The collector of the port of New York has been asked to give his version
of the matter. He says that in allowing the ship to get under way before
he attempted to arrest her, he was acting in accordance with the wishes
of the Spanish Government agent in New York, who wished to have a clear
case of filibustering against the ship. It is not against the law to
carry arms, and if the _Silver Heels_ had been stopped with only a cargo
of ammunition on board, it might have been difficult to prove that she
was not engaged in a lawful mercantile expedition. But, had she been
seized with arms, ammunition, and a number of men on board, it would
have been impossible to deny the nature of her business.

If the collector of the port can prove the truth of his statement, Spain
can find no just cause of complaint against us, the revenue cutter did
all that was required of her by lying in the course the _Silver Heels_
was expected to take--that the vessel went another way was nobody's
fault.

The Madrid papers think it a great pity that this affair should have
occurred at a moment when Spain was trying to show her friendship for
us, and declare that the officers on the revenue cutter appeared to be
doing their best to avoid overtaking the ship. In Washington it is said
that grave trouble may arise out of the matter.

Following right after these statements comes another from the agent of
the _Silver Heels_.

This gentleman declares that the vessel never brought up alongside of
the dock at which she is accused of having taken on her cargo. He says
she was laden with coal, which she took on board at a pier on the New
Jersey shore, either Hoboken or Weehawken, that she sailed down the bay