in Welles' Diary under that date. If so, it may be inferred that Lincoln on August 10 transmitted to Seward the substance of his instructions to Welles, to be incorporated in a reply to Lord Lyons. Secretary Welles pursued the matter further in a letter to Lincoln dated September 30, 1863:
``Since the interview with you some weeks since in relation to certain proposed instructions to our Naval Officers, I have, as suggested, given the subject careful and thorough investigation, and am fully satisfied that neither in British law nor British practice is there any authority or precedent for such instructions. As Her Majesty's representative has introduced the subject, I have embodied what I believe to be the law and usage on the several points, in a distinct paper, which can, if you think proper, be submitted to Lord Lyons, and, if I have in that document done injustice, in any respect, to British authority and British usage, or misapprehended or misstated international law, I shall be happy to be corrected.
``Permit me in this connection to express my surprise and regret that the British Minister should so persistently insist on interfering in matters that belong to the Prize Courts, and on which he should not be heard from diplomatically, as were Great Britain in our case and we in hers, the American Minister in London would not be heard diplomatically, until judicial remedies have been exhausted. His right to be heard in the Court of Prize, according to its rules of procedure, and in the proper cases, is unquestioned. If the Court, after its appellate jurisdiction is fully exhausted, should fail to do justice in any case, then undoubtedly, and not till then, diplomacy may properly come in. But I do not understand by what authority Her Majesty's Minister intervenes at all, even in the Prize Courts by suggestion, or before you, in cases where the violation of territorial immunities of neutral powers, other than Great Britain is in question. If our Naval Offi[c]ers violate the Sovereignty, or the neutrality, or the municipal regulations of a neutral State, we are, first in our prize courts, and then diplomatically, amenable for that violation to the Neutral State itself, and not to Great Britain, even though the act of violation has been perpetrated there by us upon a British vessel. There is no principal of international law better settled than this, and I respectfully insist that no one but the Sovereign of the neutral territory which is violated, has the slightest right to allege, or suggest such violation even in our prize courts and much less diplomatically.
``As regards persons on board of captured neutral vessels, the best rule of law is that they shall be sent in as witnesses; the requirement of law is that some be sent in; and if the Captor fails to send them all in, he so fails at his peril of not sending enough; and if he sends them all in, all being neutral, no one has the right any where to complain of him, provided only that he had probable cause for capturing the ship. But in the war in which we are now engaged, it must be remembered that no inconsiderable portion of the persons captured on some of the vessels claiming to be neutral, are rebels. It is impossible for the captor to decide, who or how many, are rebels. It certainly is not advisable to go counter to the rule so framed by all the courts nor to release captured rebel prisoners.
``I am not unaware of your strong desire to conciliate Great Britain and to make all reasonable concessions to preserve friendly relations with her. In this feeling I cordially participate. But my earnest conviction is that we shall best command the respect, which insures peace, by firmly but not offensively maintaining our rights; and in no way can amicable relations with Great Britain, and all others, be so surely maintained as by our claiming only what is right, by surrendering nothing that is clearly and indispensably our own, and by referring always the question of what our just rights are to those tribunals of Prize, which are instituted by the consent of nations to adjudge these points under the law of nations and in the interests of peace, by reason of the acknowledged inability of diplomacy, even in the most skilful hands, to deal