for the purpose of facilitating the operations of the enemies of the United States."

*

To this Earl Russell replied "that Her Majesty's Government are advised, that although the proceedings of the steamer Confederate States, formerly Laurel, may have rendered her liable to capture [454] on the high seas by the cruisers of the United States, she has not, so far as is known, committed any offense punishable by British law."

From all these various facts, the United States ask the Tribunal of Arbitration to find and certify as to the Shenandoah, that Great Britain has, by its acts and by its omissions, failed to fulfill its duties set forth in the three rules of the Treaty of Washington, or recognized by the principles of law not inconsistent with such rules. Should the Tribunal exercise the power conferred upon it by the seventh article of the Treaty, to award a sum in gross to be paid to the United States, they ask that, in considering the amount to be awarded, the losses in the destruction of vessels and their cargoes by the Shenandoah, and the expense to which the United States were put in the pursuit of it, may be taken into account.

Summary.

In the course of the long discussions between the two Governments, which followed the close of the insurrection, it became the duty of Mr. Adams to make a summary of the points which he maintained had been established by the United States. in the following language, addressed to Earl Russell :3 *"It was my wish to maintain

This he did

[455]

"1. That the act of recognition by Her Majesty's Government of insurgents as belligerents on the high seas before they had a single vessel afloat was precipitate and unprecedented.

"2. That it had the effect of creating these parties belligerents after the recognition, instead of merely acknowledging an existing fact. "3. That this creation has been since effected exclusively from the ports of Her Majesty's Kingdom and its dependencies, with the aid and co-operation of Her Majesty's subjects.

"4. That during the whole course of the struggle in America, of nearly four years in duration, there has been no appearance of the insurgents as a belligerent on the ocean excepting in the shape of British vessels, constructed, equipped, supplied, manned, and armed in British ports.

"5. That during the same period it has been the constant and persistent endeavor of my Government to remonstrate in every possible form against this abuse of the neutrality of this Kingdom, and to call upon Her Majesty's Government to exercise the necessary powers to put an effective stop to it.

"6. That although the desire of Her Majesty's Ministers to exert themselves in the suppression of these abuses is freely acknowledged, the efforts *which they made proved in a great degree [456] powerless, from the inefficiency of the law on which they relied, and from their absolute refusal, when solicited, to procure additional powers to attain the objects.

"7. That, by reason of the failure to check this flagrant abuse of neutrality, the issue from British ports of a number of British vessels, with the aid of the recognition of their belligerent character in all the ports of Her Majesty's dependencies around the globe, has resulted in the

1 Vol. III, page 339. 2 Vol. III, page 341. 3 Vol. III, page 533.

burning and destroying on the ocean of a large number of merchantvessels, and a very large amount of property belonging to the people of the United States.

"8. That, in addition to this direct injury, the action of these Britishbuilt, manned, and armed vessels has had the indirect effect of driving from the sea a large portion of the commercial marine of the United States, and to a corresponding extent enlarging that of Great Britain, thus enabling one portion of the British people to derive an unjust advantage from the wrong committed on a friendly nation by another portion.

"9. That the injuries thus received by a country which has meanwhile sedulously endeavored to perform all its obligations owing to the imperfection of the legal means at hand to prevent them, as well as the [457] unwillingness to seek for more *stringent powers, are of so grave a nature as in reason and justice to constitute a valid claim for reparation and indemnification."

The United States, with confidence, maintain that every point thus asserted by Mr. Adams has been established by the proof hereinbefore referred to. In leaving in the hands of the Tribunal this part of their Case, they think it no impropriety earnestly to call attention to the magnitude of the issues to be decided.

Many a vindictive and bloody war has grown out of less provocation than the United States thus suffered from a nation with which they supposed that they were holding friendly relations. On the 4th of July, 1777, during the war of the American Revolution, Lord Stormont was instructed to say to the French Ministers that "the shelter given to the armed vessels of the rebels, the facility they have of disposing of their prizes by the connivance of the Government, and the conveniences allowed them to refit, are such irrefragable proofs of support, that scarcely more could be done if there was an avowed alliance between. France and them, and that we were in a state of war with that Kingdom." He was also directed to say that however desirous of maintain

ing the peace, His Britannic Majesty could not, "from his respect [458] to his honor and his regard to the interest of his trading *sub

jects, submit to such strong and public instances of support and protection shown to the rebels by a nation that at the same time professes in the strongest terms its desire to maintain the present harmony subsisting between the two Crowns."1

The injuries inflicted upon the United States during the insurrection, under the cover of professions of friendship, are well described in this language of the Ministers of George III, except that the insurgents were allowed to burn, instead of assisted to dispose of their prizes. But the United States, although just emerging from a successful war, with all the appliances of destruction in their grasp, preferred to await a better state of feeling in Great Britain, rather than follow the example of that Government in resorting to war. The time came when Her Majesty's Government felt that it would not be derogatory to the ele vated position of their Sovereign to express regret for the escape of the cruisers and for the depredations which they committed. The United States, receiving this expression of regret in the spirit in which it was made, stand before this Tribunal of Arbitration to abide its judgment.

If the facts which they bring here constitute, in the opinion of the Tribunal, no just cause for claim against Great Britain, they must

1 Vol. III, page-599.

bow to the *decision. But if, on the other hand, Great Britain [459] shall not be able to explain to their complete satisfaction the charges and the proof which they present, the United States will count upon an award to the full extent of their demand. They feel that it is their duty to insist before this August Body, not only in their own interest, but for the sake of the future peace of the world, that it is not a just performance of the duties of a neutral to permit a belligerent to carry on organized war from its territories against a Power with which the neutral is at peace.

If this Tribunal shall hold that combined operations like those of Bullock, Fraser, Trenholm & Co., Huse, Heyliger, and others, (which in the judgment of the United States constituted an organized war,) are legitimate, their decision will, in the opinion of the United States, lay the foundation for endless dissensions ar wars.

If wrongs like those which the United States suffered are held by this Tribunal to be no violation of the duties which one nation owes to another, the rules of the Treaty of Washington can have little effective force, and there will be little inducement for nations in future to adopt the peaceful method of arbitration for the settlement of their differ

ences.

If it was right to furnish the Nashville at Ber*muda with a [460] full supply of coal, sufficient to carry her to Southampton, instead of what might be necessary for her return to Charleston, the United States and the other maritime nations must accept the doctrine in the 'future.

If there was no violation of international duty in receiving the Sumter at Trinidad, and in supplying her with the fuel necessary to enable her to continue her career of destruction, instead of giving her what was requisite, with her sailing power, to enable her to return to New Orleans or Galveston, it is important that the maritime Powers. should know it.

If recognized vessels of war, like the Sumter and the Georgia, may be lawfully sold in a neutral port during time of war, the United States, as a nation whose normal condition is one of neutrality, accept the doctrine.

If the duties of a neutral in preventing, within its territory, the construction, arming, equipping, or fitting out of vessels by one belligerent, which may be intended to cruise against the other belligerent, or the furnishing of arms or military supplies to such vessel, or the recruitment of men for such belligerent, are to be limited to the exercise of the powers conferred upon the neutral Government by municipal law, the United States, with their extended frontier on both oceans, have more *interest than any other maritime Power in recogniz- [461] ing that fact.

If the recognition of belligerency by a neutral, in favor of an organized insurrection, authorizes a so-called Government of insurrectionists. to issue commissions, which are to protect vessels that may have violated the sovereignty of the neutral from examination, inquiry, or punishment by the neutral authorities when again within their jurisdiction, the United States, and other nations here represented, must hold themselves at liberty in future to conform to such measure of duty, in that respect, as may be indicated by this Tribunal.

If Georgias, Alabamas, Floridas, and Shenandoahs may be allowed to go out from neutral ports without violations of international duty, to prey upon the commerce of friendly nations; if it be no offense to recruit men for them and to send the recruits to join them in Alars,

Bermudas, Bahamas, and Laurels, the United States as a neutral will be relieved, when other States are at war, from a great part of the difficulties they encounter in watching a long line of coast.

If Tallahassees and Chickamaugas may be constructed in neutral territory, without violation of international duty, to serve as it may suit

the pleasure of a belligerent, alternately either as blockade[462] runners or as men-of-war, those maritime *nations whose normal condition is one of neutrality need not regret such a doctrine, when viewed, not in the light of principle, but as affecting their pecuniary interests.

And if it be no offense, as in the case of the Retribution, to take a cap. tured cargo into a neutral port, and there to dispose of it with the knowl edge and without the interference of the local magistracy, the maritime Powers, knowing that such buccaneering customs are to be permitted, will be the better able to guard against them.

It will depend upon this Tribunal to say whether any or all of these precedents are to be sanctioned and are to stand for future guidance.

The United States, in closing this branch of the Case, desire to call the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that they came out from this long and bloody contest without serious cause of other nations complaint against any nation except Great Britain.

con

The conduct of trasted with that of Great Britain.

The Executives of other nations issued notices to their citizens or subjects, enjoining upon them to remain neutral in the contest.

Belgium issued a 'notice on the 25th of June, 1861, warning [463] Belgians against engaging as privateers. The United States had never any cause of complaint in this respect against Belgium. The Emperor of the French, on the 10th of June, 1861, issued a proclamation commanding his subjects to "maintain a strict neutrality in the struggle entered. upon between the Government of the Union and the States which pretended to form a separate confederation." The United States refer to the foregoing recital of the proceedings against Mr. Arman's vessels, as a proof of the fidelity with which the Imperial Government maintained the neutrality which it imposed upon its subjects. The Government of the Netherlands forbade privateers to enter its ports, and warned the inhabitants of the Netherlands and the King's subjects abroad not to accept letters of marque. The United States have no knowledge that these directions were disobeyed.

3

The Government of Portugal shut the harbors of the Portuguese dominions against privateers and their prizes. Of this the United States had no complaint to make. At a later period that Government went so far as to forbid the coaling of any steamer designing to violate the

blockade," and to "require a bond to be given, before allowing [464] *coals to be furnished at all, that the ship receiving the supply will not run the blockade."5 When the insurgent iron-clad Stonewall came into Lisbon Harbor in March, 1865, it was ordered to leave in twenty-four hours. The United States bear willing testimony to this honorable conduct of Portugal.

The Prussian Government announced that it would not protect its shipping or its subjects who might take letters of marque, share in pri

1 Vol. IV, page 3.

3 Vol. IV, page 6.

Vol. IV, page 7.

Mr. Harvey to Mr. Seward, Diplomatic Correspondence, 1864, part 4, page 296. Same to same, Diplomatic Correspondence, 1865, part 3, page 109.

vateering enterprises, carry merchandise of war, or forward dispatches.1 The United States have no reason to suppose that the subjects of the King of Prussia departed from the line of duty thus indicated.

The Russian Government ordered that even "the flag of men-of-war belonging to the seceded States must not be saluted."

Spain followed France in the track of England,3 but care was taken to avoid, in the Royal Proclamation, the use of the word "belligerents."* It has been seen with what fidelity and impartiality the authorities at Cardenas carried out the letter and the spirit of this proclamation, when the *Florida arrived there from Nassau, in the sum- [465] mer of 1862.

The Emperor of Brazil required his subjects to observe a strict neutrality; and his Government informed them what acts of the belligerents would forfeit the right of hospitality. It was ordered that "a belligerent who has once violated neutrality shall not be admitted into the ports of the Empire;" and that "vessels which may attempt to violate neutrality shall be compelled to leave the maritime territory immediately, and they shall be allowed to procure no supplies." These rules were enforced. The Alabama was refused the hospitality of Brazilian ports in consequence of violations of the neutrality which the Emperor had determined to maintain. When the Tuscaloosa came to St. Catharine's from Simon's Bay, in November, 1863, she was refused supplies and ordered to leave, because she was a tender and prize of the Alabama, and was tainted by the acts of that vessel. The commander of the Shenandoah boarded a vessel between Cardiff and Bahia, opened the manifest, and broke the seal of the Brazilian Consul; for this act his vessel, and any vessel which he might command, were excluded from Brazilian ports. The Imperial Government, in all these. proceedings, appeared desirous *of asserting its sovereignty, and [466] of maintaining an honest neutrality.

5

Mr. Fish, in one of his first utterances after he became Secretary of State, expressed the sense which the United States entertained of this difference between the conduct of Great Britain and that of other nations. "There were other Powers," he said, "that were contemporaneous with England in similar concessions; but it was in England only that that concession was supplemented by acts causing direct damage to the United States. The President is careful to make this discrimination, because he is anxious, as much as possible, to simplify the case, and to bring into view these subsequent acts, which are so important in determining the question between the two.countries.""