« AnteriorContinuar »
These facts throw
Yet in three notable instances this salutary rule was violated, that of the Nashville, at Bermuda, in February, 1862; the Florida, at Barbadoes, in February, 1863; and the Alabama, at Capetown, in March, 1864. These admitted facts were repeatedly, and in detail, brought to the
notice of the British Government, and as repeatedly the suspicion upon the answer was given that there was no cause for interference. cials toward insur. At length they were, as a system, brought to Lord Russell's
attention, by Mr. Adams, with the threads of evidence, which furnished him with the proof of their truth. Yet he declined to act, saying that “this correspondence does not appear *to Her Majesty's Government to contain any sufficient evidence  of a system of action in direct liostility to the United States;" that it furnished no proof as to the building of iron-clads that could form matter for a criminal prosecution;" and that the other acts complained of were not contrary to law.” In other words, he declared that the only international offense of which Her Majesty's Government would take notice was the building of iron-clads; and that no steps would be taken, even against persons guilty of that violation of neutrality, until the officials of the United States would act the part of detectives, and secure the proof which a British court could hold competent to convict the offender of a violation of a local law. It is important, in considering the evidence which is about to be referred to, to bear in miyd these constant demonstrations of partiality for the insurgents. They show a persistent absence of real neutrality, which, to say the least, should throw suspicion upon the acts of the British officials as to those vessels, and should incline the Tribunal to closely scrutinize their conduct. The United States, however, go further than this. They insist that
Her Majesty's Government abandoned, in advance, abnczation of all die the exercise of that due * diligence which the Treaty 
of Washington declares that a neutral is bound to observe. They say that the position of Her Majesty's Government just cited, taken in connection with the construction put upon the Foreign Eplistment Act by the British courts in the Alexandra case, was a practical abandonment of all obligation to observe diligence in preventing the use of British territory by the insurgents, for purposes hostile to the United States. They aver that it was a notice to them that no complaints in this respect would be listened to, which were not accompanied by proof sufficient to convict the offender as a criminal under the Foreign Enlistment Act. To furnish such proof was simply impossible. The Tribunal will remember that it was judicially said in the
case of the Alexandra, that what had been done in the
the matter of the Alabama was no violation of British law, and show that the act therefore constituted no offense to be punished. Well
might Earl Russell say that the Oreto and the Alabama
were a scandal to English laws. The United States with great confidence assert that the facts which have been established justity them in asking the Tribunal of Arbitration, in the investigations now about to be made, to assume that in the violations of neutrality which will be shown to have taken place, the burden of proof * will be upon Great Britain to establish that  they could not have been prevented. Her Majesty's Government declined to investigate charges and to examine evidence submitted by Mr. Adams, as to repeated violations of British territory, which subsequent events show were true in every respect. It placed its refusal
gence to prevent the acta complained of.
They throw upon Great Britain
complained of could not have been prevented.
* Earl Russell to Mr. Adams, Vol. I, page 578.
upon principles which must inevitably lead to like disregard in futureprinciples which rendered nugatory thereafter any measure of diligence to discover violations of neutrality within Her Majesty's dominions. Thereby Great Britain assumed and justified all similar acts which had been or might be committed, and relieved the United States from the necessity of showing that due diligence was not exercised to prevent them.
Of what use was it to exercise diligence to show the purpose for which the Florida, the Alabama, or the Georgia was constructed, or the Shenandoah was purchased, if the constructing, fitting out, or equipping, or the purchase for such objects was lawful, and could not be interfered with? What diligence could have prevented the excessive supplies of coal and other hospitalities to the insurgent cruisers, or the protection of transports, all of which made these ports bases of operations, if such acts were no violation of the duties of a neutral, of which the
United States might justly complain!  *The cruisers for whose acts the United States ask this Tribunal
to hold Great Britain responsible are (stating them in the order in which their cruises began) the Suinter; the sent cruisers. Nashville; the Florida and her tenders, the Clarence, the Tacony, and the Archer; the Alabama and her tender, the Tuscaloosa; the Retribu. tion; the Georgia; the Tallahassee; the Chickamauga; and the Shenandoab. The attention of the Tribunal of Arbitration is now invited to an account of each of these vessels.
List of the insur
The Sumter escaped from the passes of the Mississippi on the 30th of June, 1861, and on the 30th of the following July arrived at the British port of Trinidad. She remained there six days, taking in a supply of coal. Complaint being made of this act as a violation of Her Majesty's Proclamation of Neutrality, Lord Russell replied, that the conduct of the Governor was in conformity to Her Majesty's Proclamation;" that “Captain Hillyar, of Her Majesty's Ship Cadmus, having sent a boat to ascertain her nationality, the com
manding officer showed a commission signed by Mr. Jefferson  Davis, calling himself the Presi*dent of the so-styled Confederate
States.93 Her Majesty's Government thus held this vessel to be a man-of-war as early as the 30th of July, 1861.
Having got a full supply of coal and other necessary outfit, the Sumter sailed on the 5th of August, 1861, and, after a cruise in which she destroyed six vessels carrying the flag of the United States, she arrived in Gibraltar on the 18th of the following January. Before she could again be supplied with coal and leave that port, she was shut in by the arrival of the Tuscarora, a vessel of war of the United States, which " anchored off Algeciras.94 The Tuscarora was soon followed by the Kearsarge, both under the instructions of the Government of the United States.
Finding it impossible to escape, an attempt was made to sell the Sumter, with her armament, for £4,000.5 The consul of the United States at Gibraltar, by direction of Mr. Adams, protested against this sale. The sale was finally made by public auction” on the 19th of December, 1862. Mr. Adams notified Earl Russell that the sale would not be recognized by the United States, and called upon Great Britain not to regard it, as it had been made in violation of principles of law that had been *adopted by British courts and publicists. He  maintained that “Her Majesty's Government, in furnishing shelter for so long a period to the Sumter in the harbor of Gibraltar, as a ship of war of a belligerent, lad determined the character of the vessel ;4 and that the purchase of ships of war belonging to enemies is held in the British courts to be invalid.95
Bernard to Seward, Vol. II, page 485.
5 Sprague to Adams, Vol. II, page 507. S. Ex. 319
After reflecting upon this simple proposition for more than five weeks, Earl Russell denied it. He said, “The British Government, when neutral, is not bound to refuse to a British subject the right to acquire by purchase a vessel which a belligerent owner may desire to part with, but it would not deny the right of the adverse belligerent to ascertain, if such vessel were captured by its cruisers, whether the vessel lad rightfully, according to the law of nations, come into the possession of the neutral.6 Mr. Adams also maintained that the sale was fictitious, to which Earl Russell replied that he could not assume that the Sumter had not been legally and bona fide sold to a British owner for commercial and peaceful purposes.98 Nr. Adams insisted (and the result proved that he *was correct) that the sale of the Sumter was  fictitious, and that the purchaser was an agent of Fraser, Trenholm & Co., the treasury agents and depositaries, &c., for the insurgent authorities at Richmond. His representations were disregarded, and the vessel was taken to Liverpool and thoroughly repaired. She then took on board a cargo of arms and munitions of war, and, under the the name of the Gibraltar, fortified with a British register, became an insurgent transport.10
In all these proceedings on the part of British officials the United States find a partiality toward the insurgents, which is inconsistent with the duties of a neutral:
1. The Sumter was permitted to receive at Trinidad a full supply of coal. The United States, however, were forbidden by Great Britain even to deposit coal in the British West Indies for their own use, under such regulations as might be prescribed by Her Majesty's Government. What took place at Nassau in December, 1861, has already been told. In Bermuda, on the 19th of February, (1862, their consul was offi. cially informed that the Government of Her Britannic Majesty *had determined not to allow the formation in any British colony  of a coal-depot for the use of their vessels of war, either by the Government of the United States or of the so-styled Confederate States."
Sprague to Codrington, Vol. II, page 509. 2 Sprague to Adams, Vol. II, page 515. 3 Adams to Russell, Vol. II, page 522. 4 Adams to Russell, Vol. II, page 523. 6 Adams to Russell, Vol. II, page 522.
issell to Adams, Vol. II, page 526. 7 Adans to Russell, Vol. II, page 520. 8 Russell to Adams, Vol. II, page 321.
9 The nominal purchasers were M. G. Klingerder & Co., (Vol. II, page 529.) Thi honse was connected with Fraser, Trenholm & Co., and paid regularly a portion of th wages of the men on the Alabama to their families in Liverpool. (See Dudley to Adams, Vol. III, page 210.)
10 Vol. II, pages 521-538.
11 Ord to Allen, Vol. II, page 590. See also the reports of the officers of the Keystone and the Quaker City, who, in December, 1861, were refused supplies of coal at this port. Vol. VI, pages 52 and 53. See also the case of the Florida, post, where this subject is more fully discussed.
Before this Case is finished it will be seen how thoroughly this determination was disregarded as to the "so-styled Confederate States."
If it should be thought that the habitually insincere neutrality of Great Britain, as already detailed, did not constitute such a violation of the duties of a neutral as would entail responsibility for the acts of all the insurgent cruisers, (which the United States, with confidence, maintain that it did,) it is clear that the Sumter was furnished with au excessive supply of coal at Trinidad, which supply enabled her to inflict the subsequent injuries on the commerce of the United States. It is not contended that at that time there were any precedents which settled absolutely the quantity of coal which might be furnished to a belligerent steam man-of-war by a neutral. When the proclamation of neutrality was issued, it seemed to be the opinion of leading members of
the House of Lords, (Lords Brougham and Kingsdown, for (325) instance,) that coal for the use of vessels of war *might be
regarded as contraband of war. The instructions issued by Fler Majesty's Government a few months later permitted this article to be furnished, provided the supply should be measured by the capacity of the vessel to consume it, and should be limited to what might be necessary to take it to the nearest port of its own country, or to some nearer destination. This rule, as subsequently modified by the United States, appears to be a just medium between the excessive supply furnished to the Sumter in Trinidad and the absolute refusal to permit the United States to supply itself. Under this rule the Sumter would have been entitled to receive only what would be necessary to take her to New Orleans or to Galveston.
2. The Sumter was in the port of Gibraltar when the instructions of Jannary 16, 1862, (Vol. IV, p. 175;) were published there, on the 11th February. By their terms they were to go into effect six days after
that date. Under those instructions the Sumter, having been rec ognized as a man-of-war, ought to have been required to * leave
the port of Gibraltar within twenty-four hours, or, if without coal, within twenty-four bours after getting a supply of coal. Instead of that she was allowed to remain there for twelve months, while Lord Russull's instructions were rigidly enforced against the vessels of the United States. The reason for this partiality may be easily gathered from the correspondence of the United States Consul at Gibraltar. The vessels of war of the United States were on her track, and had the instructions of Earl Russell been complied with, the well-laid schemes of the United States officers for her destruction would have been successful. But the Tribuval will observe that the instructions, which were so offensively eatorced against the United States vessels Connecticut and Honduras, were ignored as to the insurgent vessel Sumter.
3. The sale of the Sumter was palpably an evasion. She went into the hands of Fraser, Trenbolm & Co.; and, knowing the connection between that firm and the insurgents, it is not too much to ask the Tribunal to assume as a probability that there was never any change of ownership. But if it should be thought that the transaction was made bona fide, then there is an equal proabability that the money found its
i Vol. IV, pp. 486–191.
* The President's Proclamation of October 8, 1870, issued during the Franco-German war, Jinted the supply of coal to the war vessels or privateers of the belligerents to so much as might be sufficient, if without sail-power, to carry the vessel to the nearest European port of its own country; if with sail-power, to half that quantity.
: Vol. II, pages 502, 503.
way to the *credit of the insurgents in their Liverpool trans-  actions.
By reason of these repeated acts of insincere neutrality, or of actual disregard of the duties of a neutral, the United States were great sufferers. Before arriving at Trinidad the Sumter captured eleven Ameri. can vessels. After leaving that port, and before arriving at Gibraltar, she captured six other vessels belonging to citizens of the United States. The injury did not stop there. The United States made diligent efforts to capture this vessel which was destroying their commerce. For this purpose they dispatched across the Atlantic two of their men-of-war, the Kearsarge and the Tuscarora. These vessels followed on the track of the Sumter, and the plans of the United States would have been successful had Earl Russell's instructions of January 31, 1862, been carried out toward the Sumter in the port of Gibraltar, as they were carried out toward the vessels of the United States in all the colonial ports of Great Britain.
Under these circumstances, the United States ask the Tribunal to find and certify as to the Sumter that Great Britain, by the acts or omissions hereinbefore recited or referred to, failed to fulfill the duties set forth in the three rules in Article *VI of the Treaty of Washing.  ton, or recognized by the principles of International Law not inconsistent with such rulesShould the Tribunal exercise the power conferred upon it by Article VII of the Treaty, to award a sum in gross to be paid to the United States, they will ask that, in considering the amount so to be awarded, the losses of individuals in the destruction of their vessels and cargoes by the Sumter, and also the expense to which the United States were put in the pursuit of that vessel, may be taken into account.
The Nashville, a large paddle-wheel steamer, formerly engaged on the
New York and Charleston line, lightened to diminish her
draught, armed with two guns, and commanded by an officer who had been in the Navy of the United States, ran out from Charleston on the night of the 26th of October, 1861. She arrived at the British port of St. George, Bermuda, on the afternoon of the 30th? of the same month, having been about three and a half days making the passage. She took on board there, by the permission of the Governor, six hundred tons of coal, and this act was approved by Her Ma*jesty's prin-  cipal Secretary of State for the Colonies. This approval seems to have been elicited by the complaints which had been made to the Governor by the Consul of the United States at that port. It may also be that Her Majesty's Government preferred to have the question settled, before it could be made the subject of diplomatic representation on the part of the United States.
In view of the rule as to supplies of coal which was soon after adopted by Her Majesty's Government, the United States insist, as they have already insisted in regard to the Sumter, that a supply of six hundred
1 Bernard to Seward, Vol. II, page 485.
Bernard's Neutrality of Great Britain, page 267. 3 Wells to Seward, Vol. II, page 538. * Governor Ord to the Duke of Newcastle, Vol. II, page 557. 6 Duke of Newcastle to Governor Ord, Vol. II, page 558. . Wells to Ord, Vol. II, page 539.