Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed]

III. GENERAL DISCUSSION OF QU'ESTIONS 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 nieasuring 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 nentrality

Great Britain legally responsible to United States.

Sir R. Phillimore's anthority cited......

Legal theory of United States respecting questions at issue.

Right to make war..

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 anxions 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 relevaney 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..

40

41

12

44

44

44

45

46

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

('ourse toward the Netherlands

General obligations of neutrals

48

49

49

49

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.

At Martinique..

At Bahia....

Her tenders.

VII.-THE ALABAMA

Her adaptation to war is not disputed.

The question to be decided..

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

Referred to Law-Officers of the Crown..

Their action upon it..

Proceedings of Customs Authorities.
Mr. Adams informed that the American Consul may submit evidence to

the Collector at Liverpool
The Consul directed to furnish information to the Collector..

He does so

Conduct of the Collector..

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

.........

[ocr errors]

VII.—THE ALABAJA-Continued.

Proof submitted to the Treasury July 22

Also to Earl Russell..

Additional proof ...

Opinion of Mr. Collier.

Presented with affidavits to Commissioners of Customs July 23

Action of the Board....

Further evidence submitted by Mr. Adams...

Her Majesty's Government agree to keep a watch on the vessel.

The Law-Otticers think the vessel should be detained..

Illness of Sir John Harding.

Escape of the Alabama..

Inetticiency of the subsequent proceedings.

Earl Russell thinks this a scandal..

Mr. Cobden's views....

Want of due diligence; in what it consisted..

Armament from the Bahama..

At Martinique

Destroys the Hatteras..

At Jamaica, January 20, 1863; repairs and lands prisoners.

At Rata Island...

At Bahia...

Is excluded from Brazilian ports for violation of sovereignty of Brazil..

At Cape Town.

At Simon's Bay

The Tuscaloosa.

At Simon's Bay

At Singapore.

At Simon's Bay; coals and provisions.

Is destroyed by the Kearsarge June 19, 1361

Reasons wby Great Britain is responsible for acts of.

VIII.- THE GEORGIA....

At Glasgow

Notoriety of the construction and purposes of the Georgia

Registry, clearance, and departure.

The Alar...

Armanent of the Georgia....

Mr. Adams gives information to Earl Russoll..

Insutticient action of Her Majesty's Government.

At Bahia..

At Trinadi.

At Simon's Bay.

At Cherbourg

At Liverpool

Sale ....

IX.– THE SHINANDOAJI

General review of facis establishing want of due diligence.

Purchase of the Sea King

Her departure.

Departure of the Laurel with her crew and armament.

Armament of the Shenandoah..

Arrives at Melbourne..

Permission to coal and make repairs granted.

Protest of the Consul..

Unfriendly conduct of the Colony

Recruitment of men at Melbourne.

The Colonial Authorities informed of the contemplated recruitments, and

do not prevent them...

Their inefficient proceedings.

Further proof of recruiting furnished to the authorities..

They parley with the commander of the Shenandoah in place of acting..

Further information of contemplated recruitments..

Refusal of the Colonial Authorities to act......

Large recruitinents of men; departure from Melbourne

Excessive repairs at Melbourne

Coaling there excessive....

Contrast between the course of Brazilian and of British Authorities.

At Liverpool....

XI.-CONSIDERATION OF TILE DUTY OF GREAT BRITAIN, AS ESTABLISHED

AND RECOGNIZED BY TILE TREATY, IN REGARD TO THE OFFENDING

VESSELS, AND ITS FAILURE TO FULFILL THEM AS TO EACH OF Sun)

VESSELS..

Propositions of law....

Measure of international duty.

Rules of the Treaty imperative..

Application of the first Rule

Application of the second and third Rules....

These Rules constitute the law of this controversy.

Nothing admissible which diminishes their force..

The obligation of Great Britain to observe these Rules was an

international one....

This obligation not affected by internal distribution of powers

of British Government..

Nor by the institutions or habits of the British people....

Great Britain should have used seasonable, appropriate, and al-

equate means to preserve its nentrality

Which should have been available as soon as required

British syinpathy with insurgents an element to be considered

in preparing means..

Other elements to be considered.

The Means of fulfilling International Duty possessed by Great Britain..

Her Majesty's Government possessed full power for carrying out

its selected course of action...

The prerogative of the Crown..

Its exercise during the Rebellion.

Preventive power inseparable from the idea of executive

power

Peculiar advantages of Her Majesty's Government for the exer-

cise of executive power....

Omnipotence of Parliament....

The duty of Great Britain in its treatment of the offending vessels AFTER

their first illegal outfit and escape from British ports...

The privilege of exterritoriality accorded to a vessel of war is

political and discretionary.

It should not be acceded to a belligerent not recognized as a

polisical Power....

The only remedy against such belligerent in a case like the pres-

ent is the remedy against the vessels themselves..

Great Britain ought, therefore, to have seized the vessels.

Due diligence, as required by the three Rules of 'the Treaty and the prin-

ciples of international law not inconsistent therewith..

After proof of hostile acts on neutral territory the burden of

proof is on the neutral to show due diligence to prevent them.

Diligence not a technical word....

“Due” implies seasonableness, appropriateness, and adequate-

Objections to British definition of the term.

Judicial definitions by British and American Courts..

The United States do not desire a severe construction.

They do not propose to become guarantors of their people

The Arbitrators the judges of what constitutes due diligence...

154

154

ness

155

155

156

157

157

157
tional injuries"..

102
103
105

XII.—THE FALURE OF GREAT BRITIIN TO FULFILL ITS DUTIES, AS ESTAB-

LISHED AND RECOGNIZED BY THE TREATY, CONSIDERED UPON THE

Facts.

Considerations of general application...

The vessels concerning whose acts the contention is.

Failure of Great Britain to fulfill its obligations..

Negligence in obtaining information..

No general means of immediate action provided.

No general instructions to maintain vigilance...

No officers charged with instituting and maintaining proceedings..

No steps taken to break up the hostile system..

The idea of an international duty toward the United States rejected.

The obligations of Great Britain were independent of steps taken by of-

ficers of the United States in Great Britain

The Government of the United States always earnest to maintain its du-

ties as a neutral.....

Absence of such earnestness on the part of Great Britain a license for

the acts of hostility complained of...
Failure to ascertain extent of statutory and prerogative powers..
Failure to exercise the Royal prerogative...
The Foreign-Enlistment Act was an insutlicient means for performing

international duties, and its efficacy was diminished by judicial con-

struction and official requirements..

Contrast between this act and the American Statute as construed and

administered...

British reliance upon the Foreign-Enlistment Act a failure of due dil-

igence ..

The neglect to amend the Foreign-Enlistment Act a failure of due dil-

igence

Contrast between the course of Great Britain and the course of the

United States in these respects

Failure in due diligence after the escape of the cruisers..

In net detaining offending crnisers when again in British ports..

This obligation not determined by commissioning a cruiser..

In not excluding escaped cruisers from Britisha ports....

The representations to insurgent agents respecting these cruisers were

so long delayed and so feeble as to amount to want of due diligence..

The British course in these respects was voluntary,

The exclusion of prizes from British ports was no benetit to the United

States...

The responsibility of Great Britain for these failures in due diligence

continued until the end of the career of the cruisers.

No evidence of the exercise of due diligence submitted by Great Britain

What vessels are nuder the jurisdiction of the Tribunal...

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

Liability denied by Great Britain

United States refuse to relinquish their claims..

Mauy claims lodged during the war, but discussion deferred..

159

19

19)

190

« AnteriorContinuar »