Reasons why Great for acts of.

Thus it will be seen that in a cruise of about two years, the Alabama received all her repairs, previous to her arrival at Cherbourg, Britain is responsible (except such as. could be made in the open sea or at anchorages found in uninhabited islands,) in the ports of Great Britain. She was supplied with coal from Great Britain exclusively, except once when it was taken from one of her prizes and once at Bahia. This last would not, however, have been allowed, had the facts in relation to her conduct in the waters of His Majesty the Emperor of Brazil been known at the time. Having made "Rata Island the base of her operations, for to that place she carried prizes, and from thence proceeded to make others, which she ordered to be burnt, after having kept them there some days at the anchorage place of that island," His Majesty the Emperor of Brazil "ordered that the said steamer be no more received in any port of the Empire."1

The "toleration" of such abuses was, in the opinion of His Majesty, "equivalent to permitting the ports of the Empire to serve as bases for operations for the belligerents." Therefore, this first "disrespect to the sovereignty" of that Empire was followed, as soon as discovered, by a peremptory order of banishment.

The United States ask the Arbitrators to contrast this conduct with that of the Government of Her Majesty.

This vessel was built and specially adapted to warlike use in Great Britain, and in violation of the laws of that sovereignty. She sailed from a port in that sovereignty, unarmed, but fitted in all respects to receive her armament; she escaped after her detention by the Government had been determined upon; her armament was constructed in Great Britain; her ammunition, stores, and crew were all provided there; these were shipped by the insurgents on board of English vessels in English ports, transported to the waters of another Government, under the English flag, and there transferred. After her cruise commenced, her coal was supplied from Great Britain in English vessels dispatched from English ports, with instructions to proceed to places of rendezvous arranged by "preconcerted agreement" through agents of the insurgents, having their places of business, and carrying on the operations of their government, upon English soil.

She sailed a distance of more than fifteen hundred miles to reach an English port after an engagement with the enemy only twenty-five miles from one of her own ports, in order to repair damages and refit. While cruising along the coast, going from one port to another in British jurisdiction, within cannon-shot of the shore, and in sight of the town in which was located the seat of the colonial government of Her Majesty, she captured an innocent merchantman and "inadvertently" brought it within the territorial jurisdiction of Her Majesty. While again coasting between other ports of Her Majesty's dominions she again chased and detained another merchantman, but upon being informed by one of the officers of Her Majesty's Navy that this was within the jurisdiction of Her Majesty the captain again put in a plea of "inadvertence" and released his prize.

She brought an uncondemned prize into a port of Her Majesty under pretense of a commission as a tender; her officers there made contracts for the sale to Her Majesty's subjects of the prize cargo of this so-called tender, and of the prize vessel and cargo taken within sight of the land ; and, in pursuance of an arrangement made in port, proceeded to an unfrequented island, and completed the sale of the uncondemned prizes

by delivery and receipt of the purchase-money; and afterward, in an English port, her captain "permitted" a few picked fellows to come on board for "shipment " outside of the jurisdiction.

All these facts, save perhaps the last, were made known to Her Majesty's Government as soon as they occurred, yet no "disrespect to the sovereignty" of Her Majesty was discovered; such practices were "tolerated;" the vessel, with her officers, was at all times and on all occasions admitted without hesitation to the hospitalities of all British ports, and "treated exactly as any United States man-of-war would have been." In short, she was permitted at all times to do, in the ports of Great Britain, what, in the opinion of His Majesty the Emperor of Brazil, was "equivalent" to their use as the bases of belligerent operations. During all this time no instructions were ever issued from the home Government which could, in any manner whatever, embarrass the operations of a vessel whose Government had so persistently abused and insulted the power and sovereignty of Her Majesty.

As to the vessel, therefore, the United States believe the Arbitrators will find that she was not only constructed and specially adapted to warlike use within Her Majesty's jurisdiction, and that due diligence was not used to prevent her departure therefrom, but that after her departure she was permitted to use the ports and waters of Her Majesty as a base of naval operations against the United States.

As has been seen, the Tuscaloosa was commissioned as her tender. Before her arrival within the jurisdiction of Her Majesty's Government at the Cape of Good Hope, she had captured and released upon ransombond one vessel. After her visit and supplies there, on the 13th of September, 1863, she captured and destroyed one more. A's to her, Great Britain permitted her ports to be used as a base of belligerent operations. In addition to this, having been commissioned by the Alabama, her acts are to be treated as the acts of her principal.

VIII. THE GEORGIA.

The Georgia at Glasgow,

This vessel was built at Dumbarton, on the Clyde, a few miles below 1 Glasgow, by William Denny and Brothers.1 She was launched on the 10th of January, 1863, and was then called the Virginia. A Miss North, daughter of Captain North, of the insurgent States, was prominent at the launch and gave the ship her name.2 All this was reported by the consul at Glasgow to Mr. Seward on the 16th of January. On the 9th of October, 1862, Mr. Adams communicated to Earl Russell a copy of an intercepted letter from the insurgent secretary of the navy to Captain North, which fully explained the position that gentleman occupied toward the insurgents.4

Notoriety of the

On the 12th of February an article in the form of a communication appeared in the London Daily News addressed to Lord Palconstruction and pur- merston, then at the head of Her Majesty's Government, in poses of the Georgia. which the attention of his lordship was particularly called to the great activity in the ship-building yards for the construction of a fleet of war-steamers alleged to be for the "Emperor of China." Among others, mention was specially made of the two "iron-clads" in the yard of the Messrs. Laird, and also of a steam ram, afterward the Pampero, (or Canton,) being built by Thompson Brothers, at Glasgow, where they were subsequently, when they were approaching completion, seized and detained by the Government. In this article it is expressly stated that, "the term 'Chinese' is in general use in the building-yards of the Clyde and the Mersey, to designate the Confederates, and the Emperor of China' has no other signification, in this connection, than to personify Jefferson Davis." 5

The Virginia is also specially mentioned as one of this class of vessels, and it is then stated that "the Government, indeed, professes a policy of non-interference; but such a profession is neutralized by the moral support which the noble lord, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, lends to the rebellion, when, in his place in Parliament, he expresses the view that the subjugation of the South by the North would be a great calamity." On the 17th of February, another article appeared as a communication in the same paper, addressed in the same form, in which this language is used: "It is simply incredible that it (the Government) alone is not cognizant of facts notorious in commercial circles, and the evidence of which is more easily accessible to its agents than to lookers on." 6

It is quite true that these were anonymous communications in a newspaper, but the newspaper was one of a large circulation and important political influence in London, and the articles professed to state facts. One of these facts was that many vessels were being built in Great Britain, intended for vessels of war; and another, that it was pretended they were for the Emperor of China.

The Oreto and the Alabama had, before that time, escaped from Eng

lish ports under pretense of being intended for foreign governments. They were then under the flag of the insurgents, engaged in the destruction of the commerce of the United States.

It now appears that Her Majesty's Government had ample means within its own control of determining which of the vessels referred to in these articles was and which was not intended for "the Emperor of China." The real Chinese Government had an "agency" at "6 Little George street, Westminster, London." As early as the 10th of September, 1862, Earl Russell caused a letter to be addressed to Mr. Lay, "inspector-general of Chinese customs, then on leave in England," in which it was said:

It appears to Her Majesty's Government that, unless you are already provided with a written authority from the Chinese Government for the steps which you are taking to provide that Government with naval assistance, you should procure such authority; and I am accordingly to request that you will take steps for obtaining such authority as soon as possible, although, in the meanwhile, Her Majesty's Government are prepared to act on the assurances of Mr. Bruce, and not interpose any delay in your proceedings.

The Mr. Bruce referred to in this letter, the United States infer from the correspondence which afterward occurred, to have been Sir Frederick Bruce, who was at that time the representative of Her Majesty's Government at Pekin, and who subsequently succeeded Lord Lyons at Washington.

On the 9th of October, Mr. Lay addressed a letter to the Foreign Office from the Chinese government agency, 6 Little George street, Westminister," a copy of which is as follows:

My absence from England has prevented my receiving before yesterday your letter of the 10th September. With reference to Earl Russell's desire that I should obtain a written authority from the Chinese government for the steps I am taking to provide it with naval assistance, I have the honor to state that I hold such written authority, dated the 15th March, 1862, from my locum tenens, Mr. Hart, to purchase and equip a steam fleet, in accordance with instructions from the imperial government. I have since received regular remittances from the foreign customs for that purpose, by direction of Prince Kung. I may add for his lordship's information, that on the 28th of June last I received, through Mr. Hart, a dispatch from the Chinese Foreign Office relative to the proposed fleet. This dispatch prays the inspector-general of customs in earnest terms to use the utmost dispatch in procuring the vessels. It repeats the instructions issued to the governors of various provinces as to the amounts to be contributed by them toward the cost of the fleet; refers to the Emperor's anxiety that no time be lost; and closes with a second earnest appeal to the inspector-general for these reasons "not to lose a day." With respect to the flag for the fleet, I have written for precise authority. As soon as I receive it, I will not fail to apprise Earl Russell of the fact.3

The subsequent correspondence preceding the 17th February, 1863, is not given by Her Majesty's Government in the documents and evidence presented for the consideration of the arbitrators; but it is stated in the British Case, on page 47, that "in March, 1862, the Chinese Government gave authority to Mr. Lay, inspector-general of Chinese customs, then on leave in England, to purchase and equip a steam fleet for the Emperor's service, and a sum of money was placed at his disposal for the purpose. Mr. Lay accordingly entered into an agreement with Captain Sherard Osborn, an officer in Her Majesty's navy, according to which the latter was to take command-in-chief of the fleet, receiving orders from the Chinese Government through Mr. Lay. Her Majesty's Government, by orders in council, gave permission to enlist officers and men for this service."

1 Brit. Case, p. 47.

Brit. App., vol. ii, p. 681.

3 Ibid., p. 681.

The United States cannot state with certainty that such was the fact, but they have reason to believe that some of the vessels mentioned in the first article above referred to, published in the London Daily News, were, in fact, being built under the above-mentioned arrangement, and were, in fact, intended for the "Emperor of China." But it is certain that all were not so intended, and particularly was this the case with the Laird iron-clads, the Pampero (or Canton) and the Virginia, (or Georgia.) It is also certain that the steps "taken to provide the Chinese Government" with "naval assistance" were made use of by the insurgents as a cover to their transactions, and that this was so notorious in commercial circles as to have become the subject of newspaper comment.

When a foreign government comes to the ship-yards of Great Britain to replenish or strengthen its navy, it has, or should have, no concealments. If at peace, it is lawfully there, and Her Majesty's subjects may and do invite contracts for that kind of work; but in such case, the representative of the government should do as was done during the war in the United States by the representative of the Danish government, who, "wishing to spare Her Majesty's Government all the embarrassment possible, came forward and gave the fullest information that a vessel was being constructed for the Danish Government.”1

When, therefore, as in this case, vessels suspected to be for warlike use against a nation with which Great Britain was at peace, were being constructed in the ship-yards of the subjects of Her Majesty, and it was said that they were for the use of a nation which could lawfully contract for their construction, Her Majesty's Government had the right, and it became its duty at once, to demand the "fullest information." Answers from a nation that could lawfully contract would be prompt and direct. There would be no necessity for concealment, and consequently none would be attempted.

If Inspector-General Lay, or Captain Osborn, had been requested by Her Majesty's Government to name the vessels actually being constructed under their supervision for the Emperor of China, a prompt and truthful answer might have been expected and would doubtless have been given. So far as appears, no such request was ever made, and the insurgents enjoyed the full benefit of the omission.

It is quite true, that neither Mr. Adams nor any other representative of the United States, at any time brought his suspicions as to the Virginia to the special attention of Earl Russell, or any other officer of Her Majesty's Government, before she left the Clyde. The Consul at Glasgow had strong suspicions as to her character and destination, but he had not and could not, with his means of information, produce "such evidence of the fact as would support an indictment for the misdemeanor; " and nothing short of that, Mr. Adams had been informed in July previous, in the case of the Alabama, would, in the opinion of the solicitor of customs at London, furnish "justifiable grounds of seizure."" The building of vessels for the insurgents upon the Clyde had but just commenced. The consul at Glasgow had not then perfected his arrangements for procuring information, as had been done at Liverpool, where the operations of the insurgents began, and had been continued with so much activity. Consequently the United States could not then comply with the rules that had been already prescribed, and so strenuously insisted upon, in previous cases, for the guidance of the officers of

1 Mr. Layard in the House of Commous, March 7, 1854, Am. App., vol. iv, p. 499. 2 O'Dowd's Opinion, Brit. Case, p. 90.