Geneva arbitration

Page.

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 EXCII CRUISER.

Résumé of facts stated in the American Case to establish the unfriendly

animus of the British Government and people.

The British response no denial

Rejoinder to the British response.

Relevancy of the facts to the issue.

The facts stated in the American Case to be considered as provel... 53

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

These ficts also to be taken as provedl..

VI.-THE FLORIDA..

At Liverpool

Information by Mr. Anlams.

Action of Her Majesty's Government.

She was then evidently a man-of-war.

Character of Mr. Adlams's representation.

Action of the British Government...

What might bave been done.

What actually was done.

Registry of the Florida.

Clearance.

Resuvné

Negligence of British otlicials....

What might have been done under the Merchants' Shipping-Act..

Arrival at Nassan...

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.. 77

At Barbados, February 24, 1963 ; receives coal and repairs..

At Pernambuco

At Bermuda, July 15, 1863; repairs and coals..

At Brest ; receives recruits and new machinery from Liverpool

Her adaptation to war is not disputed.

The question to be decided.

Mr. Adams gives information respecting the Alabama June 23, 1862.... 81

Referred to Law Officers of the Crown..

Their action upon it...

Proceedings of Customs Authorities.

Mr. Adams informed that the American Consul may submit evidence to

the Collector at Liverpool

The Cousul 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.

Page

VII.-TIE 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 Martiniqne

Destroys the Hatteras.

At Jamaica, January 20, 1863; repairs and lands prisoners.

At Rata Island..

At Bahia....

Is excluded from Brazilian ports for violation of sovereignty of Brazil..

At Simon's Bay; coals and provisions..

Is destroyed by the Kearsarge June 19, 1861

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...

Armament of the Georgia..

Mr. Adams gives information to Earl Russell.

Insufficient action of Her Majesty's Government

IX.- THE SUEXANDO AIT

General review of facts establishing want of due diligence.

lnrchase of the Sea King.

Her departure.

Departure of the Laurel with her crew and armament.

Armament of the Shenandoal..

Arrives at Melbourne...

Permission to coal and make repairs granted.

Protest of the Consul....

Unfriendly conduct of the Colony.

Recruitment of men at Melbourne

The Colonial Authorities informed of the contemplated recruitments, and

do not prevent them..

Their inefficient proceedings.

Further proof of recruiting furnished to the authorities..

They pailey with the commander of the Shenandoah in place of acting.

Further information of contemplated recruitments..

Refusal of the Colonial Authorities to act.

Large recruitments of men; departure from Melbourne.

Excessive repairs at Melbourne

Coaling there excessive....

Contrast between the course of Brazilian and of British Authorities.

X.—THE SUMTER, THE NASIIVILLE, THE RETRIBUTION, THE TALLAHASSEE,

AND THE CHICKAJALGA...

The Sumter....

At Curaçoa, at Trinidad, at Martinique, at Cadiz...

At Gibraltar

At Liverpool

The Nashville at Bermuda.

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.

Application of the first Rule

Application of the second and third Rules...

These Rules constitute the law of this controversy.

Nothing admissible which diminishes their force..

The obligation of Great Britain to observe these Rules was an

international one..

This obligation not affected by interval 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.

Which should have been available as soon as required

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

its selected course of action..

The prerogative of the Crown..

Its exercise during the Rebellion.

Preventive power inseparable from the idea of executive

power

Peculiar advantages of Her Majesty's Government for the exer-

cise of executive power..

Omnipotence of Parliament...

The duty of Great Britain in its treatment of the offending ressels 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...

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 thereuith...

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-

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...

The Arbitrators the judges of what constitutes due diligence...

154

ness

155

156

157

157
Treaty:

XII.—THE FAILURE OF GREAT BRITAIN TO FULFILL ITS DUTIES, AS ESTAB-

LISHED AND RECOGNIZED BY THE TREATY, CONSIDERED UPON TILE

FACTS......

159

Considerations of general application...

159

The vessels concerning whose acts the contention is.

159

Failure of Great Britain to fulfill its obligations...

159

Negligence in obtaining information..

159

No general means of immediate action provided..

160

No general instructions to maintain vigilance...

160

No oticers charged with instituting and maintaining proceedings.. 160

No steps taken to break up the hostile system..

160

The idea of an international duty toward the United States rejected. 161

The obligations of Great Britain were independent of steps taken by of-

ticers of the United States in Great Britain ...

161

The Government of the United States always earnest to maintain its du-

ties as a neutral...

161

Absence of such earnestuess 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.

163

Failure to exercise the Royal prerogative..

103

The Foreign-Enlistment 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

173

Failure in dne diligence after the escape of the cruisers.

175

In not detaining oftending cruiseis when again in British ports.... 175

This obligation not determined by commissioning a cruiser.

176

In not excluding escaped cruisers from British ports..

176

The representations to insurgent agents respecting these cruisers were

so long delayed and so feeble as to amount to want of due diligence.. 178

The British course in these respects was voluntary.

101

The exclusion of prizes from British ports was no benefit to the United

States.....

181

The responsibility of Great Britain for these failures in due diligence
continued until the end of the career of the cruisers..

No evidence of the exercise of due diligence submitted by Great Britain 182

What vessels are under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal..

XIII.-XATURE AND AMOUNT Or DAJLAGES CLADMED BY THE L'NITED STATES.

1. Prefatory considerations

General conclusions

Great Britain responsible for the acts of the cruisers.

Measure of liability considered....

Claims of losses set forth in the American Case..

These claims all comprehended in the terms of the Treaty

2. Question of jurisdiction...

Great Britain contends that the claims styled “ Indirect" are not

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

188

Used in the same sense in this discussion.

What claims are within the jurisilietion of the Tribunal

Rósumé of negotiations respecting Alabama Claims.

Mr. Adams, November, 1862, asks “ rediess for private and na-

tional injuries".

Liability denied by Great Britain..

United States refuse to relinquish their claims..

Many claims lodged during the war, but discussion deferred..

129

129
139

189

129

190

« Anterior Continuar »

Libros