II. ARGUMENT OR SUMMARY SHOWING THE POINTS AND REFERRING TO THE BY THE GOVERNMENT OF HER BRITANNIC MAJESTY IN ANSWER TO THE CLAIMS OF THE UNITED STATES: PRESENTED TO THE TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION CONSTITUTED UNDER ARTICLE I OF THE TREATY CONCLUDED AT WASH- BRITANNIC MAJESTY AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 17 C ARGUMENT. Her Britannic Majesty's Government now presents to the Tribunal of Arbitration, under the fifth article of the Treaty of Washington, a summary of the chief points on which Great Britain relies in argument, in answer to the claims of the United States. This summary will principally consist in a recapitulation of the more material facts and considerations already placed before the Arbitrators in the Case and Counter Case of Great Britain. It will be obvious that Her Majesty's Government, having cast upon it the duty of defense against these claims, can only meet the arguments on the part of the United States as they are from time to time brought forward. Those arguments which were brought forward in the original Case of the United States it has endeavored to answer fully and explicitly in the British Counter Case, to which it now desires to refer. The arguments of that Counter Case, and the statements of facts and evidence contained in it, and in the original Case of Great Britain, and the Appendices to both those Cases, are necessarily the arguments and the evidence on which the Government of Great Britain now relies; and all that it is possible, at present, usefully to do, is to sum up, in a condensed form, the general substance and results of those arguments and evidence, with some additional remarks made necessary by new matter contained in the Counter Case of the United States (itself a brief document, entering into few or no details of argument) and the Appendices thereto, or arising out of the evidence originally put in by the United States. Her Majesty's Government infers from the Counter Case of the United States, that it is the intention of the Government of the United States to enter, at the present stage of the proceedings, at some length into controversial arguments, in which it may possibly take occasion to offer such replies as may seem to it proper to the Counter Case of Her Majesty's Government. Should this prove to be the fact, Her Majesty's Government fully relies upon the justice of the Arbitrators, who will doubtless avail themselves of the opportunity of calling for further statements or arguments upon any points, either of law or of fact, which may not have been adequately dealt with by anticipation on the part of Her Majesty's Government. Scope of the Arbitration. 1. The questions which the Tribunal of Arbitration is called upon to decide, relate to certain claims which the United States conceive themselves to have against Great Britain, founded on circumstances which occurred during the late civil war in the United States. These claims are defined in the Treaty of Washington, 8th May, 1871, as having arisen out of the acts of certain vessels which are referred to, but not designated by name, in the Treaty; and the claims are further defined by a generic or class description, which had been appropriated to them, and under which they had become known to the two Governments, before the date of the Treaty. 2. The course of proceeding to be followed by the Tribunal is pointed. out by the Treaty. The Tribunal is to determine, as to each vessel separately, whether Great Britain has by any act or ing to be followed by omission failed to fulfill any of the duties set forth in three Course of proceed the Tribunal. "Rules," laid down for this purpose in the Treaty, (Article VI,) or recog nized by the principles of international law not inconsistent with such Rules, and to certify such fact as to each of the said vessels. This is the first duty of the Arbitrators. Their second duty (which will arise only in case they find that Great Britain "has failed to fulfill any duty or duties as aforesaid") is confined to adjudicating, either by the award of a gross sum or by determining the extent of liability, on the pecuniary reparation, if any, which in that event should, in their judgment, be made to the United States by Great Britain. It follows that any alleged failure of duty, which should not consist in an act or omission as to one or more of the particular vessels indicated, would not be within the cognizance of the Arbitrators. Great Britain recalls attention to this, not because she has any doubt of her ability to give a conclusive answer to any charge whatever that might be brought against her, of having, in any way or in any particular, imperfectly discharged her international duties, but because it is ou all accounts right and necessary that the limits of a reference to Arbitration, jointly agreed to by the parties in difference, and embodied in a solemn Treaty, should be strictly observed. 3. The vessels as to which (and as to which alone) the United States are at liberty to prove, if they can, a failure of duty against Vessels to which the claims of the Great Britain, are referred to in the Treaty as "the several United States relate. vessels which have given rise to the claims generically known as the 'Alabama claims."" The only vessels in respect of which any claims had been made by the Government of the United States upon Great Britain from the commencement of the civil war up to the time of the conclusion of the Treaty, were the Florida, Alabama, Georgia, and Shenandoah; and these claims had, in the correspondence which passed between the two Governments, become generically known as the "Alabama claims;" a phrase understood by Great Britain to mean claims, on account not only of the Alabama herself, but of other vessels respecting which complaints had been made of a like character, and on like grounds, to those made respecting the Alabama.1 4. The United States have specified in their Case "the cruisers, for whose acts" they "ask the Tribunal to hold Great Britain responsible." The list includes, beside the Florida, Alabama, Georgia, and Shenandoah, certain small vessels alleged to have been armed and employed as tenders of the Florida and Alabama, and also five other vessels, in respect of none of which any claim had previously been made against Great Britain, and of which three were never obtained from, much less equipped within, the dominions of Her Majesty; whilst the remaining two were built and sold as vessels of commerce, and had ceased to have any connection with Great Britain before they were adapted or used for any purposes of war. Great Britain has not thought proper to insist on the objection that the additional vessels, in respect of which no claims had previously been made, ought, on that account alone, to be rejected from consideration by the Tribunal, as not falling within the description inserted in the Treaty. But she contends that it is contrary to the true meaning of the Treaty to bring forward new claims in respect of any vessels, on grounds not falling within any of the three Rules in Article VI, nor within the principle of any claim which had been previously made; and she insists that no award in respect of any of these vessels ought to be made by the Arbitrators. 5. It is clear, at any rate, that the claims of the United States must, 1 British Case, p. 3. in this Arbitration, be confined to those vessels which are specified in their Case as "the cruisers for whose acts the United States ask the Tribunal to hold Great Britain responsible." Nevertheless, the United States have introduced into the list of claims, appended to their Case, claims for captures made by two Confederate cruisers (the Boston and Sallie) which are not among the vessels specified in the Case itself. They have likewise inserted in the same list claims for expenses said to have been incurred in relation to the Chesapeake and Rappahannock, which again are not among the specified vessels. Further, they have, at the time of presenting their Counter Case, added claims for captures made by the Jeff. Davis, the V. H. Joy, and the Music, three other Confederate vessels, neither specified in the Case among those in respect of which reparation was claimed, nor even so much as mentioned in it.1 It must be added that the United States have not assigned any ground or reason for the claims which they make on account of the vessels not so specified. No failure of duty has been charged against Great Britain in respect of any of them. Yet the United States claim for captures made by them, and for expenses said to have been incurred in trying to capture them, without alleging, in support of the claim, anything which Great Britain can answer. And, in the case of the Jeff. Davis, the V. H. Joy, and the Music, the claims have been put in after the expiration of the period within which evidence could be presented by Great Britain. 6. Her Majesty's Government had supposed, and had so stated in its Counter Case, that the claims presented in the Appendix to the Case of the United States, on account of vessels not mentioned in the Case itself, had been introduced by inadvertence.2 But the subsequent addition of claims for captures by the Jeff. Davis, the V. H. Joy, and the Music, appears to be inconsistent with this supposition. It is necessary, therefore, for Her Majesty's Government to declare, in the most explicit manner, that claims in respect of vessels not specified in the Case of the United States, among those "for whose acts the United States ask the Tribunal to hold Great Britain responsible," are not, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, open to argument or discussion, since they cannot properly be taken into consideration by the Arbitrators for any purpose whatever. 7. In connection with this point it is necessary here to take notice of the following statement introduced into the Counter Case of the United States: Her Majesty's Government assume that the reclamations of the United States are to be confined to claims growing out of the acts of the Florida, the Alabama, the Georgia, and the Shenandoah. The claims growing out of the acts of the other vessels named in the American Case are regarded by the United States as also embraced within the terms of the treaty. They form part of the claims generally known as the "Alabama claims." They are enumerated in the fourth of a series of five volumes, printed by order of the Senate of the United States, which are part of the "documents, correspondence, and evidence," submitted with the Case of the United States. These volumes, when thus collected and printed, were entitled "Claims of the United States against Great Britain." It is believed that under that title they were in the library of the Foreign Office at London before Her Majesty's High Commissioners received their instructions. It may also be said, without impropriety, that under the same title they were on the table of the Joint High Commission during the negotiations which preceded the conclusion of the treaty. The United States, therefore, while re-asserting their construction of the language of the Treaty in this respect, feel that they have the right to ask the Arbitrators to assume that Her Majesty's High Commissioners had notice of, and acquiesced in, that construction. 1 See Revised List of Claims, pp. 219, 290. 2 British Counter Case, p. 2. 3 Counter Case of the United States, sec. i, par. 2. |