"Rules," laid down for this purpose in the Treaty, (Article VI,) or recognized 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 on 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.

Vessels to which

United States relate.

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 the claims of the Great Britain, are referred to in the Treaty as "the several 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. 3

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.

In vol. iv, pp. 446-475, of the Appendix to the Case of the United States, the Arbitrators will find the document referred to in the above paragraph. It purports to be a "list of American vessels captured and destroyed by rebel vessels during the late war," and to be compiled in answer to a resolution of the House of Representatives, requesting information "relating to the destruction during the late war, by rebel vessels, of such American vessels as were engaged in trade or commerce." This list contains the names of certain Confederate shipstwenty-three in number, (not, however, including the V. H. Joy and the Music, which are now for the first time mentioned)-with the captures made, or alleged to have been made by them, respectively, so far as information on the subject had been received at that time by the Department of State. Of these twenty-three ships, four (the Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and Shenandoah) are described as having been fitted out in or from British ports; three others as having been tenders to the Florida; one as having been a tender to the Alabama; twelve others (among which are the Boston, Chickamauga, Jeff. Davis, Nashville, Retribution, Sallie, Sumter, and Tallahassee) as having been fitted out in the Confederate States. Three (among which is the Olustee) are entered without any indication of the place of equipment. It is now said, in effect, that, because this list, which purports to be a return of all captures made during the war by Confederate armed ships, wheresoever fitted out and under whatever circumstances, was subsequently bound up, with a multitude of other documents, in one of five large volumes presented to the Senate of the United States, under the general title "Correspondence concerning Claims against Great Britain," the British Government must be deemed to have had notice that the United States would attempt to charge all such captures against Great Britain. Her Majesty's Government will merely say that such an intention was one which it would not have deemed itself justified in supposing on the part of the United States, unless it had been clearly expressed. Yet it appears that the United States have actually proceeded on this principle in presenting their claims to the Arbitrators; although, for some reason not yet explained, they have hitherto abstained from extending those claims to every ship which the principle would seem to include.

8. Attention has been drawn in the Counter Case of the United States (sec. iii, par. 2) to a statement made in the British Case that "in and soon after the month of May, 1861, a number of armed ships were fitted out and sent to sea from ports in the Confederate States," and it is observed that, if it be intended "to lead the Arbitrators to suppose that there was any insurgent vessel preying on the commerce of the United States when the Florida or when the Alabama escaped from Liverpool, the United States cannot too strongly protest that Her Majesty's Government is in error in this respect."

The following are the dates of the cruises of the several vessels mentioned in the list in vol. iv of the Appendix to the Case of the United States, omitting the Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Shenandoah, and their tenders: Calhoun, (fitted out at New Orleans,) May, 1861; Savannah, (fitted out at Charleston,) June, 1861; Jeff. Davis, (fitted out at Charleston,) June to August, 1861; Winslow, (fitted out at Wilmington,) July to August, 1861; Sumter, (fitted out at New Orleans,) July, 1861, to January, 1862; York, (place of fitting out not mentioned,) August, 1861; Sallie, (fitted out at Charleston,) October, 1861; St. Nicholas, (captured by the Confederates in Chesapeake Bay,) June and July, 1862; Echo, (place of fitting out not mentioned,) July, 1862; Retribution, (fitted out in Cape Fear River,) January and February, 1863; Boston, (place of

fitting out not mentioned,) June, 1863; Tallahassee, (fitted out at Wilmington,) August, 1864; Chickamauga, (fitted out at Wilmington,) October, 1864; Olustee, (place of fitting out not mentioned, alleged to have been identical with the Tallahassee,) November, 1864.

The Florida left Liverpool on the 22d March, 1862, and was detained at Nassau till the 7th August following; the Alabama left Liverpool on the 29th July of the same year. Five captures are recorded in the list as having been made in the interval between the 22d March and the 29th July, 1862, by the vessels Echo and St. Nicholas.

It may be added that, as early as the 4th June, 1861, Her Majesty's Government was informed by the British Minister at Washington that "the privateers of the Confederate States were at that moment in full activity, and had met with considerable success."

Nature of the ar

of Great Britain.

9. The argument to be offered on the part of Great Britain will be strictly confined, in the first instance, to the question whether, as to any one or more, taken one by one, of the gument on the part vessels specified in the Case of the United States as "the cruisers for whose acts the United States ask the Tribunal to hold Great Britain responsible," Great Britain did, by any act or omission, fail to fulfill any duty set forth in the three Rules, or recognized by the principles of international law not inconsistent with those Rules. This is the single question with which the Arbitrators have, in the first instance, to deal. On the questions, therefore, whether, in regard to the general traffic in munitions of war or in other articles, between ports of Great Britain or her colonies and the Confederate States, or in regard to the general employment of agents of the Confederate Government for financial and other purposes in England, or in regard to the general partiality erroneously alleged to have been shown to Confederate vessels in British and colonial ports, the British Government did, or did not, fail in the performance of any of its neutral obligations-on these questions, and such as these, Great Britain, while referring the arbitrators to the statements as to both law and fact, contained in her Case and Counter Case, and the Appendices thereto, forbears to offer any new argument before the Tribunal. She has fully and amply vindicated the conduct of her Government on all these heads. But she declines to treat them as presenting, apart from the questions as to the particular cruisers, legitimate matter for argument between the parties to the reference, or elements for the consideration of the Tribunal.

The Sumter, Nash

Chickamauga, and
Retribution.

10. As regards the Sumter, Nashville, Tallahassee, Chickamauga, and Retribution, Great Britain has been unable to discover in the Case or Counter Case of the United States any reason- ille, Tallahassee, able or intelligible ground for making the acts of these vessels, or the conduct of the British Government in respect of them, the foundation of claims against her. It will be sufficient, therefore, to refer the Tribunal to Part II of the British Case, and Parts V and VIII of the British Counter Case, in which the facts relating to these vessels are stated and commented on.2

11. It will be seen

(a.) That in the case of the Tallahassee and Chickamauga, no failure of duty has been even alleged, much less proved, against Great Britain. These vessels were built, indeed, in England, but they were built, and were used, as ships of commerce; it was by an after-thought, when they were already within the waters of the Confederate States, and had be

1 Appendix to Case of United States, vol. i, p. 56.

2 See also British Counter Case, Part IX, pp. 107, 108, as to the Sumter and Nashville, and p. 114 as to the Chickamauga.

come the property of the Confederate Government, that they were armed for war, and their employment as ships of war lasted but a few weeks in the one case, and but a few days in the other. They were armed in and dispatched from a Confederate port, (Wilmington,) and to the same Confederate port they returned.1

(b.) That the Sumter and Nashville were not even built in the Queen's dominions; and in respect of their original outfit, nothing is, or can be, alleged against Her Majesty's Government. Setting aside some other minor complaints, which will not bear a moment's examination, it is suggested only that they received in British ports such hospitalities as were extended to Confederate vessels in general in the ports of neutral nations.2

(c.) That, in the case of the Retribution, also a vessel not built or fitted out in the Queen's dominions, the facts alleged show nothing more than that her commander contrived on one occasion, by fraudulently personating the master of a prize captured by him, and concealing the fact that she was a prize, to dispose of the cargo in a small island of the Bahama Archipelago, remote from the seat of government; and that, on another occasion, by means of a fraudulent conspiracy with a party of "wreckers," he managed to carry a prize into the same place, and to extort, through the wreckers, from her master and owners, a ransom, under pretense of salvage. These facts, if proved, establish no failure of duty against Great Britain.5

The Clarence, Ta

12. As to the vessels said to have been employed as tenders by the Florida and Alabama, no failure of duty is alleged against cony, Archer, and Great Britain. The only question, therefore, which can Tuscaloosa. arise in connection with them is, whether, in case any liability should be established against Great Britain in respect of the Florida or Alabama, such liability should be extended to the acts of these vessels.

The Alabama, Flor

13. The discussion, therefore, in the view of Great Britain, confines itself practically, as well as of right, to the Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and ida, Georgia, and Shenandoah, the four vessels on account Shenandoah. of which claims had been made by the United States against Great Britain before the conclusion of the Treaty of Washington.

As to these vessels, the material charges made by the Substance of charges. United States appear to be in substance as follows: (a.) That the British Government did not exercise due care to prevent them from being equipped or specially adapted within British territory for war against the United States;

(b.) That the British Government did not cause them to be arrested or detained when they subsequently visited ports within the colonial possessions of Great Britain;

(c.) That they were suffered, in such ports, to obtain supplies and effect repairs, of a nature, or to an extent, inconsistent with the obligations of Great Britain as a neutral power.

14. It is not incumbent on Great Britain to prove that these charges are erroneous. It is for the United States to prove that they are true. But since the evidence of the real facts applicable to each of these ves

1 British Counter Case, p. 102. Appendix to British Case, vol. v, p. 143; Appendix to Case of the United States, vol. vi, pp. 723-726, 728-730.

2 British Case, pp. 12-22. British Counter Case, pp. 67-71, 107-109. Appendix to British Case, vol. ii, pp. 1–82, 87-129.

3 Case of the United States, p. 390; Appendix to Case of the United States, vol. vi, p. 736.

4 British Counter Case, p. 104. Appendix to British Case, vol. v, pp. 21–24, 165–197. 5 See British Counter Case, Part X, pp. 126, 127.