Raphael Semmes, Memoirs of Service Afloat During the War Between the States

[656] because a cannon-shot could not be thrown farther than three miles from the shore. It may have been the cannon-shot which suggested the league, but it was the league, and not the cannot-shot, which was the limit. Now the Consul argued that the Yankees had invented some ‘big guns,’ which would throw a shot a long way beyond the league—ergo, the Yankee guns had changed the Laws of Nations.

But the Consul wrote his letter in too great a hurry. He had not yet seen the master of the captured ship. This clever Yankee, backed by several of his crew equally clever, made a much better case for him; for they swore, in a batch of affidavits before the Consul himself, and in spite of the Consul's ‘own eyes,’ that the ship had been captured within two miles and a half of Robben Island! Imprudent Consul to have thus gone off half cocked! This discovery of new testimony was communicated to the Governor, as follows: ‘I beg now to enclose for your Excellency's perusal, the affidavit of Captain Charles F. White, of the Sea-Bride, protesting against the capture of the said bark in British waters. The bearings taken by him at the time of capture, conclusively show that she was in neutral waters, being about two and a half miles from Robben Island. This statement is doubtless more satisfactory than the testimony of persons, who measured the distance by the eye.’ Doubtless, if the bearings had been correct; but unfortunately for Captain White, there were too many other witnesses, who were under no temptation to falsify the truth. A fine ship, and a lucrative trading voyage along the eastern coast of Africa were to be the reward of his testimony; the simple telling of the truth the reward of the other witnesses. The usual consequences followed. The interested witness perjured himself, and was disbelieved. I remained entirely neutral in the matter, volunteered no testimony, and only responded to such questions as were asked me—not under oath —by the authorities. The following was the case made in rebuttal of this ‘Yankee hash’:—