regarded from two different points of view. The ship itself might be regarded merely as an implement of war and an article of contraband, or the preparation and dispatch of the ship might be viewed as the commencement of a hostile expedition. The difficulty in drawing the line between these two classes of transactions was great in theory and still greater in practice; and it was "enhanced to the utmost during the civil war by the ingenuity and audacity of American citizens who were engaged in carrying on hostilities against the Government of the United States, and who were desirous of availing themselves for this purpose of the shipbuilding and manufacturing resources of Great Britain." The difficulties encountered by Her Majesty's government in this regard finally led to an enlargement of the municipal law on the subject beyond what had hitherto been deemed necessary in any other country." The acts of which the United States complained were, said the British Case, of a class which had not commonly been made the object of prohibitory legislation and which had not, perhaps, when the war began, been directly prohibited except in the United States and Great Britain. Laws were not made till the necessity for them had arisen. The necessity for neutrality laws early arose in the United States, first in the war that began in 1793 between the French Republic on the one hand and Great Britain and the Netherlands on the other; and again in the war which broke out in 1810 between Spain (afterward assisted by Portugal) and the Spanish colonies in America. The laws passed to meet the exigencies which then arose had been in force for many years, and had always been held by the legislative authority in the United States to be adequate for their purpose; yet vessels had "from time to time been fitted out and armed within the United States to cruise and commit hostilities against nations with which the United States were at peace," and "severe losses and injuries" had been "inflicted on those nations by the depredations of such vessels." Moreover, it had "been constantly held and maintained by the United States" that the powers possessed by the government to prevent the fitting out of vessels within the national territory were such only as could be shown to be vested in the government by the Constitution and laws for the time being in force, and that, if these powers had been bona fide exercised, the United States were not responsible for losses inflicted by vessels fitted and armed within their territories.

It had also been the practice of the executive authority in enforcing the laws to act upon information afforded by foreign consuls, or by other persons interested in preventing the acts prohibited by law, and to require the persons furnishing such information to produce evidence in support of it.

The British foreign-enlistment act of 1819 British Laws. was, said the British Case, modeled on the neutrality act passed by the United States in the preceding year; but, as regarded the matters in question, it was "more stringent, rigorous, and comprehensive" than the American law. During the forty-two years that elapsed between its passage in 1819 and the year 1862 only one case founded on an alleged violation of its provisions appeared to have been brought to trial before a court. It resulted that the law of Great Britain, as it existed at the time of the civil war in the United States, was such as in the exercise of due foresight might reasonably be deemed adequate for enabling the British Government to perform its neutral obligations. But, in connection with the terms of the law, the following principles of the constitutional law of Great Britain were, said the British Case, to be considered:

"1. The Executive can not deprive any person, even temporarily, of the possession or enjoyment of property, nor subject him to bodily restraint unless by virtue and in exercise of a power created and conferred on the Executive by law.

"2. No person can be visited with a forfeiture of property, nor subjected to any penalty, unless for a breach of a law, nor unless such breach can be proved to the satisfaction of a competent legal tribunal, by testimony given on oath in open court, subject to the rules of procedure established here for the due administration of justice. Every witness is liable to be crossexamined by the accused party or his advocate.

"3. No person can be compelled to answer a question put to him in a court of law if the question is such that, by answering it, he would incur the risk of a penalty or of a prosecution before a criminal tribunal. Statements on hearsay are not admissible as evidence.

"These general principles apply equally, whether the object sought to be attained be the prevention or punishment of an injury to the state, or to any citizen of the state, or to any other person or persons whomsoever.

"It may be further observed that, during the whole period to which the questions submitted to the arbitrators relate, every case of alleged infringement of the British foreign-enlistment act brought to trial within the United Kingdom was required to be proved to the satisfaction of a jury."

The blockade of the Confederate ports, said Contraband and the British Case, maintained for a long time. Blockade Running. very imperfectly, along a vast extent of coast, offered extraordinary inducements to persons to attempt to elude it. For such attempts it was found profitable to construct vessels of a peculiar class; and recourse was had for this purpose to the shipyards of Great Britain, which were accustomed to supply shipping to purchasers of all countries. Her Majesty's government, though aware that the blockade was for a considerable time not completely effective, recognized it from the first to the last. British subjects were warned that attempts to trade with the blockaded ports would subject them to the risk of the capture and confiscation of their property. The government neither did nor could prohibit subjects or persons within its dominions from engaging in trade, or from selling or constructing or purchasing vessels adapted for that purpose. By international law the right of blockade and the enforcement of it belonged to the belligerent, and not to neutral powers; and it followed that to the blockading power must be left the task of making the blockade effective.

At all the principal seaports of Great Britain, said the British Case, the United States maintained consuls or consular officers. It was the duty of these officials to keep a watchful eye on whatever might tend to endanger the security or interests of the United States, and to communicate their information to the minister of the United States at London. In the course of the years 1861, 1862, 1863, 1864, and 1865 many representations were addressed by Mr. Adams to Her Majesty's government respecting vessels which he believed to be intended to be used as privateers or commissioned ships of the Confederate States in cruising and carrying on war against the United States. To complaints of traffic carried on with blockaded ports, or in articles contraband of war, it was answered, on the part of Her Majesty's government, that these were enterprises which Her Majesty's government could not undertake to prevent, and the repression of which belonged to the United States as a belligerent power. Allegations, on the other hand, that vessels were being prepared for cruising or carrying on war were immediately referred to the proper officers of the government at the several localities for careful investigation and inquiry. If, on such investigation, it appeared by sufficient prima facie evidence that any illegal act was being or had been

committed, the vessels were forthwith seized and proceedings instituted according to law; if not, the result was at once communicated to Mr. Adams, and directions were given to the local authorities to watch closely the vessels as to which his suspicions had been aroused.

Action on Specific
Complaints.

The British Case then took up in detail the various cases to which Mr. Adams called attention. The first was that of the steamship Bermuda, which was intended for a blockade runner, and which was captured and condemned by the United States on her second voyage, after she had once succeeded in running the blockade at Savannah. The vessels to which Mr. Adams next called the attention of Her Majesty's government were the Oreto, or the Florida, and the Alabama, originally known as No. 290. In November 1862 Mr. Adams made inquiry as to a vessel then in course of construction at Glasgow; it was in fact being built for Her Majesty's government. The next case was that of the Georgiana. Investigations were made and the result was communicated to Mr. Adams. The vessel was a blockade runner, and sailed from Liverpool on January 21, 1863, with a general cargo for Nassau, and thence for Charleston. In attempting to enter the latter harbor she was chased and fired upon by the blockading vessels, and was run aground and wrecked. On March 26, 1863, Mr. Adams called the attention of Earl Russell to a vessel called the Phantom, and on June 3, 1863, to a vessel called the Southerner, which were alleged to be fitting out as privateers. Mr. Adams acknowledged the readiness which Her Majesty's government manifested in making the investigations he desired, and expressed satisfaction with the assurances of its determination to maintain a close observation of future movements of an unusual character that might justify suspicions of evil intent. The Phantom was believed ultimately to have been used as a blockade runner. She was never used for war. The Southerner, on August 9, 1863, sailed from Liverpool to Alexandria, in Egypt, and was employed in the Mediterranean in the conveyance of cotton and passengers. The next case was that of the Alexandra, which was brought by Mr. Adams to the attention of Earl Russell on March 31, 1863. On April 5 the Alexandra was, pursuant to the directions of Her Majesty's government, seized by the officers of the customs at Liverpool under the seventh section of the foreign-enlistment act. The case was

tried in the court of exchequer before the lord chief baron and a special jury. A verdict having been rendered in favor of the persons claiming to be the owners of the ship, the Crown sought to obtain a new trial. This application failed, as also did a subsequent effort to prosecute an appeal before the court of exchequer chamber. The costs and damages, amounting to £3,700, were paid by the Crown, as the defeated party, to the claimants of the ship. During the whole course of these proceedings up to April 24, 1864, the Alexandra remained under seizure, in the possession of the officers of the customs. At the end of that time, the Executive having no legal power to detain her, she came again into possession of the persons claiming to be her owners, by whom she was sold to a merchant at Liverpool. Her new owner changed her name to The Mary, and after certain alterations she sailed from Liverpool for Bermuda, and thence to Halifax. On her arrival at Halifax Mr. Seward informed the British legation at Washington that it was supposed that she was to be armed and equipped at Halifax for the Confederate government. The lieutenantgovernor of Nova Scotia was immediately advised to that effect. In November 1864 The Mary returned from Halifax to Bermuda and then proceeded to Nassau, where proceedings were begun against her for having taken on board at Bermuda certain packages the contents of which suggested that the design existed to employ her in the naval service of the Confederate States. On May 30, 1865, these proceedings were terminated by her release. The war was then over. The expense of the colonial government incurred by the seizure amounted to upward of £300.

The British Case next took up the case of the ironclad rams El Tousson and El Monassir, commonly known as "Lairds' ironclads." The history of these vessels has been stated in the summary of the American Case. Orders to seize them were issued October 9, 1863, and they remained under seizure till May 1864, when they were sold to Her Majesty's government for the sum of £220,000. The evidence which the gov ernment had up to that time been able to obtain was, said the British Case, so imperfect as to make the event of a trial doubtful; and in agreeing to the purchase Her Majesty's government was mainly actuated by a desire to prevent by any means within its power, however costly, vessels of so formidable character, constructed in a British port, from passing directly or indirectly into the hands of a belligerent.