Another prize on the 2nd of July, the Anna, F. Schmidt, of Maine, from Boston for San Francisco; and another cautious Yankee transformed into an Englishman; and then came a large ship flying before the wind, with all sail set to her royals, and answering the Alabama’s challenge with a gun from her own bow port.

A man-of-war this, from her fashion of replying, even had the fact not been sufficiently apparent from the cut of her heavy yards and lofty spars.  An enemy, perhaps!  And wild with the hope of a fight, though it be with an enemy not much less than double her size, away flies the Alabama, at top speed of sail and steam, in chase.  The sea was smooth, though with a strong breeze; and ere long the saucy little cruiser ranged up alongside of the fine frigate, with ten black muzzles grinning through his ports on either side.

“This is the Confederate States ship Alabama!” rang out from the quarter-deck, as the two ships flew through the water, side by side:—­“What ship’s that?”

But there was to be no fight that day.  The chase contented herself with the laconic reply, “Her Britannic Majesty’s ship Diomede;” and went tearing along upon her course under the tremendous press of canvas, beneath which her spars were bending like a whip, and was soon out of sight, evidently bound on some errand that would not brook delay.

Some small compensation for this disappointment was found two days afterwards in the capture of the fine ship Express, of Boston, from Callao for Antwerp, loaded with guano, the particulars of which are recorded as follows:—­

CASE OF THE SHIP EXPRESS.

Ship under United States colours and register; cargo guano, shipped by Senan, Valdeavellano and Co., at Callao, and consigned to J. Sescau and Co., at Antwerp.  On the back of this bill of lading is the following endorsement:  “Nous soussignes charge d’affaires et consul general de France a Lima, certifions que la chargement de mille soixante douze de register de Huano specifie au present connaissement, est propriete neutre.”

Fait a Lima, le 27 Janvier, 1863.

(Signed and impressed with the Consular seal.)

This certificate fails to be of any value as proof, for two reasons:  first, it is not sworn to; and secondly, it simply avers the property to be neutral (the greater part of it, for it does not touch the guano in sacks), instead of pointing out the owner or owners.  A Consul may authenticate evidence by his seal, but when he departs from the usual functions of a Consul, and becomes a witness, he must give his testimony under oath, like other witnesses.  This certificate, therefore, does not even amount to an ex parte affidavit.  If the property had been in the shipper’s or consignee’s name, it would have been quite as easy to say so as to put the certificate in its present shape.  Why, then, was the simple declaration that the property was neutral made use of?—­the law with which every Consul,