ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

Instructions of British
Commissioners.

The general instructions of the British commissioners, which were signed by Lord Granville, bear date the 9th of February 1871. They express an earnest desire that the negotiations "should be conducted in a mutually conciliatory disposition, and with unreserved frankness," and state that the "principal subjects" of negotiations "will probably be:

"1. The fisheries.

"2. The navigation of the River St. Lawrence, and privilege of passage through the Canadian canals.

"3. The transit of goods through Maine, and lumber trade down the River St. John.

"4. The Manitoba boundary.

"5. The claims on account of the Alabama, Shenandoah, and certain other cruisers of the so-styled Confederate States. "6. The San Juan water boundary.

"7. The claims of British subjects arising out of the civil

war.

"8. The claims of the people of Canada on account of the Fenian raids.

9. The revision of the rules of maritime neutrality."

In regard to the fifth head, it was pointed out in the British instructions that the claims preferred on account of the Alabama stood "on a different footing to those arising from the captures made by the other cruisers, in so far as the Alabama escaped from Liverpool after evidence had been supplied by the United States minister of the service for which she was intended." Her Majesty's Government, it was stated, adhered to the principle of arbitration for the settlement of these claims, and would concur, if the United States proposed it, in jurists properly selected being made the arbitrators instead of a sovereign, as in the Johnson-Clarendon convention. At the same time, though arbitration was considered as the most appropriate mode of settlement, the commissioners were instructed that they were at liberty to transmit for the consideration of Her Majesty's Government any other proposal which might be suggested "for determining and closing the question of these claims." "For the escape of the Alabama and consequent injury to the commerce of the United States," the commissioners were authorized to express the regret of Her Majesty's Government "in such terms as would be agreeable to the Government of the United States and not inconsistent with the position hitherto maintained by Her Majesty's Government as

to the international obligations of neutral nations." The British commissioners were also instructed that "it would be desirable to take this opportunity to consider whether it might not be the interest of both Great Britain and the United States to lay down certain rules of international comity in regard to the obligations of maritime neutrality, not only to be acknowledged for observance in their future relations, but to be recommended for adoption to the other maritime powers."1

Adverting in a supplementary instruction of the same day to the revision of the rules of maritime neutrality, Earl Granville said:

"I have to state to you that the extent to which a neutral country may be hereafter held justly liable for the dispatch, after notice, of a vessel under similar circumstances to those in the case of the Alabama, can not be precisely defined in the present stage of the controversy; but there are other points in which it may be convenient to you to be informed beforehand that this government are willing to enter into an agreement. These are:

"That no vessel employed in the military or naval service of any belligerent which shall have been equipped, fitted out, armed, or dispatched contrary to the neutrality of [a] neutral state, should be admitted into any port of that state.

"That prizes captured by such vessels, or otherwise captured in violation of the neutrality of any state, should, if brought within the jurisdiction of that state, be restored.

"That, in time of war, no vessel should be recognized as a ship of war, or received in any port of a neutral state as a ship of war, which has not been commissioned in some port in the actual occupation of the government by whom her commission is issued.

"The first of these rules has been incorporated into the foreign enlistment act, passed during the last year, and both the first and second were included in the report of the royal commission for inquiring into the neutrality laws." 2

American Commissioners.

The instructions of the American commisInstructions of the sioners, which were signed by Mr. Fish and bore date the 22d of February, were brief; but they were accompanied by a confidential memorandum, embodying very full references to correspondence in the Department of State, "and to the history of several of the questions" which might be discussed by the commission, viz:

"1. The fisheries.

"2. The navigation of the St. Lawrence.

Blue Book, North America, No. 3 (1871); For. Rel. 1873, part 3, pp. 373–377. Blue Book, North America, No. 3 (1871); For. Rel. 1873, part 3, p. 377.

"3. Reciprocal trade between the United States and the Dominion of Canada.

4. Northwest water boundary and the island of San Juan. "5. The claims of the United States against Great Britain on account of acts committed by rebel cruisers.

"Claims of British subjects against the United States for losses and injuries arising out of acts committed during the civil war in the United States."

The discussion and treatment of these questions the President committed to the joint discretion of the American commissioners.1

Mr. Fish's Statement of March 8.

The original statement in the joint high commission of the complaint of the United States on the subject of the Alabama claims was drawn up by Mr. Fish and was read by him on the 8th of March. The text of it will be given hereafter, when we come to the controversy that arose in regard to the "indirect claims," the term by which the claims discussed by Mr. Sumner as "national claims" came to be known.

Duty.

At the conferences on the 9th, 10th, 13th, Definition of Neutral and 14th of March the joint high commission was occupied with the consideration of a form of rules for the definition of neutral duty, as desired by the American commissioners.2 In the statement of principles read by Mr. Fish on the 8th of March it was declared to be the duty of a neutral (1) to use "active diligence" to prevent the "construction, fitting out, arming, equipping, or augmenting the force," within its jurisdiction, of a vessel whereby war was intended to be carried on against a power with which it was at peace; (2) to use like diligence, if such vessel should escape, to arrest and detain her when she again came within its jurisdiction; (3) to instruct its naval forces, in all parts of the globe, to arrest and detain a vessel so escaping, wherever found upon the high seas. It was also declared that a power failing to observe either of these rules was justly liable for injuries and

1 For. Rel. 1873, part 3, pp. 275–370.

2 Mr. Davis' MS. Journal. At the conference on the 10th of March Mr. Fish suggested, among other topics for consideration, privateering, the exemption of private property at sea, and the prohibition of the destruction of property captured on the high seas without adjudication by a competent court. The British commissioners did not think that their powers would justify their considering these points, and doubted the wisdom of entering upon them while the principal questions before the commission remained unsettled. (Ibid.)

depredations committed and damages occasioned by such vessel. The American commissioners regarded these rules as existing rules of international law; the British commissioners thought otherwise. On the 9th of March the latter presented a paper, embodying their individual views, to the effect that a neutral was bound (1) to take "reasonable care" that no ship employed or intended to be employed in the service of a belligerent should be "equipped for war or suffered to augment her armament" within such neutral's territory, and (2) if a ship which had been "equipped for war" in violation of neutrality should afterward be found within the jurisdiction, to detain it, unless it had in the interval been "commissioned as a public ship of war," or been "deprived of all military equipment and bona fide converted into a ship of commerce." Subsequently, after the American commissioners had presented another draft of rules, Lord de Grey suggested that the term "due diligence" be substituted for the term "active diligence;" and it was done. Lord de Grey also asked whether the rules presented by the American commissioners embodied principles to which the United States would submit in future. Mr. Fish and Mr. Justice Nelson said that they were so regarded.

Objection was strongly made by the British commissioners to including separately the "construction" of a vessel in the prohibition against fitting out, arming, or equipping. Mr. Justice Nelson said that, although the word "construction" was not used in the statute of the United States, the courts had held that it was covered by the term "fitting out," if the construction was for hostile purposes. The British commissioners, however, thought the word too broad, and it was ultimately dropped.

Great difficulty was found in the discussion of the question as to the duty of arresting a vessel that had escaped and as to when such duty terminated. In regard to the suggestion made by the British commissioners on this subject on the 9th of March various proposals and counter proposals were made. On the 14th of March the American commissioners presented the following paper:

"I. A neutral government is bound to use due diligence to prevent the fitting out, arming or equipping within its juris diction of any vessel intended to cruise or to carry on war against a power with which it is at peace; and also to use like diligence to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of any vessel intended so to cruise or carry on war, such vessel having

been specially adapted in whole or in part, within such jurisdiction, to warlike use, or armed, fitted out or equipped therein.

"II. A neutral is bound not to permit or suffer either belligerent to make use of its ports or waters as the base of naval operations, or as the place for the renewal or angmentation of military supplies, or arms, or the recruitment of men.

"III. A neutral is bound to exercise due watchfulness over its ports and waters, and over all persons within its jurisdiction, to prevent any violation of the foregoing obligations and duties.

"IV. A vessel which has departed from the jurisdiction of a neutral government in violation of the neutrality thereof, if afterward found within the jurisdiction of that government, ought to be detained unless she have in the interval been duly and lawfully commissioned as a public vessel of war; but if she have been thus commissioned as a public vessel of war, and be not detained, the national responsibility of such neutral government continues in respect of injuries and losses occasioned to the aggrieved belligerent subsequent to such departure, and until the original offense be deposited by the bona fide termination of the cruise.”

The fourth rule it was decided, after much discussion, to omit. The first three rules the British commissioners took into consideration and promised to submit to their government.

"Alabama" Claims.

At the conference on the 5th of April the Agreement as to the British commissioners stated that they were instructed to declare that they could not assent to the proposed rules as a statement of principles of international law which were in force at the time when the Alabama claims arose, but that Her Majesty's Government, in order to evince its desire of strengthening the friendly relations between the two countries and of making satisfactory provision for the future, agreed that in deciding the questions between the two countries arising out of those claims the arbitrator should assume that Her Majesty's Government had undertaken to act upon the principles set forth in the rules in question. They then presented a slightly amended draft of the rules, which was agreed upon. This draft was as follows:

"That a neutral government is bound—

"First, to use due diligence to prevent the fitting out, arming, or equipping, within its jurisdiction, of any vessel which it has reasonable ground to believe is intended to cruise or carry on war against a power with which it is at peace; and also to use like diligence to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of any vessel intended to cruise or carry on war as above, such vessel having been specially adapted, in whole or in part, within such jurisdiction, to warlike use,

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »