RELATING TO

THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON.

VOLUME III-GENEVA ARBITRATION.

CONTAINING THE ARGUMENT OF THE UNITED STATES; ARGUMENT OF HER
BRITANNIC MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT; AND SUPPLEMENTARY
STATEMENTS OR ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

I.

ARGUMENT OF THE UNITED STATES DELIVERED TO THE TRIBUNAL OF

ARBITRATION AT GENEVA, JUNE 15, 1872.

Page.

I. INTRODUCTION:

Argument presented in accordance with provisions of the Treaty of

Washington

The respective Cases and Documents.

Counter Cases....

The issues to be determined are now settled

II. THE CONTROVERSY SUBMITTED TO ARBITRATION:

The Arbitrators already acquainted with the general nature of the facts..

In suppressing an armed insurrection the United States exercised bellig-

erent powers, and prevented insurgents from carrying on maritime

war from their own resources

The right to do this unquestioned; other nations no parties to the con-
flict

Abstinence of intervention by another Power is not neutrality

It is a maintenance of previously existing relations

Other Powers have to decide in such case only whether they acquiesce
in the exercise of belligerent powers by the Sovereign..

Non-acquiescence is intervention..

Questions arising beyond territorial limits of the Sovereign should be de-

cided as they arise..

Such course secures impartiality and, when justified by results, an

equality between contending parties which resembles what is known

as neutrality when exercised between rightful belligerents

This principle recognized by United States Supreme Court

Previous instances in point

Belligerent powers belong to the Sovereign of right; to the rebel of suf-

ferance

Conferring belligerent rights on insurgents by Great Britain was an in-

tervention

The Queen's proclamation

was voluntary and anticipatory

was not called for by the relations between the Governments.

had no justification.

and changed the legal relations between Great Britain and the in-

surgents

Its effect upon the act of carrying on war on the high seas

Its effect upon commercial contracts..

It was followed by systematic contributions in aid of the insurgents

The United States suffered great injuries

11

12

Which resulted from aid and assistance originating in British jurisdic-

tion

12

This aid was organized, systematic, and official

13

Nature of the injuries inflicted on the United States.

13

They form the subject of this arbitration!.

No nation but Great Britain instrumental in inflicting them.

Provisions of the Treaty of Washington respecting the arbitration..

Description of the claims

13

14

14

14

The authority of the Tribunal absolute for their determination

Its award will be final...

16

16

JUL 24:61

Page.

III. GENERAL DISCUSSION OF QUESTIONS OF LAW:

Contention of United States regarding failure of Great Britain to main-

tain neutrality....

Responsibility resulting from such failure.

Scope of the submission....

Meaning of the language "all claims growing out of the acts of the

cruisers".

17

18

18

18

Great Britain guilty of culpable negligence, even when measuring its du-

ties by the Foreign-Enlistment Act

19

International duties independent of municipal law.

19

Defects of Foreign-Enlistment Act

19

They might have been remedied..

20

Great Britain legally responsible to United States..

Legal theory of United States respecting questions at issue.

Right to make war...

These are not questions of neutrality.

Sir R. Phillimore's authority cited.....

Responsibility of Sovereign for violation of neutrality

Constitutional inabilities cannot be pleaded in answer to a charge of

such violation......

Alleged constitutional inability of Great Britain examined

The prerogative power of the Crown

IV. MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS:

......

Many irrelevant matters in the British Case and Counter Case.

Its treatment of the British Foreign-Enlistment Act of 1819

20

20

20

22

Its comparison between the British and American acts unjust

The Government of the United States has always been anxious to possess
legislative powers sufficient for the performance of its duties as a neu-
tral.....

The history of the United States as a neutral a part of the British plead-

ings

38

38

Neutrality toward Great Britain during President Washington's

administration ..

40

The course of Great Britain as a belligerent toward neutrals

Orders in Council

IV. MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS-Continued.

John Laird as a witness. (Note)

Purchase of arms. (Note)

V.-STATEMENT OF SOME GENERAL FACTS PERTINENT TO THE INQUIRY AND

APPLICABLE TO EACH CRUISER.

The British response no denial

Rejoinder to the British response..

Résumé of facts stated in the American Case to establish the unfriendly
animus of the British Government and people..

Relevancy of the facts to the issue.

Lord Westbury.

Mr. Montague Bernard

Earl Russell..

The British Case...

The facts stated in the American Case to be considered as proved.

The proofs submitted with the American Case of the systematic and of-

ficial use of British territory by the insurgents with the knowledge of

Great Britain

These facts also to be taken as proved...

VI. THE FLORIDA.

At Liverpool.

Information by Mr. Adams.

Action of Her Majesty's Government..

She was then evidently a man-of-war.

Character of Mr. Adams's representation.

Action of the British Government....

What might have been done..

What actually was done

Registry of the Florida..

Clearance.

Résumé.

Negligence of British officials..

What might have been done under the Merchants' Shipping-Act..

Arrival at Nassau..

55

56

57

57

57

57

58

59

60

60

60

61

Conduct of British officials there.

Want of due diligence..

Judicial proceedings at Nassau.

Partial and unfriendly conduct of the Colonial Authorities.

Seizure of the Florida..

Trial and release; the criticisms on these proceedings in the American

Case are sustained..

Armament of the Florida

At Cardenas, at Mobile..

At Nassau, January 25, 1863; receives coal, supplies, and recruitments..

At Barbados, February 24, 1863; receives coal and repairs..

At Pernambuco

At Bermuda, July 15, 1863; repairs and coals..

At Brest; receives recruits and new machinery from Liverpool.

Mr. Adams gives information respecting the Alabama June 23, 1862.

Referred to Law-Officers of the Crown..

Mr. Adams informed that the American Consul may submit evidence to
the Collector at Liverpool

The Consul directed to furnish information to the Collector..

Conduct of the Collector.

He does so ..

He declines to act....

Mr. Adams instructs the Consul to continue to collect proof...

The Consul does so, and presents it to the Collector, with a request to

seize the vessel

Law-Advisers of the Customs.