ANNEX (B.)-FRENCH TRANSLATION OF THE THREE RULES IN ARTICLE VI OF THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON. The French Translations, both of the Case of Her Majesty's Government and of the Case of the United States, (unofficially provided for the convenience of the Arbitrators,) have given the text of the three Rules in Article VI of the Treaty, with some variations of rendering, which (unless corrected) might possibly give occasion to misconceptions of the exact sense of parts of those Rules. It has, therefore, been thought expedient here to subjoin, in parallel columns, an accurate copy of the original English text and a revised French Translation: RULES. A neutral Government is boundFirst. To use due diligence to prevent the fitting out, arming, or equipping, within its jurisdiction, of any vessel which it has reasonable ground to believe is intended to cruise or to carry on war against a Power with which it is at peace; and also to use like diligence to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of any vessel intended to cruise or carry on war as above, such vessel having been specially adapted, in whole or in part, within such jurisdiction, to warlike use. Secondly. Not to permit or suffer either belligerent to make use of its ports or waters as the base of naval operations against the other, or for the purpose of the renewal or augmentation of military supplies or arms, or the recruitment of men. Thirdly. To exercise due diligence in its own ports and waters, and, as to all persons within its jurisdiction, to prevent any violation of the foregoing obligations and duties. RÈGLES. Un Gouvernement neutre est tenu1. De faire les dues diligences pour prévenir la mise en état, l'armement en guerre ou l'équipement, dans sa juridiction, de tout vaisseau qu'il est raisonnablement fondé à croire destiné à croiser ou à faire la guerre contre une puissance avec laquelle ce Gouvernement est en paix; et de faire aussi même diligence pour empêcher le départ bors de sa juridiction de tout navire destiné à croiser ou à faire la guerre, comme il est dit ci-dessus, ce navire ayant été spécialement adapté, en tout ou en partie, dans les limites de sa dite juridiction, à des usages belligérants. 2. De ne permettre ni souffrir que l'un des belligérants fasse usage de ses ports ou de ses eaux comme d'une base d'opérations navales contre l'autre, ni pour renouveler ou augmenter ses munitions militaires ou son armement, ou s'y procurer des recrues. 3. D'exercer les dues diligences dans ses propres ports et eaux, et à l'égard de toutes personnes dans les limites de sa juridiction, afin d'empêcher toute violation des obligations et devoirs précédents. The following is the translation, above referred to, of the Rules, as stated in the American Case, printed in parallel columns with a second translation, which will be found at page 513 of the first Part of the "Choix de Pièces Justificatives," furnished by the United States: Translation taken from the Case of the United Translation taken from the "Choix de Pièces RÈGLES. Un Gouvernement neutre est obligé― 1. À faire toutes les diligences nécessaires pour s'opposer dans les limites de sa juridiction territoriale à ce qu'un vaisseau soit mis en mesure de prendre la mer, à ce qu'il soit armé ou équipé, quand ce Gouvernement a des motifs suffisants pour pen RÈGLES. Un Gouvernement neutre est tenuPremièrement. De faire toutes les diligences nécessaries pour éviter qu'il soit armé ou équipé, dans sa juridiction, aucun vaisseau qu'il serait fondé à croire disposé à croiser ou à faire la guerre contre une puissance avec laquelle il est en paix; et ser que ce vaisseau est destiné à croiser ou à faire des actes de guerre contre une puissance avec laquelle il est lui-même en paix. Ce Gouvernement doit faire également toutes les diligences nécessaires pour s'opposer à ce qu'un vaisseau destiné à croiser ou à faire des actes de guerre, comme il est dit ci-dessus, quitte les limites de sa juridiction territoriale dans le cas où il y aurait été spécialément adapté, soit en totalité, soit en partie, à des usages belligérants. 2. Un gouvernement neutre ne doit ni permettre ni tolérer que l'un des belligérants se serve de ses ports ou de ses eaux comme d'une base d'opération navale contre un autrebelligérant ; il ne doit ni permettre ni tolérer non plus que l'un des belligérants renouvelle ou augmente ses approvisionnements militaires, qu'il se procure des armes ou bien encore qu'il recrute des hommes. 3. Un Gouvernement neutre est obligé de faire toutes les diligences requises dans ses ports et dans ses eaux, en vue de prévenir toute violation des obligations et devoirs ci-dessus énoncés; il agira de même à l'égard de toutes les personnes qui se trouvent dans sa juridiction. d'user de la même diligence pour empêcher que des vaisseaux destinés à croiser ou à faire la guerre, comme il est dit ci-dessus, sortent de sa juridiction, s'ils y ont été, en tout ou partie, adaptés spécialement à l'usage de la guerre. Secondement. Il est tenu de ne permettre ni souffrir qu'aucun des belligérants se serve de ses ports ou de ses eaux pour en faire la base d'opérations navales contre l'autre, ou dans le but soit de renouveler ou augmenter les approvisionnements militaires ou les armes, soit de recruter des hommes. Troisièmement. D'exercer la surveillance nécessaire dans ses propres ports et dans ses eaux, comme aussi sur tout individu dans sa juridiction, pour prévenir toute violation des obligations et des droits qui précèdent. ANNEX C.-REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE APPOINTED BY THE BOARD OF TRADE. In accordance with the request of the Board of Trade, we have examined the Revised List of Claims presented by the United States Agent on the 15th of April last, and have to offer the following observations on them in continuation of our First Report: The aggregate amount of claims contained in the Revised Statement is $25,547,161. It is composed of a claim of $5,808,066, for increased insurance premiums; a claim of $479,033, which is styled "miscellaneous ;" and a claim of $19,260,062, for losses sustained in respect of the vessels destroyed by the cruisers. As regards the claim for "increased insurance premiums," it is a claim for alleged indirect losses, with which we have no concern. It may not, however, be unworthy of notice that the claim has been increased from $1,120,795, in the Former Statement, to $5,808,066 in the Revised Statement, between the respective dates of the 4th of October and the 15th of March. As regards the before-mentioned "miscellaneous" claim, it is to be found at p. 290 of the Revised Statement, and consists of the following items: 1. A claim of $11,788, which is described as follows: "For detention of ship at Philadelphia, unable to procure freight by reason of the depredations of the Alabama and other insurgent cruisers." 2. A claim of $15,761 for the detention of another ship, which is described in exactly the same way as the last claim. 3. A claim of $55,000 "for loss of vessel captured by insurgent cruisers V. H. Joy and Music (sailing under letters of marque) near the mouth of the Mississippi." 4. A claim of $95,000 "for expenses and loss on account of the breaking up of the regular voyage of the bark Almina, the ship Daylight, and the ship Julia G. Tyler." 5. A claim of $300,032 for damages, breaking up business of "dispatch-line of China packets." 6. A claim of $1,452 by John Burns, Manchester, England, for his deceased son Joseph Burns, "for loss of one hundred and eightieth share in catchings of the whale-ship Hedaspe, of New Bedford, which he (the claimant) states was sunk by the Alabama with all hands on board." As regards the first, second, fourth, and fifth of these claims, it is manifest at once, from the above-mentioned description of them, taken from the Statement itself, not merely that the damages, which are not and cannot be attributed in any definite degree to any one or more of the Confederate cruisers, are of far too remote a character to be allowed, but also that these claims are, from their very nature, entirely and essentially claims for indirect losses, with which we have nothing to do. As regards the third claim, there is no doubt that it must have been inadvertently inserted, for the cruisers V. H. Joy and Music therein referred to are not comprised in the list of cruisers mentioned in the United States Case or Counter Case, and are not stated to have been in any way connected with any act or default on the part of the British Government.1 'The same consideration affects the claims connected with the cruisers Boston and Sallie in the "Former Statement," (see p. 63.) As regards the claim by John Burns for his deceased son Joseph Burns, it will be enough to observe, in the first place, that it is apparently ad vanced by a British subject; in the second place, that, considering the nature, variety, and extent of the demands generally put forward, one can scarcely doubt that, if the whale-ship Hedaspe had been in fact destroyed by the Alabama, there would have been other claims advanced, besides one for the loss of only the one hundred and eightieth share in the catchings of the vessel; and, in the third place, that the claim is as remarkable for the absence of all material particulars in the statement, as it is for the improbability of the fact on which it is alleged to have been founded. For these reasons we are of opinion that the whole of this "miscel laneous" claim of $479,033 must undoubtedly be rejected. There remains then to consider the claim of $19,260,062. This amount exceeds the corresponding sum in the Statement on which we have already reported by $1,359,429, the excess being due partly to claims in respect of vessels not claimed for nor mentioned in the Former Statement, and partly to additional claims being put forward in respect of vessels mentioned in that Statement. Before, however, analyzing this excess, and stating the result at which we have arrived, it will be useful to make some observations which present themselves on comparing, with the Revised Statement, the Original List of claims which was sent by Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams in August 1866, and also the extension of this, as presented by the President to the House of Representatives in April, 1869, and which are to be found in the fourth volume of " the Correspondence concerning Claims against Great Britain transmitted to the Senate of the United States." These lists of claims not only strongly confirm the opinion we expressed in our First Report, that the estimate we there made of the value of the vessels was probably a very liberal one, but also show in a remarkable manner how since the year 1866 the claimants have in most cases enormously increased their estimate of the losses alleged to have been sustained by them. We will cite some of the more striking instances, calling the list of claims sent to Mr. Adams the "Original List," the list presented to the House of Representatives, the "United States Amended List," the Statement on which we have already reported the "Former Statement," and the revised list of claims on which we are now reporting "the Revised Statement." The Alert. The claim as stated in the "Original List" amounted to $57,859; in the "Revised Statement" (p. 1) it amounts to $202,726. In the "Original List" there was a claim of $30,000 for "interruption of voyage;" but now, in addition to that amount, there is claimed a sum of $144,869 for "prospective earnings." The Anna Schmidt.-This vessel was in the "Original List" valued at $30,000, which is somewhat less than the average valuation we have allowed in proportion to her tonnage, but in the Revised Statement (p. 13) the sum claimed in respect of the vessel is double that amount. The Golden Eagle.-In the "Original List" the owners claimed for the vessel $36,000, and for freight $26,000. Our average estimate in proportion to her tonnage was about $45,000. In the "Revised Statement" (p. 40) the owners claim $86,000 for vessel and freight, thus increasing their claim by nearly 50 per cent. The Highlander.-She was a vessel of 1,049 tons, and was in ballast. In the "Original List" two insurance companies advanced claims for insurances to the extent of $30,000, which was probably about the value of the vessel, but in the "Revised Statement" (p. 46) the owners put forward an additional claim for the ship to the extent of $84,000. This claim is, however, far less extravagant than the claim for freight, which in the "Original List" amounted to $6,000; whereas in the "Revised Statement" it exceeds $68,000, and is advanced without any deduction whatever, although the ship was in ballast at the time of her capture. It will be found that at pages 6 and 27 of our first report we have specially commented on the character and extent of the extraordinary demands put forward in respect of this vessel. The Ocean Rover.-In the "Original List" the owners claimed $10,400 for value of ship, loss of oil on board, and damages for breaking up of voyage. The claims now advanced in the "Revised Statement" (p. 68) in respect of the same losses exceed $193,000, the difference between the original claim and the more recent one being made up entirely of "double claims for single losses." The Kate Cory.-In the "Original List" the owners claimed $27,800, for the value of the brig, outfit, and oil on board, and there was also a claim of $1,820 for the value of "reasonable prospective catch of oil." In the "Revised Statement" (p. 51) the amounts insured have, as usual, been added to the claims by the owners, and there has been inserted a claim of $19,293 for loss of "prospective catch," so that the original claim for $29,620 has grown to $56,474. The Lafayette, No. 2.-In the "Original List" the owners valued the ship and outfit at $24,000, which is less than our average valuation according to her tonnage; and the secured earnings at $10,475; but in the "Revised Statement" (p. 55) the claim put forward in respect of ship and outfit and secured earnings is more than $89,000; and the prospective earnings which were in the "Original List" valued at $33,446, are now estimated at a sum exceeding $50,000. The original claim for $69,471 has grown to $141,858. The Rockingham.-The claim in the "Original List" amounted to $105,000, whereas the claim in the "Revised Statement" (p. 74) exceeds $225,000. This is also one of the vessels which we selected in our first report (page 23) as a striking example of the exorbitant nature of some of the claims. There can be no doubt that the original claim was very extravagant, but in the "Revised Statement" it has been doubled by improperly adding the insurances to the alleged values. The Union Jack.-In the "Original List" it is stated that G. Potter, after deducting the amount received from the Atlantic Insurance Company, claims the sum of $7,584; but in the "Revised Statement" (page 111) he claims the sum of $34,526 without making any deduction for insurances, although the insurance companies at the same time claim $32,014 in respect of the amount insured by them; and it therefore clearly follows that a sum, at any rate exceeding $26,000, is claimed twice over. The Catherine-In the "Original List" the owners claimed about $45,000 for vessel and secured earnings, but made no claim in respect of prospective earnings. Now in the Revised Statement (p. 229) there is a claim put forward of $35,829 for loss of vessel and cargo, over and above $31,676, the alleged amount of insurances by the owners, which is also at the same time claimed by the insurance company. In addition to this there is a claim for prospective earnings exceeding $19,600, so that the original claim of $45,805 has now grown to the enormous sum of $272,108. The Favorite. She was a bark of 393 tons. In the "Original List" the Atlantic Insurance Company, as insurers and assignees of the owners, |