Page.

413

415

415

415

413

419

420

422

423

421

424

424

423

426

426

426

427

428

428

429

430

III.-ARGUMENT OF SIR ROUNDĚLL PALMER-Continued.

They followed up all information received by proper inquiries.

Necessity and propriety of seeking evidence from those who

give information

Mr. Jefferson's letter of September 5, 1793

Onus imposed on British claimants against the United States

under the Treaty of 1794...

Uniform reference of the Executive Authorities of the United

States in similar cases to legal procedure and the necessity for

legal evidence....

Of the suggestion that the belief of the consuls of the United

States in British ports should be treated as sutiicient prima-

facie evidence...

The preventive efticacy of the American law tried by the test of

practical results...

The general result proves that many failures may happen, with-

out want of due diligence, from causes for which Governments

cannot be held responsible..

Attempt of the United States to change the onus probandi in this

controversy.

It is a transgression of the Rules of the Treaty

The law of nations does not justity this attempt.

The decision in the case of the Elizabeth against it.

Special questions remaining to be consiilered.

The alleged duty of pursnit. The Terceira expedition...

2. The effect of the commissions of the Confederate ships of war on their en-

trance into British ports..

The true construction of the first Rule of the Treaty

The privileges of public ships of war in neutral ports..

The case of the Exchange

Other authorities...

The Rule cannot require au act wrongful by international law....

There is no rule obliging a neutral to exclude from his ports ships

of this description.

In any view the latter part of Rule I cannot apply to the Georgia or

the Shenandoah....

The distinction suggested by the United States between ships of war

of recognized nations and ships of a non-recognized State..

All the ships in question were duly commissioned ships of war..

3. On supplies of coal to Confederate ressels in British ports ....

Both parties in the war equally received such supplies..

Such supplies are not within the rule as to not using neutral terri-

tory as a base of operations.

What is meant by the words "a base of naval operations

What is not meant by thoso words..

Consequences of a lax use of the phrase..

Effect of the addition of the words “renewal or augmentation of

military supplies or arms".

Doctrine of Chancellor kent...

President Washington's rules and other authorities..

Acts of Congress of 1794 and 1018......

British Foreign-Eulistinent Act of 1819..

Universal understanding and practice.

Intention of the second Rule of the Treaty on this point..

British regulations of January 31, 1862.

4. Principles of construction applicable to the Rules of the Treaty.

Importance of the second and third questions, as to the principles of

construction applicable to the three Rules...

Rules for the interpretation of public conventions and treaties..

Applications of these principles to the interpretation of the three

Rules as to the points in controversy.

Intluence on the construction of the retrospective terms of the

agreement

The admitted intention of both parties as to the second Rule...

Intiuence upon the construction of the agreement to propose the

three Rules for general adoption to other maritime nations...

IV.-ARGUMENT OF MR. EVARTS IN REPLY TO THE SPECIAL ARGUMENT OF Sir

430

431

432

4:33

433

433

434

433

435

435

435

436

436

436

437

437

437

439

438

439

440

441

441
Page.

443

443

443

446

446

448

445

450

451

451

452

452

454

455

435

458

458

459

459

400

460

461

462

464

465

469

471

11.- ARGUMENT OF VR. EVARTS, &C.-Continued.

Due diligence..

The Rules of the Treaty the law of this Case.

Sir R. Palmer's attempt to disparage the Rules examined..

How far the Tribunal may resort to the Rules of International Law.

Sir R. Palmer's principles for the construction of Treaties examined..

Effect of a commission.

United States construction of the first Rule.

Effect of the words “reasonable ground to believe

The rules of law respecting the effect of a commission ...

Extent of the right of exterritoriality granted to ships of war.

Recognition of belligerency not a recognition of sovereignty

Application of the principles.

Acts done in violation of neutrality are hostile acts..

The neutral whose nentrality has been violated is uuder no obligation

of comity to the violator..

Authorities to show that the construction in neutral territories of a ship

intended to carry on war against a belligerent is forbidden by the law

of nations..

The applicability of the rule to the Georgia and the Shenandoah.

The question of coaling is a branch of the greater question of the use

of British ports as bases of hostile operations.

The doctrine of asylum considered..

Analogy between the duties of a neutral on land and his duties at sea..

Limitation of the right of commercial dealings in contraband of war..

L'se of a neutral port as a base of hostile operations; what it is

In the case of the Nashville..

In the case of the Shenandoah.

The question of the use of the neutral port as a base of hostile opera-

tions being established, there remains the inquiry whether the neutral

did or did not exercise due diligence to prevent it..

Such proceedings are not mere dealings in contraband of war..

Statement of the British argument on this point....

The arming and equipping the cruisers forbidden by the law of nations..

They should therefore have been disarmed when they came again within

British ports....

The construction of the Rules of the Treaty

Review of Sir R. Palmer's criticisms upon the Argument of the United

States.....

The prerogative of the Crown..

Preventive and punitive powers of each Government.

The failure of Great Britain to originate investigations or proceedings..

The due diligence required by the Rules is a diligence to prevent a hostile

act...

Comparison between the statutes of the two nations.

The burden of proof.

The Terceira affair..

Conclusion...

V.-ARGUMENT OF Mr. CUSHING IN REPLY TO THE SPECIAL ARGUMENT OF SIR

ROUNDELL PALMER

Due diligence...

A theoretical discussion not wanted.

Views of Sir Robert Phillimore..

Views of Sir Roundell Palmer in the case of Lairds' rams

Definition of due diligence.

Powers of the Crown..

Obligations imposed by international law as distinguished from mui-

472

472

473

474

477

479

480

481

482

483

486
Page.

VI.-REPLY OF MR. WAITE, &C.-Continued.

It should not be in neutral territory..

513

The insurgents had no such base within their own territory.

514

Great Britain knew this..

514

The advantages of these facts to the United States...

514

Efforts of the insurgents to obtain bases of operations in neutral terri-

· tory.

515)

Toleration of use equivalent to perinission

515

Toleration implies knowledge....

315

Great Britain had reasonable ground to believe that the insurgents in-

tended to use its ports...

515

Their ottective vessels of war came from Great Britain.

515

When obtained they were useless without a base of operations.

516

They might bave been excluded from British ports...

516

This would have prevented the injuries which followed.

516

The United States requested Great Britain to prevent this abuse of its

territory.

517

Great Britain refused to prevent it..

517

Great Britain encouraged the nse of its ports by the insurgents for re-

pairs and for obtaining provisions and coal

518

All this constituted a violation of neutrality which entailed responsi-

bility

519

VII.-ARGUMENT OF SIR ROUNDELL PALMER ON THE QUESTION OF THE RE-
CRUITMENT OF MEN FOR TJIE SHENANDOAIL AT MELBOURNE..

320

VIII.-OBSERVATIONS ADDRESSED TO THE TRIBUNAL BY MR. CUSHING, IN THE

NAME OF THE COUXSEL OF THE UNITED STATES, ON THE 21ST AUGUST, 1872,

AND MEMORANDUMAS TO THE ENLISTMENTS FOR THE SITENANDOAIL AT MEL-

BOURNE

552

IX.-ARGUMENT OF Sir ROUNDELL PALMER ON THE SPECIAL QUESTION AS TO

THE LEGAL EFFECT OF THE ENTRANCE OF THE FLORIDA INTO THE PORT OF

MOBILE, OR THE RESPONSIBILITY, IF ANY, OF GREAT BRITAIN FOR TILAT SHIP.. 511

X.-REPLY OF THE COUNSEL OF TIIE UNITED STATES TO THE ARGUMENT OF HER

BRITANNIC MAJESTY's COUNSEL ON THE SPECIAL QUESTION OF THE LEGAL Er-

FECT, IF ANY, OF THE ENTRY OF THE FLORIDA INTO THE PORT OF MOBILE, AFTER

LEAVING THE BAHAMAS, AND BEFORE MAKING ANY CAPTURES.

516

XI.- ARGUMENT OF SIR ROUNDELL PALMER ON THE CLAIM OF THE UNITED

STATES FOR INTEREST BY WAY OF DAMAGES.

330

XII.-REPLY ON THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES TO THE ARGUMENT OF HER

BRITANNIC MAJESTY'S COUNSEL ON THE ALLOWANCE OF INTEREST IN THE COM-

PUTATION OF INDEMNITY UNDER TUE TREATY OF WASHINGTON..

509

XIII.—COMPARATIVE TABLES PRESENTED BY THE AGENT OF THE UNITED STATES

ON THE 19TII OF AUGUST, 1872, IN COMPLIANCE WITHI THE REQUEST OF THE

TRIBUNAL..

579

XIV.-TABLES PRESENTED BY TILE AGENT OF HER BRITANNIC MAJESTY ON THE

19TI OF AUGUST, 1872, IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUEST OF THE TRIBUNAL. 610

XV.-REPLY OF THE AGENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO THE NEW MATTER INTRO-

DUCED BY THE AGENT OF ILER BRITANNIC MAJESTY ON THE CULL OF THE

TRIBUNAL FOR ELECIDATION IN RESPECT TO THE TABLES PRESENTED BY THE

TWO GOVERNMENTS...

633

XVI.-A NOTE ON SOME OBSERVATIONS PRESENTED BY MR. BAXCROFT DAVIS ON

THE 29TII AIGUST..

638