxious; and this being the case, it can make no difference whether it be supplied by the Government or an individual (the Government being reimbursed the expense), and this even though the market were open to me. Much more, then, may the Government supply me with an innocent article, the market not being open to me. Suppose I had come into port destitute of provisions, and the same illegal combination had shut me out from the market, would the British Government permit my crew to starve? Or, suppose I had been a sail ship, and had come in dismasted, and the dockyard was the only place where I could be refitted, would you have denied me a mast? and if you would not deny me a mast, on what principle will you deny me coal, both articles being declared by your Government innoxious? The true criterion is, not whether the Government, or an individual may supply the article, but whether the article itself be noxious or innoxious. The Government may not supply me with powder—why? Not because I may have recourse to the market, but because the article is noxious. A case in point occurred when I was in Cadiz recently. My ship was admitted into a Government dock, and there repaired; firstly, because the repairs were innocent, and, secondly, because there were no private docks in Cadiz. So here, the article is innocent, and there is none in the market (accessible to me); why then may not the Government supply me?

In conclusion, I respectfully request that you will supply me with 150 tons of coal, for which I will pay the cash; or if you prefer it, I will deposit the money with an agent, who can have no difficulty, I suppose, in purchasing the same amount of the material from some one of the hulks, and returning it to her Majesty's dockyard.

I have, &c.,

(Signed) R. SEMMES.

Captain E. Warden, Senior Naval Officer,
Gibraltar.

Monday, February 10th.—* * * * Received a visit from Captain Cochrane, of the Warrior, son of the late Earl of Dundonald, notorious in the war of 1812, and distinguished in the South American service. Wrote the following letter:—