The Portland daily press., 1871-12-20
THE PR ESS.
WEDNESDAY MORNING. DEC. 90. 1871.
The Alabama Claims
MEETING AT GENEVA OF THE rrrR,rx., -,
ARBITRATION.

was presented by Hon. j. c. B. Davis. After
reciting the provisions of the Treaty. the State
ment proceeds
The United States have the honor to lay be-
fore the Tribunal of Arbitration this'their
printed case, accompanied by the documents,
the official correspondence and other evidence
on which they rely. They propose to show by
an historical statement of the course pursued
by the British government toward the United
States from the outbreak of the insurrection in
the southern States that there was on the part
of that government studied unfrendliness or
fixed predisposition adverse to the United
States, which furnished constant motive for
the several acts of omission and commission
hereinafter complained of, as inconsistent with
its duty as neutral. Having adduced the
evidence of this fact, the United States will
next endeavor to show what they deem to have
been the duties of Great Britain toward the
United States in respect to the several cruisers
Ihe United States will then endeavor to show
that Great Britain failed to perform those du-
Ties, both generally and specifically as to each
of the cruisers; and that such failure involved
the liability to remunerate the United States
for losses thus inflicted upon them, upon their
citizens and upon others protected by theil
Hag Lastly, the United States will endeavor
to satisfy the tribunal of arbitration that it can
lind in the testimony ample material for esti-
mating the amount of such injuries, and will
ask the tribunal to exercise the power conferred
by the Treaty of aw.'lin@a sum in gross to be
paid by Great Britain to the United States for
all the claims. Under the first head, namely,
that of the uafrendlness of the British govern
ment, the statement reviews the relations be-
tween Great Britain and the United States
from the treaty of peace in 1888 to the out
break of the rebellion. The dates of the vari-
GUS events which marked the beginning of the
rebellion are stated with minnteness, and the
times at which tidings. thereof reached Europe
are carefully analyzed, with reference at every
| point to official documents; and the conclusion
is reached with regard to the Queens procla-
| nation OF neutrality that the British govern
| ment received in the afternoon of the 1lth oi
May, 1861, its first complete and official copy OF
| the Presidents Proclamation; that is ten days
after Lord John Russell had decided to award
the rights of beligerency on the ocean to the in
surgents eight days after the subject had been
referred to the law officers for their opinion,
and five days after the decision of the govern
ment upon that opinion had been announced
in the House of Commons. The United States
admit, in the language of the Presidents mes
sage to Congress, 9TH december, 1863, that "a
nation is its owl judge wnen to accord the
rights of belligerency, either to people strug-
gnng to free themselves from governmen,
they believe to be oppressive, or to independent
nations at war with each other" But the
United States deny that the facts then known
to the British government justified the recognl-
tion of the rebels as beligerents, and still less
justified the advice to France to accoyd the
same recognition. On the first of May, 1861,
MIR. Dallas told Lord John Russell that Mr..
Adams had apprised him Mr.. Dallas of his iu
tention of sailing in the Niagara, and that he
might be expected in London about the 18th o.
10th. In point of fact Mr.. Adams did arrive III
London on the evening of the 18th of May
The Queens proclamation had been issued on
the morning of the same day. Other points
made in the Statement under this head are
these: That the British government studiousy
concealed from the United States the fact
its negotiations with France for concerted
recognition of rebel belligerency; that the
British government entered into direct negota
tions VITA Jefferson Davis respecting the Paris
Declaration VI 1856, the use of the British lega-
ton at Wash. .rton for such purpose being
an act that might well be regarded an act o1
war, and at least ID lie regarded as an abuse OF
diplomatic privilege and violation by the
Queens foreign minister of tine neutrality en-
| joined on all her subjects by her proclamation.
| The history of the negotiations IN 1851 Tor the
| adhesion of the United Stases to the Declara-
ton of Paris of 1856 is recited TO prove that the
| British and French governments expected the
| issue of letters of marque by the rebels, anu
that those governments intended to legalizt
! such letters in the eyes of law, and to counte-
| nance the bearers of them in the destruction OF
| the commerce of the Uuited States. The con-
duct Of Great 'ritan in these matters is con
| trasted with th. of the U nited States in the
Trent affair; ant finally speeches of British
statesmen during he war OF the rebellion in
Guiding one of Earl l.ussell as late rs 9Th Jun'
| 1864, are cited to show the unfrlendiy animu
| toward the government of the Union Lort
| Westbury is quoted to show that these varou;
evidences of unfriendliness are pertinent to the
case for the consideration of the arbitrators.
The next head of the Statement Is an eXp0SI
ton of the duties of neutral power as they
are established by international law; these ar,
| deduced from a great variety OF authorities
such as the Queens proclamation, the torelgl
enlistment acts of Great Britain and the JIM
ted States, the history of both of which is i'll
vestigated, including the proceedings of TIN
British royal commission appointed i'll 1867, tn
recent act of Parliament in conformity with it
recommendations, and a judicial opinion b.
Sir Robert Phillimore as late as 18th January
| 1871. Eminent authorities are cited to prove
| that international law is a part of the common
| law of England. A definition OF neutrality
having been deduced from the authorities, The
| Statement proceeds to review the history ol
the several cases which have arisen for the ap
plication of these principles, notably the ac
ton of President Washington in stopping the
fitting-out privateers in behalf of the French IL
| 1884, and the discussions between the United
States and Portugal in 1862. The new rules
introduced in the Treaty of Washington art
next considered, and the opinions of eminen
European publicists are cited. The case of the
Santissima Trinidad is next considered, will
view to showing the phrase so often citeo
from Judge Story's opinion has been mlsunder
Stood that the case was not decided on tina
point and that the opinion of the court upoi
the whole question is only to be obtained by
taking together the opinions in the case OF thu
Santissima Trinidad and the Grand Para, th'
latter pronounced by Chief Justice Marshall
the two cases having been argued and consld
cred together, and the opinions pronounced
on successive days. 1t is contended that Their
is concurrence of the best English, American
and continental opinion to establish the duties
ufnfn
First it is the duty of neutral to preserve stric
and impartial neutrality as to both bellgerent
during hostilities. Second that this obligation
as independent of municipal law. Third, tina
neutral is bound to enforce its municipal law
and its executive proclamation that a belligel
ent has the right to ask it to do so, and to as
for legislation to increase the power Of the eS
eeutive to this effect. Fourth, that nentra
is bound to exercise due diligence to preven
the fitting-out, anping or equipping, witnll
its jurisdiction of any vessel which 1T has rea
s,uable ground to believe is intended to cruis
or Il, carry ON war against a power with whlc
it is at peace. Fifth, that neautral Is boun
to use due diligence to prevent the CONSTRUCTION
of such a vessel. Sixth, that neutral Is Donn
to use like diligence to prevent the departur
from its Jurisdiction of auy vessel Intended I
cruise or carry OH war against any power VIII
which it is at peace; such vessel having pee
specially adapted, in whole or IN part, within
its Jurisdiction, of warlilSc use Seventh, that
neutral NAV not permit or suffer either beiie
erent to make use of its ports or waters as th
base of naval operations against the othel
Eight, that neutral is bound to use due oil
gence in its ports or waters, to prevent >e1the
belligerent from obtaining there a renewal 0
augmentation of military supplies, or arms TO
beliigerent vessels, or the recru .tment OF mel
Ninth, that when a neutral fails to use all til
=. means in its power to prevent breach OF neu
trality of its soil or waters, in any of the fore
going respects, the neutral should make com
pensation for the injury resulting therefron
Tenth, that this obligation is not discharged Z
arrested by the change of the offending vesse
into public man-of. war Eleventh, that thi
obligation is not discharged by fraudulent a
tempt of the offending vessel to evade the pr
visions of a local municipal law. Twelfth, tn:
the offence will not be deposited so as to r
lease the liability of the neutral even by the Ell
try Of the offending vessel in a port of the be
ligerent and there becoming man-of-war,
any part of the original fraud continues to han
about the vessel.
failed perform its duties as a neutral," o.
ers a vast variety of historical detail Some
: the principal points are the following: I'll
privilege of breaking bulk and transshipmei
was accorded to rebel vessels at Nassau in ID
cember, 1861 The United States ask the tt
, bunal to find that this act, not made necessai
by distress, was violation Of the duties OF
neutral. The vessels of war of the Unite
States we're practically excluded from the ha
bor of Nassau, while it was open for free i
eress and egress to vessels of the insurgen
| purchased or built and owned by the rebel a
thorities, bringing their cotton to betransshipt
in British bottoms to Liverpool and taking
board the cargoes of arms and munitions OF W
which had been despatched thither from Ii
erpool. This was no British commerce whi
had existed before the war and which the ne
! trail might claim the right to continue. lt w