does not prove that the Government were under obligation to take the same measures in every similar or comparable situation.

We referred to the Terceira affair for the purpose of showing that the Crown by its prerogative possessed authority for the interception of enterprises originating within the kingdom for the violation of neutrality. The question, whether the Executive will use it, is at its discretion. The power we prove, and, in the discussions in both Houses of Parliament, it was not denied, in any quarter, that the power existed to the extent that we call for its exercise within British jurisdiction. The question in controversy then was (although a great majority of both Houses voted against the resolutions condemning the action of the Government) whether, in the waters of Portugal or upon the seas, the Government could, with strong hand, seize or punish vessels which had violated the neutrality of Great Britain by a hostile though unarmed expedition from its ports. The resolutions in both Houses of Parliament received the sup port of only a small minority. Mr. Phillimore, however, says the learned Counsel, expresses the opinion in his valuable work that the minority were right.

Sir ALEXANDER COCKBURN. "I confess I always thought so myself." Mr. EVARTS. But the point now and here in discussion is, what were the powers of the Crown within the limits of British jurisdiction, and it is not necessary to consider who were right or who were wrong in the divisions in Parliament. What all agreed in was, that the fault charged upon the Government was the invasion of the territorial rights of another nation.

Conclusion.

But we cited the Terceira affair for the additional purpose of showing the actual exercise of the power in question by the Crown in that case. This was important to us in our argument; it justly gave support to the imputation that the powers of the Government were not diligently exercised during the American Rebellion in our behalf. Where there is a will, there is a way; and diligence means the use of all the faculties necessary and suitable to the accomplishment of the proposed end. Now, in conclusion, it must be apparent that the great interest, both in regard to the important controversy between the High Contracting Parties, and in regard to the principles of the law of nations to be here established, turns upon your award. That award is to settle two great questions: whether the acts which form the subject of the accusation and the defense, are shown to be acts that are proscribed by the law of nations, as expressed in the Three Rules of the Treaty. You cannot alter the nature of the case between the two nations, as shown by the proofs. The facts being indisputably established in the proofs, you are then to pass upon the question whether the outfit of these tenders to carry forward the armament of the hostile expedition to be joined to it outside of Great Britain is according to the law of nations or not.

When you pass upon the question whether this is a violation of the second Rule, you pass upon the question, under the law of nations, whether an obligation of a neutral not to allow a hostile expedition to go forth from its ports can be evaded by having it sent forth in parcels. and having the combination made outside its waters. You cannot so decide in this case, and between these parties, without establishing by your award, as a general proposition, that the law of nations proscrib ing such hostile expeditions may be wholly evaded, wholly set at naught by this equivocation and fraud practiced upon it; that this can be done, not by surprise-for anything can be done by surprise-but that it can

be done openly and of right. These methods of combination outside of the neutral territory may be resorted to, for the violation of the obliga tions of neutrality, and yet the neutral nation, knowingly suffering and permitting it, is free from responsibility! This certainly is a great ques

tion.

If, as we must anticipate, you decide that these things are proscribed by the law of nations, the next question is, was "due diligence" used by Great Britain to prevent them?

The measure of diligence actually used by Great Britain, the ill consequences to the United States from a failure on the part of Great Britain to use a greater and better measure of diligence, are evident to all the world. Your judgment, then, upon the second question, is to pronounce whether that measure of diligence which was used and is known to have been used, and which produced no other result than the maintenance, for four years, of a maritime war, upon no other base than that furnished from the ports and waters of a neutral territory, is the measure of "due diligence," to prevent such use of neutral territory, which is required by the Three Rules of the Treaty of Washington for the exculpation of Great Britain.

[Translation.']

V.-ARGUMENT OF MR. CUSHING, IN REPLY TO THE SPECIAL ARGUMENT OF SIR ROUNDELL PALMER, AUGUST 6. (SEE PROTOCOL XVIII.)

Mr. PRESIDENT AND GENTLEMEN OF THE TRIBUNAL: We are ap proaching, as I hope at least, the end of these long debates.

The two Governments had presented their Cases and Counter Cases, supported by voluminous documents. They had also presented their respective Arguments, the whole in conformity with the stipulations of the Treaty of Washington, (Articles IV and V.)

Thus the regular arguments prescribed by the Treaty have been closed.

Now, at the request of one of the honorable Arbitrators, the Tribunal has requested from England, as it had the right to do, explanations on certain definite points, namely:

1. The question of due diligence, generally considered.

2. The special question as to the effect of the commissions held by Confederate ships of war entering British ports.

3. The special question as to supplies of coal in British ports to Confederate ships.

The Counsel of Great Britain has taken advantage of this oppor tunity to discuss the points laid down, and in reference to them to comment on the Argument of the United States.

I do not complain of this, but I state the fact.

We, the Counsel of the United States, accept the situation such as it is made for us; for we had no desire further to occupy the attention of the Tribunal.

V.-PLAIDOYER DE MR. CUSHING, CONSEIL DES ÉTATS-UNIS, DEVANT LE TRIBUNAL ARBITRAL DE GENÈVE, EN RÉPONSE À L'ARGUMENT DU CONSEIL DE SA MAJESTÉ BRITANNIQUE.

MONSIEUR LE PRÉSIDENT ET MESSIEURS DU TRIBUNAL: Nous approchons, je l'espère du moins, de la fin de ces longs débats.

Les deux gouvernements avaient présenté leurs mémoires et leurs contre-mémoires, appuyés sur des documents volumineux. Ils avaient aussi présenté leurs plaidoyers respectifs, le tout conformément aux stipulations du traité de Washington, (Art. IV et V.)

Ainsi ont été clos les débats réguliers prescrits par le traité.

Maintenant, sur la demande d'un des honorables arbitres, le tribunal a requis de l'Angleterre, comme il en avait le droit, des explications sur certains points déterminé, à savoir:

1. La question des dues diligences, traitée d'une manière générale.

2. La question spéciale de savoir quel a été l'effet des commissions possédées par les vaisseaux de guerre confédérés qui sont entrés dans les ports britanniques.

3. La question spéciale des approvisionnements de charbon accordés aux vaisseax confédérés dans les ports britanniques.

Le conseil de la Grande-Bretagne a usé de cette occasion pour discuter les pouts posés, et, à propos de cela, pour commenter le plaidoyer des États-Unis.

Je ne me plains pas de ceci, mais je constate le fait.

Nous, conseils des États-Unis, acceptons la situation telle qu'elle nous est faite: car nous n'avions nul désir d'occuper davantage l'attention du tribunal.

1 This argument was written and presented in the French text as shown in the note.

My two colleagues have discussed fully the second and third points. Scarcely have they left me a few words to say on the subject of the first point.

In fact, the task which has devolved on me is merely that of summing up the question, and adding some special observations.

I venture to address the Tribunal in French, in order to economize its precious time, and to reach the close of the discussion as soon as possible. For this object I willingly sacrifice all oratorical pretensions; I endeavor to make myself understood; that is all I aspire to.

THE QUESTION OF DUE DILIGENCE.

Due da ignee.

We have now to consider the question of due diligence generally treated.

What does this expression mean? Does the Tribunal require the theoretical lecture of a professor on due diligence? I do not think so. Such a discussion would be perfectly idle, for the following reasons:

cussion not wantei.

1. This theoretical question has already been discussed to satiety. Great Britain has discussed it three times in her Case, A theoretical s Counter Case, and Argument, and she has allowed herself twelve whole months to reflect on it, and accumulate arguments and quotations for the instruction of the Tribunal. We, in the name of the United States, have not expended so many words, but we have said all we wished and desired to bring before the honorable Arbitrators.

2. The two Parties were agreed that the theoretical question no longer deserved their attention.

Her Majesty's Government, [says the British Counter Case,] (page 22,) has not attempted a task which has baffled, as it believes, the ingenuity of jurists of all times and countries, that of defining with any approach to precision, apart from the circumstances of any particular case, what shall be deemed due diligence or reasonable

care.

And the Counter Case quotes and adopts the following passage, (page 22, note:)

Mes deux collègues viennent de discuter amplement le second et le troisième points. C'est à peine s'ils m'ont laissé quelque chose à dire à l'égard du premier point.

En effet, ce n'est que la charge de résumer la question et d'ajouter quelques observations spéciales qui m'est dévolue.

J'ose m'adresser au tribunal en français, afin d'économiser son temps précieux et d'arriver au plus tôt à la clôture des débats. Dans ce but je sacrifie volontiers toute prétention oratoire; j'essaie de me faire comprende; c'est tout ce que j'ambitionne.

rale.

LA QUESTION DES DUES DILIGENCES.

Maintenant il s'agit de la question des dues diligences traitée d'une manière généQue veut dire cette phrase? Est-ce que le tribunal demande une leçon théorique de professeur sur les dues diligences? Je ne le crois pas. Une telle discussion serait parfaitement oiseuse pour les raisons suivantes :

1. On a déjà discuté a satiété cette question théorique. La Grande-Bretagne l'a discutée trois fois, dans ses mémoires et son plaidoyer, et elle s'est donnée douze mois entiers pour y réfléchir et accumuler des arguments et des citations pour l'instruction du tribunal. Nous, au nom des États-Unis, nous n'avons pas dépensé tant de paroles, mais nous avons dit tout ce qu'il était dans notre désir et notre volonté de faire savoir aux honorables arbitres.

2. Les deux parties étaient d'accord que la question théorique ne méritait plus leur attention.

"Le gouvernement de sa Majesté," dit le contre-mémoire britannique, p. 24, "ne s'est pas imposé une tâche qui a déjoué, à ce qu'il croit, l'habileté des jurisconsultes de tous les temps et de tous les pays; il n'a pas cherché à définer avec une précision approximative, en dehors des circonstances spéciales à un cas particulier, la mesure de ce qu'on devra reconnaître comme la due diligence ou le soin raisonnable."

Et le contre-mémoire adopte en citant ce qui suit, (page 24, note:)

For the rest, [says a distinguished French jurist, treating of this subject in connection with private law,] for the rest, whether the obligation in question is for a thing to be given, or for one to be done, the imputation of default is, in practice, hardly a question of law. The question of fact is always the dominant point, even if it is not the sole one. (Larombière, "Théorie et pratique des obligations," vol. i, p. 417.)

The Counsel of the United States, accepting the doctrine laid down by England, have replied as follows:

We concur in the final considerations of the British Counter Case on this subject of due diligence, in leaving "the Arbitrators to judge of the facts presented to them by the light of reason and justice, aided by the knowledge of the general powers and duties of administration which they possess, as persons long conversant with public affairs." British Counter Case, p. 125. (Argument of the United States, p. 158.)

We remain of this opinion; we refuse to retrace our steps and to discuss afresh questions completely exhausted long ago, and which have been even admitted to be inopportune by both parties.

3. I recognize no diligence but the diligence prescribed by the Treaty. The Counsel of Great Britain appears to endeavor to establish rules of due diligence outside of the Treaty. It is too late to enter on this path. After the progress which the Tribunal has already made in its labors, it is no longer worth while to re-embark on the open sea, the vague! region of international law outside of the Treaty. We take our stand on the explicit words of the Treaty, which subordinates general international law to the compact of the three Rules, which is retrospective, and which expressly applies due diligence to the special cases and objects contemplated by those Rules.

For this last reason I refuse to follow the Counsel of Great Britain in his discussion of the question of the difference, if any exists, according to international law, between the duty of neutrals with regard to armed vessels and their duty with regard to vessels equipped for war but not yet armed.

"Du reste," a dit un jurisconsulte éminent de France, qui examine la question au point de vue de droit privé, "Du reste, soit qu'il s'agisse d'une obligation de donner ou de faire, la prestation des fautes est, dans la pratique, à peine une question de droit. Le point de faite y est toujours dominant, quand il n'y est pas tout." (Larombière, "Théorie et pratique des obligations," tome i, p. 417.)

Les conseils des Etats-Unis ont répondu, en acceptant la doctrine de la GrandeBretagne, comme suit:

"Nous sommes d'accord avec les considérations qui terminent le contre-mémoire britannique sur cette question de la diligence suffisante, pour laisser les arbitres juger les faits qui leur sont soumis, d'après les lumières de la raison et de la justice, aidees par la connaissance des pouvoirs et des devoirs généraux de l'administration que leur a don née leur longue pratique des affairs publiques. Contre-mémoire britannique, p. 151, texte français." (Plaidoyer des États-Unis, p. 328.)

Nous restons de cet avis; nous refusons de revenir sur nos pas et de discuter de nouveau des questions depuis longtemps déjà complétement épuisées, et même reconnues inopportunes par les deux parties.

3. Je ne reconnais pas d'autres diligences que les diligences du traité. Le conseil de la Grande-Bretagne paraît s'efforcer d'établir des règles des diligences dues en dehors du traité. Il est trop tard pour entrer dans cette voie. Après les pas en avant que le tribunal a déjà faits dans ses travaux, il ne vaut plus la peine de nous rembarquer sur la vague, où le vague du droit des gens en dehors du traité. Nous nous appuyons sur les paroles explicites du traité, qui subordonne le droit des gens général au pacte des trois règles, qui est rétroactif et qui applique expressément les diligences dues aux cas et aux objets spéciaux de ces règles.

Pour cette dernière considération je refuse de suivre le conseil de la Grande-Bretagne dans sa discussion sur la question de la différence qui existe d'après le droit des gens, s'il en existe une, entre le devoir des neutres à l'égard des navires armés en guerre et leur devoir à l'égard des navires équipés pour la guerre et pas encore armés.

There is a play on the words "la vague" and "le vague" in the original which cannot be translated.