determination in a court of law, and with the same frankness with which they would be stated in case of an appeal to force.” In this view of the subject, the inquiry as to the attitude and the animus of the British Government toward the United States during the civil war became of the utmost importance, especially as affecting the question whether that government had used "due diligence" in the performance of its neutral duties. It was not denied that there were many "acts of insubordinates which, taken individually and by themselves, would not form a just basis for holding culpable a government which was honestly and with vigilance striving to perform its duty as a neutral." Yet these same acts might, when taken in connection with each other, and with proof of animus, establish culpability in the government itself. Thus, it might be argued that the British Government would not be responsible for such acts, taken by themselves, as those of the collector of customs at Liverpool respecting the Florida and the Alabama, of the authorities at Nassau respecting the arming of the Florida at Green Cay, and subsequently respecting her supplies of coal, and of the authorities at Melbourne respecting the Shenandoah. But these acts were, it was maintained, all imbued with the character of culpable negligence, when it was shown "that the Government of Great Britain, by its indiscreet haste in counseling the Queen's proclamation recognizing the insurgents as belligerents, by its preconcerted joint action with France respecting the declarations of the Congress of Paris, by its refusal to take steps for the amendment of its neutrality laws, by its refraining for so long a time from seizing the rams at Liverpool, by its conduct in the affair of the Trent, and by its approval of the course of its colonial officers at various times; and that the individual members of government, by their open and frequent expressions of sympathy with the insurgents, and of desire for their success, had exhibited an unfriendly feeling, which might affect their own course, and could not but affect the action of their subordinates."

Moreover, it was contended "that while there were particular facts as to each vessel tending to fix responsibility upon Great Britain," the general facts that "the insurgents established and maintained, unmolested throughout the insurrection, administrative bureaus on British soil, by means of which the several cruisers were dispatched from British ports or were enabled to make them bases of hostile operations against the

United States, and that the British Government was cognizant of it;" that "Great Britain from the outset denied, and to the last persisted in denying, that the departure of vessels like the Alabama and the Florida under any circumstances could be a breach of international duty, and had refused to exercise diligence to prevent such departure," and that "in point of fact no such diligence had been exercised"-it was contended that "these general indisputable facts were sufficient to carry responsibility for the acts of all the cruisers."

The British Case began with an exposition The British Case. Of the subject-matter of the arbitration, as it was "understood by the government of Her Britannic Majesty." As to the claims embraced in the treaty, it was said that the phrase "the Alabama claims" was understood by Her Majesty's government to embrace all claims "growing out of acts committed by" that vessel and by other vessels which were alleged to have been procured, like the Alabama, from British ports during the war, and under circumstances more or less similar. The only vessels, it was said, in respect of the acts of which diplomatic claims had been made by the Government of the United States were the Alabama herself and the vessels formerly known as the Florida, the Georgia, and the Shenandoah. On one occasion, since the close of the war, the Government of the United States had mentioned a vessel called the Sumter as one of those in respect of which it conceived itself to have claims against Great Britain. But no claims in respect of the Sumter had been presented, nor was Her Majesty's government aware of any grounds on which such claims could be made with any show of reason.

Propositions of International Law.

The second part of the British Case opened with a statement of the following propositions, which were said to be in accordance with the principles of international law and the practice of nations:

"1. It is the duty of a neutral government, in all matters relating to the war, to act impartially toward the belligerent powers; to concede to one what it concedes to the other; to refuse to one what it refuses to the other.

"2. This duty, inasmuch as it flows directly from the conception of neutrality, attends the relation of neutrality wherever it exists, and is not affected by considerations arising from the political relation which before the war the belligerents may have sustained to one another.

"3. Maritime war being carried on by hostilities on the high 5627-38

seas, and through the instrumentality (ordinarily) of vessels commissioned by public authority, a neutral power is bound to recognize, in matters relating to the war, commissions issued by each belligerent, and captures made by each, to the same extent and under the same conditions as it recognizes commissions issued and captures made by the other.

"4. Where either belligerent is a community or body of persous not recognized by the neutral power as constituting a sovereign state, commissions issued by such belligerent are recognized as acts emanating, not indeed from a sovereign government, but from a person or persons exercising de facto, in relation to the war, the powers of a sovereign government."

Development of War of Secession.

The British Case then referred to the secession movement, the attack on Fort Sumter, the seizure by Virginia militia of Harpers Ferry, and the proclamation of President Lincoln of April 15, 1861, calling out the militia to the number of 75,000 men; to the counter proclamation of Mr. Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederate States, on the 17th of April, inviting applications for letters of marque and reprisal; to the proclamation of President Lincoln of April 19 for the blockade of the ports of the seven States then in revolt; to his proclamation of April 27 extending the blockade to the ports of northern Virginia; to the seizure of vessels and cargoes under these proclamations of blockade, and their subsequent condemnation by the Supreme Court of the United States in the "prize cases," in which it was declared that the proclamation of a blockade was "itself official and conclusive evidence to the court that a state of war existed which demanded and authorized a recourse to such a measure under the circumstances peculiar to the case;" to the note of Mr. Seward to Lord Lyons of May 1, 1861, referring to the existing war and to the blockade of the ports of the insurgent States; to the acts passed by the Confederate con. gress on May 6 and May 14, 1861, relating to letters of marque and reprisal, and regulating the disposition of prizes; and to the fitting out in the same month, or soon afterward, in the Confederate ports, of a number of armed vessels, mostly of small tonnage, which made a considerable number of captures, among such vessels being the Calhoun, the Jeff. Davis, the Savannah, the St. Nicholas, the Winslow, and the York. From time to time other armed vessels were likewise sent out by the Confederacy. The Sumter went to sea in June 1861; the Sallie and the Nashville in October of the same year; the Echo in

1862; the Retribution and the Boston in 1863; the Chickamauga, the Olutsee, and the Tallahassee in 1864. These vessels were said to have taken from sixty to seventy prizes.

Proclamation of
Neutrality.

On the 14th of May 1861 Her Majesty's government issued a proclamation of neutrality, which, said the British Case, "was published fourteen days after the receipt in London of the news that Fort Sumter had been reduced by bombardment, that the President of the United States had called out 75,000 men, and that Mr. Jefferson Davis had taken measures for issuing letters of marque; twelve days after receipt of intelligence that President Lincoln had published a proclamation of blockade; nine days after a copy of that proclamation had been received from Her Britannic Majesty's consul at New York, and three days after the same proclamation had been officially communicated to Her Majesty's secretary of state for foreign affairs by the United States minister, Mr. Dallas." On the 1st of June 1861 Her Britannic Majesty's government issued orders by which the armed ships of both belligerents were forbidden to carry prizes into British waters. The Confederate government remonstrated against these orders, and the Secretary of State of the United States expressed his satisfaction with them as likely to "prove a deathblow to Southern privateering." The government of the Emperor of the French issued a declaration of neutrality on June 10, 1861; the Queen of Spain on June 17; the government of the Netherlands in the same month, and the Emperor of Brazil on August 1. Declarations, decrees, or notifications were likewise issued by other maritime powers.

As illustrating the course pursued by Her Case of the Sumter. Majesty's government, the British Case took up the case of the Sumter, which sailed from the Mississippi River on June 30, 1861, cruised for six months and captured seventeen prizes. In the course of her cruise she entered the dominions of Spain, the Netherlands, Venezuela, Great Britain, Brazil, and France. She obtained coal and supplies at Cienfuegos, Curaçao, Paramaribo, Trinidad, and Martinique successively. On her arrival at Cienfuegos she had with her six prizes, which she left behind her when she sailed, and which were subsequently released by order of the Captain-General of Cuba, on the ground that they were captured within the territorial waters of that island. She was admitted to the

waters of Curaçao on the written declaration of her commander that she was a ship of war duly commissioned by the government of the Confederate States. In August she was admitted to the port of Paramaribo, in Dutch Guiana, and coaled there, remaining in port eleven days. The Government of the Netherlands subsequently issued orders that no vessel belonging to either belligerent should be allowed to take in more coal than would suffice for twenty-four hours' consumption, or to remain in port longer than forty-eight hours. Before arriving at Paramaribo the Sumter visited Puerto Cabello, in Venezuela, and the British island of Trinidad. She remained at the latter place six days and purchased from private merchants coal and provisions. Permission to purchase coal from the government stores was refused. What took place at Trinidad was brought by Mr. Adams to the attention of Earl Russell on September 30, 1861. Earl Russell replied that the law officers of the Crown had reported that the conduct of the governor of Trinidad was in conformity with Her Majesty's proclamation. The Government of the United States not only sought to have the Sumter treated as a pirate, but also complained of the length of time she was permitted to remain at Trinidad. With a view to prevent the recurrence of similar complaints, the British Government, on January 31, 1862, issued orders absolutely excluding belligerent vessels from the waters of the Bahama Islands, except in case of stress of weather, or of special leave granted by the lieutenant governor. These islands being very near to the American coast, access to them was of little importance to the armed vessels of the United States except in stress of weather, while to vessels of the Confederate States it was of great importance, the harbors of those States being generally, though not always, effectively blockaded.

The orders thus issued were, the British Case declared, more stringent and comprehensive than those of any other neutral government. The Sumter, after leaving Trinidad, entered in succession the ports of Paramaribo, in Dutch Guiana; of San Juan de Maranham, in Brazil, where she remained ten days; of Port Royal and St. Pierre, in Martinique; and of Cadiz, where she remained fourteen days. She was fourteen days in the waters of Martinique, and procured there, under the written authority of the governor of the island, a full supply of coal for a cruise across the Atlantic, together with other supplies. A few days after her arrival the Iroquois, a man-of-war of the United States, entered Port Royal