ANNEX (A.)-COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN THE BRITISH AND AMERICAN GOVERNMENTS, DURING THE CIVIL WAR. WITH REFERENCE TO THE STATE OF THE NEUTRALITY LAWS OF GREAT BRITAIN.

In addition to the Annex (B) to the British Counter Case, it is thought desirable here to exhibit, in one view, the effect of every material communication which passed during the war between the British and American governments with reference to the state of the neutrality laws of Great Britain. It will be seen (1) that the equal efficacy of the provi sions of the British foreign-enlistment act with those of the American act of the 20th April, 1818, was never during that period seriously called in question, and (2) that the only additional legislation then solicited from Great Britain by the United States was of a different kind, with a view either to the prevention of the trade in articles contraband of war between Great Britain or her colonies and the Confederate States, or to the more effectual repression of acts inconsistent with neutrality in the British North American possessions, conterminous with the United States.

On the 28th June, 1861, Mr. Seward wrote thus to Mr. Adams:

As it is understood that there is an act of the British Parliament similar to our act of neutrality of the 20th April, 1818, I have to request that, if any infringement of the British act adverse to the rights of this Government should come to your knowledge, you will cause complaint thereof to be made, in order that the parties implicated may be prosecuted according to law. 1

On the 7th September, 1861, Mr. Seward instructed Mr. Adams to remind Lord Russell of an act of Congress passed in 1838, during an insurrection against the British authority in Canada, adding:

The British government will judge for itself whether it is suggestive of any measures on the part of Great Britain that might tend to preserve the peace of the two countries, and, through that way, the peace of all nations.

On the 10th of the same month he forwarded to Mr. Adams an intercepted letter relative to the shipment of arms and powder from Nausau for the use of the confederates, and said:

The existing British statute for the prevention of the armed expeditions against countries at peace with Great Britain is understood to be similar to our act of Congress of the 5th of April, 1818. Proceedings like that referred to in the letter of Baldwin, however, afford us special reason to expect legislation on the part of the British Government, of the character of our act of 1838. It may be, however, that the British Government now has the power to prevent the exportation of contraband of war from British colonies near the United States, for the use of the insurgents in the South. 3

On the 11th and the 14th of September, 1861, Mr. Seward expressed his regret that the British laws were not effectual to repress this description of trade. At a much later date, (24th October, 1864,) recurring to the same suggestion, he wrote:

The insufficiency of the British neutrality act and of the warnings of the Queen's proclamation, to arrest the causes of complaint referred to, were anticipated early in the existing struggle; and that Government was asked to apply a remedy by passing

1 Appendix to Case of the United States, vol. i, p. 517.

2 Ibid., p. 660.

3

Ibid., p. 518. See also Mr. Adams's letter of May 12, 1862; ibid., pp. 663, 664.

an act more stringent in its character, such as ours of the 10th March, 1838, which was occasioned by a similar condition of affairs. This request has not been complied with, though its reasonableness and necessity have been shown by subsequent events.'

The act of Congress of 1838, thus referred to, was a temporary statute, (of two years' duration,) by which power was given to the officers of the United States Government "to seize or detain any vessel, or any arms or munitions of war, which might be provided or prepared for any military expedition or enterprise against the territory or dominions of any foreign prince or state, &c., conterminous with the United States, and with whom they were at peace, contrary to the sixth section of the act of the 20th April, 1818," and "to seize any vessel or vehicle, and all arms or munitions of war, about to pass the frontier of the United States for any place within any foreign state, &c., conterminous with the United States, where the character of the vessel or vehicle, and the quantity of arms and munitions, or other circumstances, should furnish probable cause or believe that the vessel or vehicle, arms or munitions of war, were intended to be employed by the owner or owners thereof, or any other person with his or their privity, in carrying on any military expedition or operations within the territory or dominions of any foreign prince, &c., conterminous with the United States," suitable provisions being made for the trial, in due course of law, of the legality of all such seizures. These powers (limited, as they were, to operations illegal under the act of 20th April, 1818, of which the destination should be some territory conterminous with the United States) were still further guarded and limited by the following proviso:

Provided, That nothing in this act contained shall be construed to extend to, or interfere with, any trade in arms or munitions of war, conducted in vessels by sea, with any foreign port or place whatever, or with any other trade which might have been lawfully carried on before the passage of this act, under the law of nations, and the provisions of the act hereby amended.

If a law substantially similar to this had been enacted in Great Britain, it would have been wholly inapplicable to the trade by sea in articles contraband of war, for the repression of which its enactment was suggested by Mr. Seward. Its efficacy would have been confined to such acts, hostile to the United States, as might be attempted in the British possessions conterminous with those States. Such a law was, in point of fact, enacted by the Canadian Legislature as soon as acts of that nature were attempted by the Confederates in the British North American provinces; and Her Majesty's Government has no reason to suppose that the measures then taken to preserve from violation the neutrality of Her Majesty's North American possessions were deemed unsatisfactory, or insufficient to meet that emergency, by the Government of the United States.

Of the correspondence which took place between December, 1862, and March, 1863, when Her Majesty's Government invited, from Mr. Adams, suggestions with a view to concurrent amendments in the Foreign-Enlistment Acts of both countries, (which suggestions were met by an invitation from the United States to Her Majesty's Government to make propositions for that purpose, it being at the same time expressly stated that the Government of the United States considered their own law "as of very sufficient vigor," or, as Earl Russell understood Mr. Adams to say, that "they did not see how their own law on this subject could be improved,") and the opinion then formed and announced to Mr. Adams by

1 Appendix to Case of the United States, vol. i, p. 677.

2 Appendix to the Case of the United States, vol. i, pp. 668, 669; also, pp. 585 and 602.

the British Government, (on which they always afterward acted,) that the British law was also sufficient for its intended purpose, in all cases in which the necessary evidence of the facts could be obtained, a sufficient account has been given in the Annex (B) to the British Counter Case.

The reply of Mr. Seward, (2d March, 1863,) when informed of the conclusion thus arrived at by the Cabinet, has been referred to in an earlier portion of this argument. "It remains," he said, " for this Government only to say, that it will be your duty to urge upon Her Majesty's Government the desire and expectation of the President, that henceforward Her Majesty's Government will take the necessary measures to enforce the execution of the law as faithfully as this Government has executed the corresponding statutes of the United States." The substantial agreement of the provisions of the British law with the law of the United States, on this subject, was repeatedly afterward admitted and referred to.

On the 9th April, 1863, Mr. Dayton wrote from Paris to Mr. Seward: "I told M. Drouyn de Lhuys our Foreign-Enlistment Act was the same as that of England;" to which Mr. Seward replied, (24th April, 1863) "You have done the country a good service in explaining, in your conversations with M. Drouyn de Lhuys, the manner in which we have heretofore maintained our neutrality in foreign wars, by enforcing our enlistment laws, which are in all respects the same as those of Great Britain." 3

On the 11th July, 1863, (after the trial of the Alexandra, and with reference to the view of the British Foreign-Enlistment Act, then taken by the Lord Chief Baron Pollock-a view in which Her Majesty's Government never acquiesced, and on which they never afterward acted,) Mr. Seward wrote:

I may safely protest, on behalf of the United States, against the assumption of that position by the British nation, because this Government, with a Statute exactly similar to that of Great Britain, does constantly hold itself able and bound to prevent such injuries to Great Britain. The President thinks it not improper to suggest, for the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, the question whether, on appeal to be made by them, Parliament might not think it just and expedient to amend the existing Statute in such a way as to effect what the two Governments actually believe it ought now to accomplish. In case of such an appeal, the President would not hesitate to apply to Congress for an equivalent amendment of the laws of the United States, if Her Majesty's Government should desire such a proceeding, although here such an amendment is not deemed necessary.*

On the 10th September, 1863, Mr. Adams reported to Mr. Seward, with expressions of much satisfaction, a speech then recently made by Earl Russell at Dundee :

You will not fail to observe the greatly increased firmness of his language; and more especially his intimation that new powers may be solicited from Parliament, if hose now held should prove insufficient. This is, at least, the true tone.5

On the 16th of the same month, Mr. Adams (with reference to the iron-clad rams at Birkenhead, which were soon afterward seized by Her Majesty's Government) wrote to Earl Russell:

Your Lordship will permit me to remind you that Her Majesty's Government cannot justly plead the inefficiency of the provisions of the Enlistment law to enforce the duties of neutrality in the present emergency as depriving them of the power to prevent the anticipated danger. It will doubtless be remembered that the proposition made by you, and which I have had the honor of being the medium of conveying to my Government, to agree upon some forms of amendment of the respective Statutes

Appendix to the Case of the United States, vol. i, p. 669.

2 Ibid., p. 587.

3 Ibid., p. 262.

4 Ibid., p. 670.
Ibid., p. 673.

of the two countries, in order to make them more effective, was entertained by the latter, not from any want of confidence in the ability to enforce the existing Statute, but from a desire to co-operate with what then appeared to be the wish of Her Majesty's Ministers. But, upon my communicating this reply to your Lordship and inviting the discussion of propositions, you then informed me that it had been decided not to proceed any further in this direction, as it was the opinion of the Cabinet, sustained by the authority of the Lord Chancellor, that the law was fully effective in its present shape.

There were other parts of the letters (not necessary to be further alluded to) which led Earl Russell to reply in the following terms, (September, 25, 1863 :)

There are passages in your letter of the 16th, as well as in some of your former ones, which so plainly and repeatedly imply an intimation of hostile proceeding toward Great Britain on the part of the Government of the United States, unless steps are taken by Her Majesty's Government which the law does not authorize, or, unless the law, which you consider as insufficient, is altered, that I deem it incumbent upon me, in behalf of Her Majesty's Government, frankly to state to you that Her Majesty's Government will not be induced by any such consideration either to overstep the limits of the law or to propose to Parliament any new law, which they may not, for reasons of their own, think proper to be adopted. They will not shrink from any consequences

of such a decision.

To which Mr. Adams, on the 29th September, 1864, rejoined :

I must pray your Lordship's pardon if I confess myself at a loss to perceive what portions of my late correspondence could justify the implications to which you refer. So far from intimating "hostile proceedings toward Great Britain, unless the law, which I consider as insufficient, is altered," the burden of my argument was to urge a reliance upon the law as sufficient, as well from the past experience of the United States as from the confidence expressed in it by the most eminent authority in this kingdom.3

In November and December, 1863, dangers on the side of Canada led to a revival of the question, whether some legislation, similar to that of the United States in 1838, might not be useful for the prevention of those dangers; and a law for that purpose was soon after enacted by the Canadian Parliament, as has been already mentioned.

Nothing further passed upon this subject between the two Governments before the conclusion of the war.

1

Appendix to Case of the United States, vol. i, p. 673. $ Ibid., p. 675.

2

Ibid., p. 674.
Ibid., pp. 675, 676.

ANNEX (B.)-FRENCH TRANSLATION OF THE THREE RULES IN ARTICLE VI OF THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON.

The French Translations, both of the Case of Her Majesty's Government and of the Case of the United States, (unofficially provided for the convenience of the Arbitrators,) have given the text of the three Rules in Article VI of the Treaty, with some variations of rendering, which (unless corrected) might possibly give occasion to misconceptions of the exact sense of parts of those Rules. It has, therefore, been thought expedient here to subjoin, in parallel columns, an accurate copy of the original English text and a revised French Translation:

The following is the translation, above referred to, of the Rules, as stated in the American Case, printed in parallel columns with a second translation, which will be found at page 513 of the first Part of the "Choix de Pièces Justificatives," furnished by the United States: