Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

VII.--THE ALABAMA-Continued.

Proof submitted to the Treasury July 22

Also to Earl Russell..

Additional proof,

Opinion of Mr. Collier..

Presented with attidavits to Commissioners of Customs July 23

Action of the Board...

Further evidence submitted by Mr. Adams.

Her Majesty's Government agree to keep a watch on the vessel.

The Law Officers think the vessel should be detained..

Illness of Sir John Harding --

Escape of the Alabama...

Inefticiency of the subsequent proceedings.

Earl Russell thinks this a scandal.

Mr. Cobden's views...

Want of due diligence; in what it consisted.

Armament from the Bahama..

At Martinique

Destroys the Hatteras.

At Jamaica, January 20, 186:3; repairs and lands prisoners.

At Rata Island...

At Bahia...

Is excluderl from Brazilian ports for violation of sovereignty of Brazil..

At Cape Town..

At Simon's Bay

The Tuscaloosa.

At Simon's Bay.

At Singapore..

At Simon's Bay; coals and provisions.
Is destroyed by the Kearsarge June 19, 1864

Reasons why Great Britain is responsible for acts of.

VIII.- THE GEORGIA

At Glasgow

Notoriety of the construction and purposes of the Georgia...

Registry, clearance, and departure...

The Alar...

Armanient of the Georgia..
Mr. Adams gives information to Earl Russell.
Insufticient action of Her Majesty's Government.

At Babia...

At Trinadi

At Simon's Bay

At Cherbourg

At Liverpool

Sale

IX.- THE SITENANDOAIL

General review of facts establishing want of due diligence.

Purchase of the Sea King.

Her departure..

Departure of the Laurel with her crew and armament.

Armament of the Shenandoah.....

Arrives at Melbourne..
Permission to coal and make repairs granted..
Protest of the Consul...
Unfriendly conduct of the Colony..
Recruitment of men at Melbourne.
The Colonial Authorities informed of the contemplated recruitments, and

do not prevent them..

Their inefticient proceedings.

Further proof of recruiting furnished to the authorities..

They parley with the commander of the Shenandoah in place of acting..

Further information of contemplated recruitments..

Refusal of the Colonial Authorities to act...

Large recruitments of men; departure from Melbourne.

Excessive repairs at Melbourne

Coaling there excessive...

Contrast between the course of Brazilian and of British Authorities.

At Liverpool....

128

130

130

133

134

XI.-CONSIDERATION OF THE DUTY OF GREAT BRITAIN, AS ESTABLISHED

AND RECOGNIZED BY THE TREATY, IN REGARD TO THE OFFENDING

VESSELS, AND ITS FAILURE TO FULFILL THEM AS TO EACH OF SAID

VESSELS.

Propositions of law..

Measure of international duty.

Rules of the Treaty imperative.

Application of the first Rule

Application of the second and third Rules.

These Rules constitute the law of this controversy

Nothing admissible which diminishes their force..

The obligation of Great Britain to observe these Rules was an

international one..

This' obligation not affected by internal distribution of powers

of British Government.

Nor by the institutions or habits of the British people....

Great Britain should have used seasonable, appropriate, and ad-

equate means to preserve its neutrality..

Which should have been available as soon as required

British sympathy with insurgents an element to be considered

in preparing means..

Other elements to be considered..

The Means of fulfilling International Duty possessed by Great Britain..

Her Majesty's Government possessed full power for carrying out

its selected course of action..

The prerogative of the Crown..

Its exercise during the Rebellion.

Preventive power inseparable from the idea of executive

power

Peculiar advantages of Her Majesty's Government for the exer-

cise of executive power..

Omnipotence of Parliament...

The duty of Great Britain in its treatment of the offending vessels AFTER

their first illegal outfit and escape from British ports ..

The privilege of exterritoriality accorded to a vessel of war is

political and discretionary.

It should not be acceded to a belligerent not recognized as a

political Power...

The only remedy against such belligerent in a case like the pres-

ent is the remedy against the vessels themselves..

Great Britain ought, therefore, to have seized the vessels..

Due diligence, as required by the three Rules of the Treaty and the prin-

ciples of international law not inconsistent therewith...

After proof of hostile acts on neutral territory the burden of

proof is on the neutral to show due diligence to prevent them.

Diligence not a technical word...

“Due” implies seasonableness, appropriateness, and adequate-

Objections to British definition of the term..

Judicial definitions by British and American Courts..

The United States do not desire a severe construction..

They do not propose to become guarantors of their people.....

The Arbitrators the judges of what constitutes due diligence...

154

154

ness.

155

155

156

157

157

157

XII.-THE FAILURE OF GREAT BRITAIN TO FULFILL ITS DUTIES, AS ESTAB-

LISHED AND RECOGNIZED BY THE TREATY, CONSIDERED C'PON THE

FACTS.....

1.59

Considerations of general application ..

139

The vessels concerning whose acts the contention is.

1:59

Failure of Great Britain to fulfill its obligations..

1.59

Negligence in obtaining information.

159

No general means of immediate action provided.

160

No general instructions to maintain vigilance..

160

No officers charged with instituting and maintaining proceedings.. 160

No steps taken to break up the hostile system..

160

The idea of an international duty toward the United States rejected.

161

The obligations of Great Britain were independent of steps taken by of-

ficers of the United States in Great Britain

161

The Government of the United States always earnest to maintain its du-

ties as a neutral.....

161

Absence of such earnestuess on the part of Great Britain a license for

the acts of hostility complained of...

162

Failure to ascertain extent of statutory and prerogative powers....... 163

Failure to exercise the Royal prerogative..

105

The Foreigu-Enlistment Act was an insufficient means for performing

international duties, and its efficacy was diminished by judicial con-

struction and official requirements...

166

Contrast between this act and the American Statute as construed and

administered......

167

British reliance upon the Foreign-Enlistment Act a failure of due dil-

igence ...

172

The neglect to amend the Foreign-Enlistment Act a failure of due dil-

igence.

173

Contrast between the course of Great Britain and the course of the

United States in these respects

173

Failure in due diligence after the escape of the cruisers.

175

In not detaining offending cruisers when again in British ports.... 175

This obligation pot determined by commissioning a cruiser.

176

In not excluding escaped cruisers from Britisha ports..

176

The representations to insurgent agents respecting these cruisers were

so long delayed and so feeble as to amount to want of due diligence.. 178

The British course in these respects was voluntary

101

The exclusion of prizes from British ports was no benefit to the United

States....

181

The responsibility of Great Britain for these failures in due diligence

continued until the end of the career of the cruisers.

182

No evidence of the exercise of due diligence submitted by Great Britain 182

What vessels are under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal...

185

Treaty

Used in the same sense in this discussion.

What claims are within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal...

Résumé of negotiations respecting Alabama Claims.

Mr. Adams, November, 1862, asks " redress for private and na-

tional injuries”.

Liability denied by Great Britain..

United States refuse to relinquish their claims..

Many claims lodged during the war, but discussion deferred..

188

188

188

189

189

189

189

189

189

190

190

[ocr errors]

Page.

XIII–NATURE AND AMOUNT OF DAMAGES, &C.—Continued.

Reasons for calling all the claims Alabama Claims.

190

In April, 1865, the United States renew discussion

190

Responsibility of Great Britain re-asserted..

191

Denial of liability.

191

May, 1865, the United States classify claims as direct” and

" indirect,” and demand reparation for all..

191

Great Britain denies liability for indirect and refuses arbitra-

tion for direct claims..

191

Lord Russell the author of the term "Alabama Claims”

192

This term well known in October, 1866..

192

Lord Russell proposes to let bygones be bygones

192

The United States decline to waive any of their claims.

192

The Stanley-Johnson Convention...

193

The Johnson-Clarendon Convention.

193

Lord Granville thinks it admits unlimited argument as to the

extent of the Alabama Claims.

193

This Convention not acceptable to the United States.

194

Mr. Johnson informs Lord Clarendon that the United States

have claims of their own on Great Britain...

194

Sir Edward Thornton advises Lord Clarendon that the Conven-

tion is rejected because it is thought that it does not in-

clude the indirect clainis...

194

Mr. Motley informs Lord Clarendon that the United States do

not abandon the national claims.

195

And that the Johnson-Clarendon Convention did not afford suf-

ficient redress for the national injuries..

195

The indirect claims as considered by Lord Clarendon.

195

President's message to Congress December, 1869..

196

Same in 1870.

196

In January, 1871, the words “Alabama Claims” were understood

to include all claims of United States against Great Britain,

both national and individual.

196

Negotiations opened at Washington..

196

Reasons which induced those negotiations..

196

Preliminary proposals and correspondence.

197

The proposed coinmission to treat of the “Alabama Claims”. 197

United States Commissioners appointed and confirmed on the

correspondence, and their powers limited by it.......

197

“The Alabama Claims,” the American Commissioners state their

understanding of the meaning of those words....

198

They propose a mode of ascertaining the amount of the dam-

ages

199

And that payment thereof should be made..

199

This would have been an amicable settlement.

199

But no waiver of any class of claims.

199

The proposal declined...

199

Without exception to the definition of the term “Alabama

Claims"

199

A reference proposed by Great Britain...

200

Unwillingly accepted by the United States.

200

The Treaty of Washington...

200

Meaning of the words “ amicable settlement”.

200

Cliams for reference under the Treaty.

200

The same which were described in preliminary correspondence. 200

No waiver of indirect claims....

200

Powers of the Tribunal....

201

Power to assess damages not limited

201

Views of Mr. Bernard..

201

Twelfth article of the Treaty.

201

Sir Stafford Northcote...

202

Lord Ripon

202

Mr. Bernard...

202

Evidence from Protocol II..

202

Debate in Parliament-Lord Granville..

202

Lord Cairns says the indirect claims included in the Treaty 203

His construction not questioned..

203

Lord Ripon's views...

203

Sir Stafford Northcote

204
Page.

XIII.--NATURE AND AMOUNT OF DAMAGES, & (:-continued.

Conclusions...

The American Case stated the claims in the langnage of the Joint

High Commissioners

Long delay in objecting to it by Great Britain ..

Supposed concessions to United States in the Treaty.

The Rules....

Expression of regret.

Feuians.

Conclusions.

Lord Granville's speech.

Explanation of the misunderstanding

Résumé...

Arbitration takes the place of war...

The Tribunal the judge of its own powers.

Pradier Fodéré..

Calvo....

Mr. Montague Bernard.

3. Measure of damages

Rules for measuring damages

Severity to be shown to the wrong-doer in claims founded on torts.

The animus of the wrong-doer an element of damages.

The relation between the injury and its cause.

Whether the natural result of the wrong-doer's act

Damages should be an indemnity.

Whether so or not a question of fact.

Application of principles..

As to personal injuries.

As to property of the United States destroyeol.

As to property destroyed and injuries inflicted upon citizens of

the United States..

As to expenses in pursuit of the cruisers.

Alleged condonement by the United States..

The arbitration substitutes damages in the place of reparation by

Reply to Arguments in the British Counter Case

Indemnity should follow injury...

Award of a suum in gross.

It should include interest.

Case of the Canada.

Award under the Treaty of Ghent.

Award under the Jay Treaty.

Contingent reference to assessors.

Claims of private persons.

The indirect claims..

Enhanced rates of insurance

Transfer of United States commerce to British flag

Prolongation of the war.

Whether too remote for consideration to be determined by the

Tribunal...

Views of Mr. Prallier Fodéré.

General considerations.

The United States do not desire extreme damages.

The jurisdiction of the question belongs to the Tribunal

Without an adjudication upon it there will not be a full settlement

of all differences..

Conclusion..

NOTE A.-OBSERVATIONS ON CERTAIN SPECIAL CRITICISMS IN THE BRITISH

COUNTER CASE ON THE CASE OF THE UNITED STATES.

1. The British-Foreign Enlistment Acts..

2. American neutrality in 1793–94.

3. The United States and Portugal.

4. Nassau in December, 1861, and January, 1862..

NOTE B.-EXTRACTS FROM VARIOUS DEBATES IN THE PARLIAMENT OF GREAT

BRITAIN REFERRED TO IN THE FOREGOING ARGUMENT

« AnteriorContinuar »