Conseguir este libro impreso
Acerca de este libro
Mi biblioteca
Libros en Google Play
III. GENERAL DISCUSSION OF QUESTIONS OF LAW:
Contention of United States regarding failure of Great Britain to main-
tain neutrality...
Page.
Responsibility resulting from such failure..
Scope of the submission..
Meaning of the language "all claims growing out of the acts of the
cruisers".
Contentions of Great Britain.
Proposed course of argument..
General considerations of law.
Great Britain guilty of culpable negligence, even when measuring its du-
ties by the Foreign-Enlistment Act
International duties independent of municipal law.
Defects of Foreign-Enlistment Act,.
They might have been remedied..
These are not questions of neutrality.
Great Britain legally responsible to United States..
Sir R. Phillimore's authority cited.....
Legal theory of United States respecting questions at issue.
Right to make war....
Right to give cause for war.
What may be cause.
Neutrality
War, what it is...
Sales of arms and contraband of war.
Dispatch of armed vessels.....
Responsibility of Sovereign for violation of neutrality
Constitutional inabilities cannot be pleaded in answer to a charge of
such violation.....
Alleged constitutional inability of Great Britain examined
The prerogative power of the Crown
IV. MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS:
Many irrelevant matters in the British Case and Counter Case..
Its treatment of the British Foreign-Enlistment Act of 1819
Its comparison between the British and American acts unjust
The Government of the United States has always been anxious to possess
legislative powers sufficient for the performance of its duties as a neu-
tral....
29
དེ བབ 2 2 བར བར
Switzerland.
The history of the United States as a neutral a part of the British plead-
ings
38
Its relevancy denied...
Neutrality toward Great Britain during President Washington's
administration...
40
Expedition of Miranda
41
Revolt of Spanish-American colonies
42
War between Portugal and the Banda Oriental.
44
Walker's expedition...
The course of Great Britain as a belligerent toward neutrals
Orders in Council
IV.-MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS—Continued.
John Laird as a witness. (Note)
Purchase of arms. (Note)
V. STATEMENT OF SOME GENERAL FACTS PERTINENT TO THE INQUIRY AND
APPLICABLE TO EACH CRUISER.
51
Résumé of facts stated in the American Case to establish the unfriendly animus of the British Government and people.
52
55
The facts stated in the American Case to be considered as proved..
The proofs submitted with the American Case of the systematic and of-
ficial use of British territory by the insurgents with the knowledge of
Great Britain
Action of Her Majesty's Government.
She was then evidently a man-of-war.
Character of Mr. Adams's representation.
Action of the British Government..
What might have been done..
What actually was done.
Registry of the Florida.
Clearance..
Résumé
Negligence of British officials.
What might have been done under the Merchants' Shipping-Act.
Arrival at Nassau.......
Conduct of British officials there.
Want of due diligence..
Judicial proceedings at Nassau.
Partial and unfriendly conduct of the Colonial Authorities.
Seizure of the Florida..
Trial and release; the criticisms on these proceedings in the American
Case are sustained...
Armament of the Florida
At Cardenas, at Mobile...
At Nassau, January 25, 1863; receives coal, supplies, and recruitments..
At Barbados, February 24, 1863; receives coal and repairs..
At Pernambuco
At Bermuda, July 15, 1863; repairs and coals..
At Brest; receives recruits and new machinery from Liverpool.
At Martinique..
At Bahia....
Her tenders.
VII-THE ALABAMA
Her adaptation to war is not disputed..
The question to be decided....
Mr. Adams gives information respecting the Alabama June 23, 1862.
Referred to Law-Officers of the Crown..
Their action upon it............
Proceedings of Customs Authorities..
Mr. Adamis informed that the American Consul may submit evidence to the Collector at Liverpool
The Consul directed to furnish information to the Collector..
He does so
Conduct of the Collector..
He declines to act..
Mr. Adams instructs the Consul to continue to collect proof..
The Consul does so, and presents it to the Collector, with a request to
seize the vessel.
Law-Advisers of the Customs.
VII. THE ALABAMA-Continued.
Proof submitted to the Treasury July 22.
Also to Earl Russell...
Additional proof...
Opinion of Mr. Collier.
Presented with affidavits to Commissioners of Customs July 23.
Action of the Board....
Further evidence submitted by Mr. Adams....
Her Majesty's Government agree to keep a watch on the vessel.
The Law-Officers think the vessel should be detained..
Illness of Sir John Harding..
Escape of the Alabama....
Inefficiency of the subsequent proceedings.
Earl Russell thinks this a scandal...
Mr. Cobden's views...
Want of due diligence; in what it consisted..
Armament from the Bahama..
At Martinique
Destroys the Hatteras.
At Jamaica, January 20, 1863; repairs and lands prisoners.
At Rata Island...
Is excluded from Brazilian ports for violation of sovereignty of Brazil..
At Cape Town..
At Simon's Bay.
The Tuscaloosa.
At Singapore.
Page
91
92
93
94
96
97
98
99
Armament of the Georgia..
At Simon's Bay; coals and provisions..
Is destroyed by the Kearsarge June 19, 1864
Reasons why Great Britain is responsible for acts of.
VIII. THE GEORGIA.
At Glasgow
Notoriety of the construction and purposes of the Georgia.
Registry, clearance, and departure...
The Alar...
Mr. Adams gives information to Earl Russell.
101
102
104
107
108
General review of facts establishing want of due diligence.
The Colonial Authorities informed of the contemplated recruitments, and
do not prevent them..
120
Their inefficient proceedings..
122
Further proof of recruiting furnished to the authorities..
124
They parley with the commander of the Shenandoah in place of acting..
Contrast between the course of Brazilian and of British Authorities..
At Liverpool.... ...
133
134
X. THE SUMTER, THE NASHVILLE, THE RETRIBUTION, THE TALLAHASSEE,
AND THE CHICKAMAUGA
135
XI.-CONSIDERATION OF THE DUTY OF GREAT BRITAIN, AS ESTABLISHED
AND RECOGNIZED BY THE TREATY, IN REGARD TO THE OFFENDING
VESSELS, AND ITS FAILURE TO FULFILL THEM AS TO EACH OF SAID
VESSELS..
Propositions of law..
Measure of international duty.
Rules of the Treaty imperative.
146
Application of the first Rule
Application of the second and third Rules.
These Rules constitute the law of this controversy
147
Nothing admissible which diminishes their force..
The obligation of Great Britain to observe these Rules was an
international one..
This obligation not affected by interual distribution of powers
of British Government.
Nor by the institutions or habits of the British people...
Great Britain should have used seasonable, appropriate, and ad- equate means to preserve its neutrality..
143
Which should have been available as soon as required
148
British sympathy with insurgents an element to be considered
in preparing means..
Other elements to be considered.
The Means of fulfilling International Duty possessed by Great Britain..
Her Majesty's Government possessed full power for carrying out
Peculiar advantages of Her Majesty's Government for the exer-
cise of executive power..
152
Omnipotence of Parliament..
The duty of Great Britain in its treatment of the offending vessels AFTER
their first illegal outfit and escape from British ports..
The privilege of exterritoriality accorded to a vessel of war is
political and discretionary.
It should not be acceded to a belligerent not recognized as a
political Power..
153
The only remedy against such belligerent in a case like the pres-
ent is the remedy against the vessels themselves..
Great Britain ought, therefore, to have seized the vessels.
Due diligence, as required by the three Rules of the Treaty and the prin-
ciples of international law not inconsistent therewith..
154
After proof of hostile acts on neutral territory the burden of
proof is on the neutral to show due diligence to prevent them.
Diligence not a technical word....
"Due" implies seasonableness, appropriateness, and adequate-
ness
155
Objections to British definition of the term..
Judicial definitions by British and American Courts..
The United States do not desire a severe construction..
They do not propose to become guarantors of their people.
156
157
The Arbitrators the judges of what constitutes due diligence...
XII-THE FAILURE OF GREAT BRITAIN TO FULFILL ITS DUTIES, AS ESTAB-
LISHED AND RECOGNIZED BY THE TREATY, CONSIDERED UPON THE
FACTS.....
No general means of immediate action provided....
No general instructions to maintain vigilance....
No officers charged with instituting and maintaining proceedings..
No steps taken to break up the hostile system...
The idea of an international duty toward the United States rejected.
The obligations of Great Britain were independent of steps taken by of-
ficers of the United States in Great Britain
160
161
The Government of the United States always earnest to maintain its du-
ties as a neutral...
Absence of such earnestness on the part of Great Britain a license for
the acts of hostility complained of...
162
Failure to ascertain extent of statutory and prerogative powers..
Failure to exercise the Royal prerogative..
163
105
The Foreign-Eulistment Act was an insufficient means for performing
international duties, and its efficacy was diminished by judicial con-
struction and official requirements..
166
Contrast between this act and the American Statute as construed and
administered...
167
British reliance upon the Foreign-Enlistment Act a failure of due dil-
igence
172
The neglect to amend the Foreign-Enlistment Act a failure of due dil-
igence..
173
Contrast between the course of Great Britain and the course of the
United States in these respects
Failure in due diligence after the escape of the cruisers.
175
In not detaining offending cruisers when again in British ports....
This obligation not determined by commissioning a cruiser..
In not excluding escaped cruisers from British ports...
The representations to insurgent agents respecting these cruisers were
so long delayed and so feeble as to amount to want of due diligence..
The British course in these respects was voluntary.
176
178
181
The exclusion of prizes from British ports was no benefit to the United
States.....
The responsibility of Great Britain for these failures in due diligence
continued until the end of the career of the cruisers.
182
No evidence of the exercise of due diligence submitted by Great Britain
What vessels are under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal...
185
XIII-NATURE AND AMOUNT OF DAMAGES CLAIMED BY THE UNITED STATES,
These claims all comprehended in the terms of the Treaty
187
2. Question of jurisdiction...
Great Britain contends that the claims styled "Indirect" are not
188
within the scope of the Arbitration..
The term "indirect" not found in the Treaty.
Rejoinder of the United States to the British assumption..
"Indirect," as used in this controversy, is equivalent to "national"
The word "indirect," used in the negotiations which resulted in the
Treaty
189
Used in the same sense in this discussion..
What claims are within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
Résumé of negotiations respecting Alabama Claims...
Mr. Adams, November, 1862, asks" redress for private and na-
tional injuries".
Liability denied by Great Britain.
United States refuse to relinquish their claims..
190
Many claims lodged during the war, but discussion deferred..