Geneva arbitration - United States. Department of State - Google Libros

Búsqueda Imágenes Maps Play YouTube Noticias Gmail Drive Más »

Iniciar sesión

Libros

Imágenes de página

XIII -NATURE AND AMOUNT OF DAMAGES, &c.-Continued.

Reasons for calling all the claims Alabama Claims.

In April, 1865, the United States renew discussion..

Responsibility of Great Britain re-asserted....

Denial of liability..

May, 1865, the United States classify claims as

indirect," and demand reparation for all....

Great Britain denies liability for indirect and refuses arbitra-

tion for direct claims...

Lord Granville thinks it admits unlimited argument as to the

extent of the Alabama Claims....

This Convention not acceptable to the United States..

Mr. Johnson informs Lord Clarendon that the United States

have claims of their own on Great Britain...

Sir Edward Thornton advises Lord Clarendon that the Conven-

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

clude the indirect claims...

Mr. Motley informs Lord Clarendon that the United States do

not abandon the national claims.

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

ficient redress for the national injuries....

The indirect claims as considered by Lord Clarendon..

President's message to Congress December, 1869.......

In January, 1871, the words "Alabama Claims" were understood

to include all claims of United States against Great Britain,

both national and individual....

Negotiations opened at Washington...

Reasons which induced those negotiations..

Preliminary proposals and correspondence..

The proposed commission to treat of the "Alabama Claims”.

United States Commissioners appointed and confirmed on the

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

"The Alabama Claims," the American Commissioners state their

understanding of the meaning of those words....

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

[blocks in formation]

Without exception to the definition of the term "Alabama

[blocks in formation]

Lord Cairns says the indirect claims included in the Treaty

XIII.-NATURE AND AMOUNT OF DAMAGES, &c.-continued.

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

High Commissioners

Long delay in objecting to it by Great Britain.

Supposed concessions to United States in the Treaty.

Rules for measuring damages

Expression of regret..

Lord Granville's speech....

Explanation of the misunderstanding.

Arbitration takes the place of war

The Tribunal the judge of its own powers.

Pradier Fodéré..

Mr. Montague Bernard..

3. Measure of damages.

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

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

[blocks in formation]

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 sum 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

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...

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

BRITAIN REFERRED TO IN THE FOREGOING ARGUMENT

NOTE B.-EXTRACTS, &C.-Continued.

1. The Foreign-Enlistment Act of July 3, 1819..

2. Lord Althorp's motion for the repeal of the Foreign-Enlistment

NOTE C.-MEMORANDUM OF CORRESPONDENCE AND DOCUMENTS RELATING TO

THE AMENDMENT OF THE ENGLISH FOREIGN-ENLISTMENT ACT,

1861-71....

NOTE D.—CONSIDERATION OF THE CLAIMS ARISING IN THE DESTRUCTION OF

VESSELS AND PROPERTY BY THE SEVERAL CRUISERS .

Detailed statements have been presented..

With the evidence furnished by the claimants to support them...

The United States desire an award of a sum in gross on the evi-

dence presented....

242

British criticisms on this evidence..

The answer to such criticisms...

Prices obtained under forced sales no criterion.

Injustice of the British estimates of the value of the vessels de-

Whaling and fishing vessels..

Letter of Mr. Crapo..

Property destroyed.

Oil or fish destroyed on whalers or fishing-vessels.

Personal effects...

Claims of insurance companies..

No double claims supported by the United States..

Charter-parties or freights..

Loss of profits...

A part of the damages in actions in tort.

Breaking up voyages of whaling-vessels..

Claims of the officers and crews..

ARGUMENT OR SUMMARY, SHOWING THE POINTS AND REFERRING TO THE

EVIDENCE RELIED UPON BY THE GOVERNMENT OF HER BRITANNIC

MAJESTY IN ANSWER TO THE CLAIMS OF THE UNITED STATES PRE-

SENTED TO THE TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION CONSTITUTED UNDER

ARTICLE I OF THE TREATY CONCLUDED AT WASHINGTON ON THE 8TH

MAY, 1871, BETWEEN HER BRITANNIC MAJESTY AND THE UNITED

STATES OF AMERICA.

The Sumter, Nashville, Tallahassee, Chickamauga, and Retribution.

General principles of International Law in force when the facts occurred.

British law and powers of the Executive in Great Britain

Facts which must be proved before an award can be made against Great

ARGUMENT OF SUMMARY, &c.-Continued.

Conclusion as to the Florida, Alabama, Georgia, and Shenandoah

General course pursued by the British Government in regard to the represen-

tations made by Mr. Adams..

Charge that the armament of certain vessels was procured from Great Britain

Charge that the crews of certain vessels were partly composed of British

238

Review of the grounds on which the claims of the United States rest.
Character of the claims of the United States..

Charge as to Confederate Agencies in Great Britain for war purposes.

Complaint that Confederate cruisers visiting British ports were not seized

and detained..........

Complaint as to hospitalities accorded to Confederate cruisers in British

Observations on the principle and measure of compensation.

ANNEX A. COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN THE BRITISH AND AMERICAN GOV-

ERNMENTS DURING THE CIVIL WAR, WITH REFERENCE TO THE STATE OF

THE NEUTRALITY LAWS OF GREAT BRITAIN..

ANNEX B. FRENCH TRANSLATION OF THE THREE RULES IN ARTICLE VI

OF THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON.............

ANNEX C. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE APPOINTED BY THE BOARD OF

[blocks in formation]

Table No. 1. Showing progressive increase in the amount of claims

for losses incurred through the respective cruisers as stated at dif-

ferent periods...

Table No. 2. Showing the result of the corrections and re-appropria-

tions of the claims and the corresponding allowances in summa-

ries Nos. 1, 2, and 3, of First Report, in accordance with remarks

in present Report....

341

Table No. 3. Showing, under respective divisions of classes, interest,

and cruisers, the claims advanced under the Revised Statement,

together with the allowances to meet them

Table No. 4. Showing the vessels captured by the Alabama, the valu-

ation the captors placed on each vessel, the allowance deemed ad-

equate for each, &c..

ANNEX D. FURTHER NOTE ON THE CLAIM PRESENTED BY THE GOVERN-

MENT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR EXPENDITURE ALLEGED TO HAVE

BEEN INCURRED IN THE PURSUIT AND CAPTURE OF CONFEDERATE CRUIS-

ERS. EFFORTS MADE TO CAPTURE CONFEDERATE CRUISERS.

[blocks in formation]

Inadequacy and want of concert of United States naval force abroad, &c

Errors in the synopsis of orders

[blocks in formation]

SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENTS OR ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE RE-

SPECTIVE AGENTS OR COUNSEL SUBSEQUENTLY TO FILING THE

ARGUMENTS ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY.

Page.

I-STATEMENT OF SIR ROUNDELL PALMER, MADE AT THE SEVENTH CON-

FERENCE, ON THE 27TH JUNE, 1872..

Points upon which he desires further argument..

II. REPLY OF THE COUNSEL OF THE UNITED STATES IN RESPONSE TO THE

FOREGOING STATEMENT OF SIR ROUNDELL PALMER..

Reasons why further argument should not be ordered at this stage of

the proceedings

III. ARGUMENT OF SIR ROUNDELL PALMER ON THE QUESTION OF "DUE

DILIGENCE." "THE EFFECT OF COMMISSIONS UPON THE INSURGENT

CRUISERS," AND "THE SUPPLIES OF COAL TO SUCH CRUISERS IN BRITISH

1. On the question of Due Diligence generally considered

On the sources of the obligation...

Rules and principles of International Law,

Express or implied engagements of Great Britain.

Effect of prohibitory municipal laws

The three Rules of the Treaty of Washington.

General principles for finding what diligence is due.

The maxims cited by the United States from Sir R. Phillemore

For what purposes Great Britain refers to her municipal laws..

Doctrine of Tetens

Influence upon the question of diligence of the different forms

of National Governments

Objections to any theory of the diligence due from neutral Gov-

ernments which involves a universal hypothesis of arbitrary

Argument of the United States as to the necessity of a reliance

on prerogative.....

Argument as to prerogative powers belonging to the British

True doctrine as to powers of the Crown...

American view of an a priori obligation

The British Crown has power to use the forces of the realm to

stop acts of war within British territority

The assertion that Great Britain relies on punitive and not

preventive law disproved....

Preventive power of British law explained

The doubtful points as to the construction of the British For-

eign-Enlistment Act never affected the diligence of the British

Baron Bramwell's view of the international as distinct from

municipal obligation agreed with that of the American Attor-

ney-General in 1841....

On the arguments as to due diligence derived by the United

States from foreign laws...

On the comparison made by the United States between their

own laws and British laws...

Examination of the preventive powers of the American Govern-

ment under their acts of Congress for the preservation of neu-

Testimonies of Mr. Bemis and Mr. Seward on this subject........

Argument from the Foreign-Enlistment Act of 1870..

Illustrations of the doctrine of due diligence from the history

of the United States...

Arguments of the United States from suggested defects in the

administrative machinery of British law, and from the evi-

dence required by the British Government

Inconsistency of the Rules of the Treaty with the requirement

of diligence to prevent where there were not reasonable

grounds of belief.

The British Government took active and spontaneous measures

to acquire all proper information and to prevent breaches of

« Anterior Continuar »