페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

Page.

III. GENERAL DISCUSSION OF QUESTIONS OF LAW:

Contention of United States regarding failure of Great Britain to main-

tain neutrality.

17

Responsibility resulting from such failure..

18

Scope of the submission.

18

Meaning of the language “all claims growing out of the acts of the

cruisers".

18

Contentions of Great Britain..

19

Proposed course of argument.

19

General considerations of law..

19

Great Britain guilty of culpable negligence, even when measuring its du-

ties by the Foreign-Enlistment Act ...

19

International duties independent of municipal law.

19

Defects of Foreign-Enlistinent Act,

19

They might have been remedied..

20

These are not questions of neutrality

20

Great Britain legally responsible to United States.

20

Sir R. Phillimore's authority cited.....

20

Legal theory of United States respecting questions at issue.

22

Right to make war..

22

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....

23

Responsibility of Sovereign for violation of neutrality

Constitutional inabilities caunot be pleaded in answer to a charge of

such violation ......

23

Alleged constitutional inability of Great Britain examined

24

The prerogative power of the Crown

27

IV. MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS:

Many irrelevant matters in the British Case and Counter Case....

23

Its treatment of the British Foreign-Enlistment Act of 1819

Its comparison between the British and American acts unjust

28

The Government of the United States has always been anxious to possess

legislative powers sufficient for the performance of its duties as a neu-

tral....

29

Disinclination of Parliament to legislate on the subject

31

Legislation of other countries...

32

Distinction between prevention and punishment.

France..

Italy

Switzerland

34

Brazil

35

Portugal

Spain

Belgium and Holland

Russia and Prussia

Denmark and Sweden

37

Comparative review...

37

Conclusions.

38

The history of the United States as a neutral a part of the British plead-

ings ...

38

Its relevancy denied...

38

Neutrality toward Great Britain during President Washington's

administration ....

40

Expedition of Miranda

41

Revolt of Spanish-American colonies

42

War between Portugal and the Banda Oriental.

44

Walker's expedition...

44

Cuba ..

44

Fenians..

45

British enlistments during the Crimean War.

46

The course of Great Britain as a belligerent toward neutrals

Orders in Council..

48

Course toward France during the American Revolution

49

Course toward the Netherlands

49

General obligations of neutrals

49

Page.

IV.-MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS-Continued.

John Laird as a witness. (Note)

51

Purchase of arms. (Note)

51

V.-STATEMENT OF SOME GENERAL FACTS PERTINENT TO THE INQUIRY AND

APPLICABLE TO EXCII CRUISER.

Résumé of facts stated in the American Case to establish the unfriendly

animus of the British Government and people.

The British response no denial

52

Rejoinder to the British response.

53

Relevancy of the facts to the issue.

Lord Westbury.

Mr. Montague Bernard

54

Earl Russell...

54

The British Case.

55

The facts stated in the American Case to be considered as provel... 53

The proofs submitted with the American Case of the systematic and of-

ficial use of British territory by the insurgents with the knowledge of

Great Britain

53

These ficts also to be taken as provedl..

56

VI.-THE FLORIDA..

At Liverpool

Information by Mr. Anlams.

57

Action of Her Majesty's Government.

She was then evidently a man-of-war.

Character of Mr. Adlams's representation.

59

Action of the British Government...

60

What might bave been done.

60

What actually was done.

60

Registry of the Florida.

61

Clearance.

62

Resuvné

62

Negligence of British otlicials....

What might have been done under the Merchants' Shipping-Act..

Arrival at Nassan...

66

Conduct of British officials there.

Want of due diligence....

66

Judicial proceedings at Nassau ....

67

Partial and unfriendly conduct of the Colonial Authorities..

69

Seizure of the Florida..

73

Trial and release; the criticisms on these proceedings in the American

Case are sustained...

75

Armament of the Florida

75

At Cardenas, at Mobile.

76

At Nassau, January 25, 1863; receives coal, supplies, and recruitments.. 77

At Barbados, February 24, 1963 ; 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....

79

Her tenders..

79

VII.-THE ALABAMA

80

Her adaptation to war is not disputed.

80

The question to be decided.

80

Mr. Adams gives information respecting the Alabama June 23, 1862.... 81

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

84

The Cousul directed to furnish information to the Collector..

85

He does so

Conduct of the Collector.

He declines to act..

Mr. Adams instructs the Consul to continue to collect proof.

87

The Consul does so, and presents it to the Collector, with a request to

seize the vessel..

87

Law-Advisers of the Customs.

[merged small][ocr errors]

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

AND RECOGNIZED BY THE TREATY, IN REGARD TO THE OFFENDING

VESSELS, AND ITS FAILURE TO FULFILL THEM AS TO EACH OF SAID

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 interval distribution of powers

of British Government...

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

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

equate means to preserve its neutrality.

Which should have been available as soon as required

British sympathy 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 ressels 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

political 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 thereuith...

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
Treaty:

XII.—THE FAILURE OF GREAT BRITAIN TO FULFILL ITS DUTIES, AS ESTAB-

LISHED AND RECOGNIZED BY THE TREATY, CONSIDERED UPON TILE

FACTS......

159

Considerations of general application...

159

The vessels concerning whose acts the contention is.

159

Failure of Great Britain to fulfill its obligations...

159

Negligence in obtaining information..

159

No general means of immediate action provided..

160

No general instructions to maintain vigilance...

160

No oticers charged with instituting and maintaining proceedings.. 160

No steps taken to break up the hostile system..

160

The idea of an international duty toward the United States rejected. 161

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

ticers of the United States in Great Britain ...

161

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

ties as a neutral...

161

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

the acts of hostility complained of....

162

Failure to ascertain extent of statutory and prerogative powers.

163

Failure to exercise the Royal prerogative..

103

The Foreign-Enlistment Act was an insufficient means for performing

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

struction and official requirements.

166

Contrast between this act and the American Statute as construed and

administered......

167

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

igence

172

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

igence...

173

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

United States in these respects

173

Failure in dne diligence after the escape of the cruisers.

175

In not detaining oftending cruiseis when again in British ports.... 175

This obligation not determined by commissioning a cruiser.

176

In not excluding escaped cruisers from British ports..

176

The representations to insurgent agents respecting these cruisers were

so long delayed and so feeble as to amount to want of due diligence.. 178

The British course in these respects was voluntary.

101

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

States.....

181

The responsibility of Great Britain for these failures in due diligence
continued until the end of the career of the cruisers..

12

No evidence of the exercise of due diligence submitted by Great Britain 182

What vessels are under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal..

185

Used in the same sense in this discussion.

What claims are within the jurisilietion of the Tribunal

Rósumé of negotiations respecting Alabama Claims.

Mr. Adams, November, 1862, asks “ rediess for private and na-

tional injuries".

Liability denied by Great Britain..

United States refuse to relinquish their claims..

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

129

129
139

189

129

129

190

190

« 이전계속 »