Geneva arbitration

General considerations of law.

Great Britain guilty of culpable negligence, even when measuring 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 neutrality.

Great Britain legally responsible to United States..

Sir R. Phillimore's authority 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 anxious to possess

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

tral....

དེ བབ 2 2 བར བར

Switzerland.

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

ings

Its relevancy 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...

The course of Great Britain as a belligerent toward neutrals

Orders in Council

IV.-MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS—Continued.

John Laird as a witness. (Note)

Purchase of arms. (Note)

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

APPLICABLE TO EACH CRUISER.

Page.

Résumé of facts stated in the American Case to establish the unfriendly
animus of the British Government and people.

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

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

Action of Her Majesty's Government.

She was then evidently a man-of-war.

Character of Mr. Adams's representation.

Action of the British Government..

What might have been done..

What actually was done.

Registry of the Florida.

Clearance..

Résumé

Negligence of British officials.

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

Arrival at Nassau.......

Conduct of British officials there.

Want of due diligence..

Judicial proceedings at Nassau.

Partial and unfriendly conduct of the Colonial Authorities.

Seizure of the Florida..

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

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.

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. Adamis 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.

VII. THE ALABAMA-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-Officers think the vessel should be detained..

Illness of Sir John Harding..

Escape of the Alabama....

Inefficiency 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..

Armament of the Georgia..

At Simon's Bay; coals and provisions..

Is destroyed by the Kearsarge June 19, 1864

Reasons why 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...

Mr. Adams gives information to Earl Russell.

General review of facts establishing want of due diligence.

The Colonial Authorities informed of the contemplated recruitments, and

do not prevent them..

120

Their inefficient proceedings..

122

Further proof of recruiting furnished to the authorities..

124

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

Contrast between the course of Brazilian and of British Authorities..

X. THE SUMTER, THE NASHVILLE, THE RETRIBUTION, THE TALLAHASSEE,

AND THE CHICKAMAUGA

135

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.

146

Application of the first Rule

146

Application of the second and third Rules.

146

These Rules constitute the law of this controversy

147

Nothing admissible which diminishes their force..

147

The obligation of Great Britain to observe these Rules was an

international one..

147

This obligation not affected by interual distribution of powers

of British Government.

147

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

147

Great Britain should have used seasonable, appropriate, and ad-
equate means to preserve its neutrality..

143

Which should have been available as soon as required

148

British sympathy with insurgents an element to be considered

in preparing means..

148

Other elements to be considered.

148

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

Her Majesty's Government possessed full power for carrying out

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

cise of executive power..

152

Omnipotence of Parliament..

152

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

their first illegal outfit and escape from British ports..

152

The privilege of exterritoriality accorded to a vessel of war is

political and discretionary.

152

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

political Power..

153

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..

153

154

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....

154

"Due" implies seasonableness, appropriateness, and adequate-

ness

155

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.

155

156

157

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

157

Page.

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

LISHED AND RECOGNIZED BY THE TREATY, CONSIDERED UPON THE

FACTS.....

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

160

161

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

ties as a neutral...

161

Absence of such earnestness 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..

Failure to exercise the Royal prerogative..

163

105

The Foreign-Eulistment 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 due diligence after the escape of the cruisers.

175

In not detaining offending cruisers when again in British ports....

This obligation not determined by commissioning a cruiser..

In not excluding escaped cruisers from British 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 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.

182

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

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

182

185

XIII-NATURE AND AMOUNT OF DAMAGES CLAIMED BY THE UNITED STATES,

These claims all comprehended in the terms of the Treaty

187

2. Question of jurisdiction...

Great Britain contends that the claims styled "Indirect" are not

188

within the scope of the Arbitration..

188

The term "indirect" not found in the Treaty.

188

Rejoinder of the United States to the British assumption..

188

"Indirect," as used in this controversy, is equivalent to "national"

188

The word "indirect," used in the negotiations which resulted in the

Treaty

189

Used in the same sense in this discussion..

189

What claims are within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

189

Résumé of negotiations respecting Alabama Claims...

189

Mr. Adams, November, 1862, asks" redress for private and na-

tional injuries".

189

Liability denied by Great Britain.

189

United States refuse to relinquish their claims..

190

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

190

« Zurück Weiter »

Books