Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

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

RESPECTIVE AGENTS OR COUNSEL.

[graphic][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][merged small]
[ocr errors][ocr errors]

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

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...

Nov-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

Which resulted from aid and assistance originating in British jurisdic-

[ocr errors]

tion

This aid was organized, systematic, and official

Nature of the injuries inflicted on the United States.

No nation but Great Britain instrumental in inflicting them..

They form the subject of this arbitration!.

Provisions of the Treaty of Washington respecting the arbitration.

Description of the claims

The Rules of the Treaty

The provisions of Article VII

Effect of an award..

The measure of indemnity claimed

The claims preferred are national

The authority of the Tribunal absolute for their determination

Its award will be final......

JUL 24:61

12

13

13

13

14

14

14

15

15

15

16

16

16

16

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".

Contentions of Great Britain.

Proposed course of argument.

General considerations of law.

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

ties by the Foreign-Enlistment Act.

International duties independent of municipal law.

Defects of Foreign-Enlistment Act

They might have been remedied..

These are not questions of neutrality,

Great Britain legally responsible to United States.

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

Legal theory of United States respecting questions at issue.

Right to mak

Right to give cause for war.

What may be cause.

Neutrality

War, what it is...

Sales of arms and contraband of war.

Dispatch of armed vessels....

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

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..

Disinclination of Parliament to legislate on the subject.

Legislation of other countries..

Distinction between prevention and punishment.

France...

Italy -

Switzerland

Brazil

Portugal

Spain

Belgium and Holland

Russia and Prussia

Denmark and Sweden

Comparative review..

Conclusions.

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

ings

Its relevancy denied..

Neutrality toward Great Britain during President Washington's

administration

Expedition of Miranda

Revolt of Spanish-American colonies

War between Portugal and the Banda Oriental.

Walker's expedition..

Cuba ...

Fenians..

British enlistments during the Crimean War.

The course of Great Britain as a belligerent toward neutrals

Orders in Council

Course toward France during the American Revolution

Course toward the Netherlands

General obligations of neutrals

[blocks in formation]

IV.-MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS-Continued.

John Laird as a witness. (Note)

51

Purchase of arms. (Note)

51

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

APPLICABLE TO EACH CRUISER.

Résumé of facts stated in the American Case to establish the unfriendly

animus of the British Government and people.

52

The British response no denial

52

Rejoinder to the British response..

53

Relevancy of the facts to the issue.

53

Lord Westbury:

54

Mr. Montague Bernard

54

Earl Russell..

54

The British Case...

55

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

55

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

55

These facts also to be taken as proved..

56

VI.--THE FLORIDA..

57

At Liverpool.

57

Information by Mr. Adams.

57

Action of Her Majesty's Government

57

She was then evidently a man-of-war.

58

Character of Mr. Adams's representation.

59

Action of the British Government..

60

What might have been done..

60

What actually was done ..

60

Registry of the Florida..

61

Clearance..

Résumé

Negligence of British officials...

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

64

Arrival at Nassau..

66

Conduct of British officials there.

66

Want of due diligence....

66

Judicial proceedings at Nassau.

67

Partial and unfriendly conduct of the Colonial Authorities.

69

Seizure of the Florida..

73

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

Case are sustained..

75

Armament of the Florida

75

At Cardenas, at Mobile..

76

At Nassau, January 25, 1863; receives coal, supplies, and recruitments.. 77

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

77

At Pernambuco

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

At Brest; receives recruits and new machinery from Liverpool.

78

At Martinique

At Bahia...

79

Her tenders.

79

VII.-THE ALABAMA

80

Her adaptation to war is not disputed.

80

The question to be decided..

80

Mr. Adams gives information respecting the Alabama June 23, 1862. 81

Referred to Law Officers of the Crown..

82

Their action upon it...

82

Proceedings of Customs Authorities..

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

the Collector at Liverpool

84

The Consul directed to furnish information to the Collector..

85

He does so

85

Conduct of the Collector.

86

He declines to act...

87

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.

« AnteriorContinuar »