Imágenes de página

of the Colony or of the Home Government, or could be ascertained by a strict and careful inquiry. This narrative shows that, whatever might have been the feelings and sympathies of the people of the Colony, (feelings which, in a free community, no Government attempts to control,) there was, from first to last, on the part of the Colonial Government, a sincere and anxious desire to adhere strictly to the line of neutral duty. It is a narrative of renewed and continued precautions, renewed and continued from day to day during the whole time that the cruiser remained in the waters of the Colony. No reasonable person can doubt that any increase of the Shenandoah's armament, any aug. mentation of her crew, was a thing which the Colonial Government was really desirous of preventing by all means within its power. No reasonable person can fail to see that prevention, in the latter case, was embarrassed by difficulties, which could only be fully understood by persous actually on the spot, and for which, in judging of the conduct of the local authorities, fair allowance ought to be made. On the night before the Shenandoah left Melbourne, a number of men, taking advantage of those difficulties, contrived to elude the vigilance of the authorities and to get on board the ship, some uncier cover of the darkness, others under a plausible pretext, which could not be known to be untrue.

Whether, on these facts, Great Britain is to be charged with a failure of international duty, rendering her liable for all captures subsequently made by the Shenandoah, is the question now before the Tribunal; and it is the duty of the Arbitrators to weigh deliberately the responsibility they would undertake by deciding this question in the affirmative.

They will not fail to observe that the principle of such a decision is wholly independent of the three Rules. It is a decision on the nature of the proof, ou the character of the facts, upon which a belligerent nation is entitled to found a claim against a neutral, and that claim a demand for indemnity against losses sustained in war in which the neutral has no part or concern.

It is not contined to maritime wars. It extends, and may be applied, at the will of the belligerent, to any act which a neutral Government is under any recognized obligation to endeavor to prevent. Is it necessary to point out that such a decision will certainly prove a fert le precedent!

Throughout the whole of this controversy Great Britain has steadily maiotained one thing—that, before a heavy indemnity is exacted from a neutral nation for an alleged violation of neutrality, the facts charged should, at any rate, be proved. This is demanded alike by the plainest considerations of expedie icy and by the most elementary principles of justice. If this Trivunal decides that, in a case of doubt or obscuritya case, in other words, in which the proof is imperfect, the fact of negligence not clearly made out, an lin which recourse must be had to vague presumptions and conjectures—the culpability and burden are to be thrown upon the neutral nation, it will have established a grave and most dangerous precedent-a precedent of which, in the future, powerful States, ander circunstances of irritation, will certainly not be slow to take advantage.




MR. PRESIDENT AND GENTLEMEN OF THE TRIBUNAL : The present discussion has its origin in the doubts expressed at the last meeting on the subject of the number of men enlisted for the Shenandoah at Melbourne. Previously to the expression of those doubts, all the members of the Tribunal in succession had announced their opinion on the points involved in the general question of the responsibility of Great Britain with regard to the prizes made by the Shenandoah after her departure from Melbourne.

We have prepared a Memorandum, which proves conclusively the correctness of the statements of Temple, tbe perfect agreement between his statements and those of Nye, who, in support of these same statements, produces the evidence of Hunt, an officer of the Shenandoah. This Memorandum also adduces the declarations of other witnesses, which confirm the evidence of Temple, Nye, and Hunt. In fact, it is beyond doubt,

1. That the Shenandoah enlisted at least forty-three men at Melbourne. This number is indeed now admitted by Sir Roundell Palmer.

2. That the Shenandoah discharged at Melbourne only seven men of her crew, although thirteen others left her; but that these thirteen were prisoners of war, who did not form part of the crew, and there is reason to believe that the six or seven others who, it is asserted, were discharged at Melbourne, were also prisoners of war.

It follows that the strength of the crew of the Shenandoah was in. creased by forty-three men.



MONSIEUR LE PRÉSIDENT, MESSIEURS DU TRIBUNAL: La discussion actuelle a son ori gine dans les doutes exprimés lors de la dernière séance au sujet du chiffredes enrôlements que le Shenandoah a faits à Melbourne. Avant d'émettre ces doutes, tous les membres du tribunal, l'up après l'autre, avaient annoncé leur opinion à l'égard des points compris dans la question générale de la responsabilité de la Grande-Bretagne au sujet des prises faites par le Shenandoah après son départ de Melbourne.

Nous avons préparé un mémoire qui déniontre, jusqu'à l'évidence, l'exactitude des déclarations de Temple, le parfait accord entre ses déclarations et celles de Nye, et qui, à l'appui de ces mêmes déclarations, produit le témoignage de Hunt, officier du Shenandoah. Ce mémoire fait valoir aussi les déclarations d'autres témoins, qui confirment le témoignage de Temple, de Nye et de Hunt. En effet il est hors de doute:

1. Que le Shenandoah a enrolé au moins 43 homines à Melbourne. Ce chiffre est admis aujourd'hui, même par Sir Roundell Palmer.

2. Que le Shenandoah n'a licevcié à Melbourne que 7 hommes de son équipage, quoique 13 autres l'aient quitté; mais que ces 13 étaient des prisonniers de guerre, qui ne faisaient point partie de l'équipage, et il y a lieu de croire que les 6 ou 7 autres, que l'on prétend avoir licenciés à Melbourne, étaient aussi des prisonniers de guerre.

Il s'ensuit qu'il y eut une augmentation de 43 hommes dans l'effectif de l'équipage du Shenandoah.

3. That the word " seamenemployed by Nye means “ sailors,” in addition to whom there were on board the Shenandoah, according to Nye's own account, sixty or fifty-five other persons, officers, firemen, &c., in conformity with the narrative of Temple and Hunt.

4. That without the re-enforcement of her crew effected by means of these enlistments at Melbourne, the Shenandoah could neither have continued her cruise, nor consequently have captured the American whalers in the North Pacific.

5. That all this constituted a flagrant violation of international law, and even of British municipal law, in the opinion of the Governor, Sir Charles Darling, bimself.

6. That finally, and above all, it constituted a manifest violation, on the part of the British authorities, of the second Rule of the Treaty, which runs thus :

A neutral Government is bound not to permit or suffer either belligerent to make use of its ports or waters as the base of naval operations against the other, or for the purpose of the renewal or augmentation of military supplies or arms, or the recruitment of men.

The Counsel of Great Britain has just addressed to the Tribunal observations, not merely with regard to the number of men enlisted at Melbourne, but also on the subject of the legal bearing of the question of these enlistments as a thesis of the law of nations, or of that laid down by the Treaty.

We frankly confess that we did not contemplate so wide a discussion. We therefore respectfully beg the Tribunal to inform us if the new questions raised by Sir Roundell Palmer remain open before the Tribunal.


3. Que le mot "seamen," employé par Nye, veut dire "matelots ;en dehors desquels il y avait à bord du Shenandoah, d'après le récit de Nye lui-même, 60 ou 55 autres personnes, officiers, chauffeurs, et cetera, conformément au récit de Temple et de Hunt.

4. Que, sans le renfort apporté à son équipage au moyen de ces enrôlements à Melbourne, le Shenandoah n'aurait pu ni continuer sa croisière ni, par conséquent, capturer les baleiniers américans dans le haut Pacifique.

5. Que, dans tout ceci, il y a eu une violation flagrante du droit des gens, et même de la loi municipale britanniqne, de l'avis même du gouverneur sir Charles Darling.

6. Qu'entin, et surtout, il y a ici une violation manifeste, de la part des autorités de la Grande-Bretagne, de la seconde règle du traité, règle ainsi conçue:

“Un gouvernement neutre ne doit ni permettre ni tolérer que l'uu des belligérants se serve de ses ports ou de ses eaux comme d'une base d'opération navale contre un autre belligérant; il ne doit ni permettre, ni tolérer non plus, que l'un des belligérants renouvelle ou augmente ses approvisionnements militaires, qu'il se procure des armes ou bien encore qu'il recrute des hommes."

Maintenant le conseil de la Grande-Bretagne vient d'adresser au tribunal des observations, non-senlement à l'égard du chiffre des enrôlements à Melbourne, mais aussi an sujet des relations juridiques de la question de ces enrôlements, comme thèse du droit des gens ou du traité.

Nous avouons franchement qu'une discussion aussi étendue n'entrait pas dans nos prévisions. Dès lors, nous prions le tribunal très-humblement de nous faire savoir si les questions nouvelles soulevées par sir Roundell Palmer restent ouvertes devant le tribunal.




in a

Mr. Grattan, British Consul at Teneriffe, gives the earliest account of the number of the men who were on board the Shenandoah when she parted from the Laurel. He says that the Laurel brought" seventeen sea. men and twenty-four supposed officers," and that some of the crew of the Laurel joined the Sea King.” (British Appendix, vol. i, p. 477.) He makes no mention of any of the crew of the Sea King remaining on her; but the depositions of two persons transmitted by him in his dispatch (Ellison, p. 455, and Allen, p. 479, Brit. App., vol. i) show that one officer came out from London on the Sea King, and that three of the crew of the Sea King remained on her.

William A. Temple, a sailor on board, gives the next account, deposition sworn to 'in Liverpool on the 6th day of December, 1865. He gives the names of two officers who came out in the Sea King from London, of twenty-two officers who joined her from the Laurel, of ten petty officers who joined her from the same vessel, of four seamen and two firemen who joined her from the same vessel, and of one seaman and two firemen who came out in her from London. It appears by the affidavit of George Sylvester (Am. App., vol. vi, p. 608) that he also came out in the Laurel as a common sailor, and left the Shenandoah at Melbourne. His name, therefore, should be added to Temple's list. Assuming, what is undoubtedly the fact, that Mr. Gratton, under the term “crew," embraced petty officers, seamen, and firemen, there is no discrepancy between these statements. Mr. Gratton gives twenty-four officers to the Shenandoah ; Temple gives twenty-four also, twenty-two of whom are from the Laurel. Mr. Gratton says that out of seventeen seamen by the Laurel "some did not join the Shenandoab.” Temple, adding Sylvester's name to his list, gives the names of sixteen petty officers, seamen, and firemen who did join from the Laurel, and also of three seamen and firemen who joined from the Sea King. So far as the


Sur les enrôlements pour le Shenandoah à Melbourne. M. Grattan, consul britanniqne à Ténériffe rend compte le premier du nombre des hommes qui se trouvaient à bord du Shenandoah lorsque ce vaisseau quitta le Laurel. Il dit que le Laurel amena “ dix-sept matelots et vingt-quatre officiers supposés ;" et “que quelques hommes de l'équipage du Laurel montèrent sur le Sea King.” (Brit. App., vol. 4, 5.477.)

Il ne dit pas s'il resta des hommes faisant partie de l'équipage du Sea King à bord de ce vaisseau ; mais les dépositions de deux personnes transmises par lui dans sa depeche (Ellison, p. 478; Allen, p. 479; Brit. App., vol. 1) montrent qu'un officier arriva de Londres sur le Sea King et que trois hommes de l'équipage restèrent à bord de ce vaisseau.

William A. Temple, matelot à bord du vaisseau, daus une déposition faite sous serment à Liverpool, le 6 décembre 1865, donne les noms de deux officiers qui arrivèrent de Londres sur le Sea King, de vingt-deux officiers qui passèrent du Sea King à bord du Shenandoah, de quatre matelots et de deux pompiers-mécaniciens qui firent de même, et d'un matelot et deux pompiers-mécaniciens qui arrivèrent de Londres à bord du même vaisseau. Il paraît par l'affidarit de George Silvester (Am. App., vol. 6, p. 60s) que ce dernier arriva aussi sur le Laurel comme matelot et qu'il quitta le Shenandoah à Melbourne; ce serait donc encore un nom à ajouter à la liste de Temple.

En supposante ce qui est évidemment le fait, que M. Grattan, sous le terme équipage, a compris les officiers subalternes, les matelots et les inécaniciens-pompiers, il n'existe aucune contradiction entre ces déclarations. M. Grattan donne vingt-quatre officiers au Shenandoah, Temple lui en donne vingt-quatre aussi, dont vingt-deux sont du Shenandoah. M. Grattan dit que des dix-sept matelots du Laurel, il y er eut qui n'entrèrent pas dans l'équipage du Shenandoah ; Temple, en ajoutant à sa liste le nom de Sylvester, donne les noms do seize officiers subalternes, matelots et niécaniciens-pompiers, qui muittèrent le Laurel pour s'embarquer sur le Shenandoah et aussi de trois matelots et

Sea King is concerned this account is confirmed by Sylvester's affidavit. (Vol vi, Am. App., p. 609.)

The next account of this event is contained in a book called the “ Cruise of the Shenandoah," written by Hunt, one of her officers, after her cruise was finished, and published in London and in New York in 1867. He says that when they parted from the Laurel, "officers and men only numbered forty-two souls, less than half her regular complement.” (Crnise of the Shenandoal, page 24, cited in the American Case.)

Temple's detailed account as corrected gives the names of forty-three persous ou board. There is, therefore, almost absolute identity of recollection of three independent witnesses on this point.

We have two accounts of the number of men enlisted between the time of leaving the Laurel and the arrival of the vessel at Melbourne, which are thus stated in the American Case:

The author of the Cruise of the Shenandoah says that fourteen were enlisted in this way: ten from the Alina and the Godfrey, two from the Susan, and two from the Stacey.

Temple, in his attidavit, gives the names of three from the Alina, tive from the Godfrey, one from the Susan, two from the Stacey, and one from the Edward; in all twelve.

Here, again, the trifling discrepancy confirms the general truthfulness of the recollection of each witness. According to Hunt's account, she had, on arriving in Melbourne, fifty-five men all told. In Temple’s affidavit, with the addition of Sylvester, we have the names of fifty-four men, viz, twenty-five officers and thirty men.

Other corroborating testimony sustains the truth of the statements. In the sixth volume of the American Appendix there are several affidavits of persons who left the ship at Melbourne. Brackett (on page 615) says, “ during the whole time I was on board, out of about thirty-five, making the crew of the said steamer, there was,' &c., &c. He also states that he, and four others named by him, to avoid punishment, consented to serve as seamen on the steamer. Bolin, (page 615,) Scandall, (page 615,) Ford, (page 612,) Scott, (page 616,) Lindburg, (page 617,) Wicke,

mécaniciens-pompiers, qni quittèrent le Sea King dans le même but. Quant au Sea King, ce compte est confirmé par l'affidavit de Sylvester (vol. 6, Am. App., p. 607).

Un troisième récit de cet évènement se trouve dans un livre intitulé "Croisière du Sbenauloah" écrit par Hunt, l'un de ses officiers après la fin de sa croisière, et publié à Londres et à New York en 1867. Il dit que lorsqu'ils quittèrent le Laurel, il n'y avait en tout en fait d'officiers et de matelots que quarante-deux hommes, moins de la moitió de l'effectif régulier (Croisière du Shenandoah, p. 24, cité dans le cas américain).

Le récit détaillé de Temple ainsi corrigé, donne les noms de quarante-trois personnes se trouvant à bord. Les souvenirs de trois témoins indépendants sont donc sur ce point presque absolument identiques.

Nous avons deux rapports quant au nombre des hommes enrôlés entre le départ du Laurel et l'arrivée du vaisseau à Melbourne; ils se trouvent exprimés comme suit dans le cas de l'Amérique:

“L'anteur de la Croisière du Shenandoah dit que quatorze hommes furent enrôlés de la manière suivante : dix fureut triés de l’Alina et du Godfrey, deux de la Susan et deux du Stacer.

"Temple dans son a fidarit, donne les noms de trois hommes tirés de l'Alina, de cing du Godfrey, d'un de la Susan, de deux du Stacer, et d'un de l'Édouard, en tout douze."

Ici encore, la petite différence contirme l'exactitude des souvenirs de chaque témoin.

Selon Hunt, le Shenandoah avait en arrivant à Melbourne, 55 hommes tout compris. Dans l'affidavit de Temple, en ajoutant Silvester, nous trouvons les noms de 55 hommes, soit 25 otficers et 30 hommes.

D'autres témoignages corroborant ceux-ci, démontrent la vérité de ces déclarations. Dans le 6e volume de l'appendice américain, se tronvent plusieurs afjidavits de personnes qui ont quitté le vaisseau à Melbourne. Brackett (p. 615) ilit: Pendant tont le temps que j'ai passé à bord du vaissean, des 35 hommes environ composant l'équipage ou dit vapeur, il y avait, etc., etc.” Il déclare anssi, qu'avec quatre camarades dont il donne les poms, ils consentirent, pour éviter d'être punis, à servir comme matelots sur le navire. Bolin (p. 615), Ford (p. 612), Scandall (p. 615), Scott (p. 616),

« AnteriorContinuar »