Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

VI.-REPLY OF MA. WAITE, &C.-Continued.

It should not be in neutral territory.

The insurgents had no such base within their own territory

Great Britain knew this..

The advantages of these facts to the United States..

Efforts of the insurgents to obtain bases of operations in neutral terri-

tory

Toleration of use equivalent to perinission

Toleration implies knowledge...

Great Britain had reasonable ground to believe that the insurgents in-

tended to use its ports...

Their effective vessels of war came from Great Britain.

When obtained they were useless without a base of operations.

They might have been excluded from British ports...

This would have prevented the injuries which followed

The United States requested Great Britain to prevent this abuse of its

territory.

Great Britain refused to prevent it..

Great Britain encouraged the use of its ports by the insurgents for re-

pairs and for obtaining provisions and coal

All this constituted a violation of neutrality which entailed responsi-

bility

VII.-ARGUMENT OF Sir ROUNDELL PALMER ON THE QUESTION OF THE RE-

CRUITMENT OF MEN FOR THIE SIENANDOAIE AT MELBOURNE..

VIII.-OBSERVATIONS ADDRESSED TO THE TRIBUNAL BY MR. CUSHING, IN THE

NAME OF THE COUNSEL OF THE UNITED STATES, ON THE 21ST AUGUST, 1872,

AND MEMORANDUM AS TO THE ENLISTMENTS FOR THE SITENANDOANI AT MEL-

BOURNE

IX.–ARGUMENT OF SIR ROUNDELL PALMER ON THE SPECIAL QUESTION AS TO

THE LEGAL EFFECT OF THE ENTRANCE OF THE FLORIDA INTO THE PORT OF

MOBILE, OR THE RESPONSIBILITY, IF ANY, OF GREAT BRITAIN FOR THAT SHIP..

X.-REPLY OF THE COUNSEL OF THE UNITED STATES TO TIIE ARGUMENT OF HER

BRITANNIC MAJESTY'S COUNSEL ON THE SPECIAL QUESTION OF THE LEGAL EF-

FECT, IF ANY, OF TIIE ENTRY OF THE FLORIDA INTO THE PORT OF MOBILE, AFTER

LEAVING THE BAHAMAS, AND BEFORE MAKING ANY CAPTURES..

XI.-ARGUMENT OF SIR ROUNDELL PALMER ON THE CLAIM OF THE UNITED

STATES FOR INTEREST BY WAY OF DAMAGES.

XII.-REPLY ON THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES TO THE ARGUMENT OF HER

BRITANNIC MAJESTY'S COUNSEL ON THE ALLOWANCE OF INTEREST IN TIIE COM-

PUTATION OF INDEMNITY UNDER TILE TREATY OF WASHINGTON......

XIII.-COMPARATIVE TABLES PRESENTED BY THE AGENT OF THE UNITED STATES

ON THE 19TH OF AUGUST, 1872, IN COMPLIANCE WITH TIIE REQUEST OF THE

TRIBUNAL...

XIV.-TABLES PRESENTED BY THE AGENT OF HER BRITANNIC MAJESTY ON THE

19TH OF AUGUST, 1872, IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUEST OF THE TRIBUNAL.

XV.-REPLY OF THE AGENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO THE NEW MATTER INTRO-

DUCED BY THE AGENT OF HER BRITANNIC MAJESTY ON TIIE CALL OF TIIE

TRIBUNAL FOR ELUCIDATION IN RESPECT TO THE TABLES PRESENTED BY THE

TWO GOVERNMENTS.

XVI.-A NOTE ON SOME OBSERVATIONS PRESENTED BY MR. BaxCROFT DAVIS ON

THE 29TH AUGUST..

508

I.

ARGUMENT

OF

THE UNITED STATES.

DELIVERED TO

THE TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION

AT

GENEVA,

JUNE 15, 18 2:

1c

9

JUNE 10, 1872. SIR: We have the honor to hand you herewith the argument prepared by us as counsel of the United States, in order that, in pursuance of Article V of the treaty of Washington, it may be presented in their behalf to the tribunal of arbitration constituted by that treaty. We have the honor, sir, to be your obedient servants,

O. CUSHING.
WM. M. EVARTS.

M. R. WAITE,
.J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS, Esq.,

Agent of the United States.

« AnteriorContinuar »