Geneva arbitration

HARVARD COLLEGE LIBRARY

FROM THE LIBRARY OF

JOHN CHIPMAN GRAY

GIFT OF ROLAND GRAY

SEP 4 1934

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

I.

ARGUMENT OF THE UNITED STATES DELIVERED TO THE TRIBUNAL OF

ARBITRATION AT GENEVA, JUNE 15, 1872.

I. INTRODUCTION :

Argument presented in accordance with provisions of the Treaty of

Washington

The respective Cases and Documents.

Counter Cases

The issues to be determined are now settled

II. THE CONTROVERSY SUBMITTED TO ARBITRATION:

The Arbitrators already acquainted with the general nature of the facts..

In suppressing an armed insurrection the United States exercised bellig-

erent powers, and prevented insurgents from carrying on maritime

war from their own resources

The right to do this unquestioned; other nations no parties to the con-
flict

Abstinence of intervention by another Power is not neutrality.

It is a maintenance of previously existing relations

Other Powers have to decide in such case only whether they acquiesce

in the exercise of belligerent powers by the Sovereign...

Non-acquiescence is intervention..

Questions arising beyond territorial limits of the Sovereign should be de-

cided as they arise...

Such course secures impartiality and, when justified by results, an

equality between contending parties which resembles what is known

as neutrality when exercised between rightful belligerents

This principle recognized by United States Supreme Court

Previous instances in point

Belligerent powers belong to the Sovereign of right; to the rebel of suf-

ferance

10

tervention

was voluntary and anticipatory

Conferring belligerent rights on insurgents by Great Britain was an in-

The Queen's proclamation

was not called for by the relations between the Governments.

had no justification...

and changed the legal relations between Great Britain and the in-

surgents...

Its effect upon the act of carrying on war on the high seas

10

11

Its effect upon commercial contracts....

It was followed by systematic contributions in aid of the insurgents'.

The United States suffered great injuries.

11

12

tion

Which resulted from aid and assistance originating in British jurisdic-

This aid was organized, systematic, and official

12

13

Nature of the injuries inflicted on the United States.

They form the subject of this arbitration....

13

No nation but Great Britain instrumental in inflicting them..

Provisions of the Treaty of Washington respecting the arbitration..

Description of the claims.

The Rules of the Treaty

13

14

15

III. GENERAL DISCUSSION OF QUESTIONS OF LAW:

Contention of United States regarding failure of Great Britain to main-

tain neutrality...... . . . .

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.

Sales of arms and contrabaud 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

The Government of the United States has always been anxious to possess

Its comparison between the British and American acts unjust

legislative powers sufficient for the performance of its duties as a neu-

tral...

The history of the United States as a neutral a part of the British plead-
ings

Its relevancy denied...

37

38

Neutrality toward Great Britain during President Washington's

administration

40

The course of Great Britain as a belligerent toward neutrals

Orders in Council

V.-STATEMENT OF SOME GENERAL FACTS PERTINENT TO THE INQUIRY AND

APPLICABLE TO EACH CRUISER.

Résumé of facts stated in the American Case to establish the unfriendly
animus of the British Government and people.

52

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 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

These facts also to be taken as proved..

VI. THE FLORIDA..

At Liverpool.

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. Adams 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.

54

55

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...

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, 1864

101

At Cherbourg

Reasons why Great Britain is responsible for acts of.

VIII-THE GEORGIA..

At Glasgow.

The Alar....

Armament of the Georgia..

Insufficient action of Her Majesty's Government..

Notoriety of the construction and purposes of the Georgia.

Registry, clearance, and departure...

Mr. Adams gives information to Earl Russell.

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..

125

Contrast between the course of Brazilian and of British Authorities.

At Liverpool...........

133

134

Libros