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." d also been the practice of the executive authority in cing the laws to act upon information afforded by foreign ils, or by other persons interested in preventing the acts bited by law, and to require the persons furnishing such mation to produce evidence in support of it. The British foreign-enlistment act of 1819 ritish Laws. was, said the British Case, modeled on the neutrality act passed by the United States in preceding year; but, as regarded the matters in question, as "more stringent, rigorous, and comprehensive" than American law. During the forty-two years that elapsed ween its passage in 1819 and the year 1862 only one case nded on an alleged violation of its provisions appeared to ve been brought to trial before a court. It resulted that law of Great Britain, as it existed at the time of the civil r in the United States, was such as in the exercise of due resight might reasonably be deemed adequate for enabling e British Government to perform its neutral obligations. ut, in connection with the terms of the law, the following rinciples of the constitutional law of Great Britain were, aid the British Case, to be considered: "1. The Executive can not deprive any person, even tempoarily, 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, Every witness is liable to be cross- elled to answer a question put to s apply equally, whether the object Contraband and The blockade of the Confederate ports, said 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 informa tion 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 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 |