Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1872-05-03
THE AMERICAN COUNTER.CAsE

otnhtt NY bilt ItSlutnb On lnt SCus
Her Maicsty's Government assumes that
the reclamations of the United states are to
be confined TO claims growing out OF the acts
OF the Florida, Alabama, Georgia and the
Shenandoah. The claims growing out OF acts
OF other vessels named in the American Case
are regarded by the United States as also en-
braced within the terms Of the Treaty. They
form part Of the claims generally known
as, the "Alabama Claims" They are emu
merated in the fourth Of the series of five
volumes printed by order of the Senate Of
the United States, which are part of the
documents, correspondence and evidence
submitted with the case of the United
states. These volumes, when thus col
.lected and printed, were entitled
Britain" 1t is believed that, under that
title, they were in the library OF the Foreign
Office, ut London, before Her Maiesty's High
commissioners received their instructions
" may also be said, without impropriety,
that under the saT title they were on the
table of the Joint high Commission during
the negotiations which preceded the conclu
sion Of the Treaty The United States,
therefore, while reasserting their construc-
ton OF the language of the Treaty in this re-
spect, feel that they have the right to ask
the Arbitrators to assume that Her Majes-
ty's High Commissioners had noticed and
acquiesced in that construction.
The United States are at q loss to under
stand why several observations are intro
duced into the British Case which apparent
ly aim to limit the three rules of the Treaty.
If, by the principles of construction which
are suggested, Her Maiesty's Government
intend to ask for a mobilization or change In
these rules the United States cannot too
strongly protest against it.
IL is averred In several places that some of
the acts of which the United States complain
were committed by American citizens. If
these statements are introduced for the pur-
rose of urging this fact rs an excuse for the
negligence of Her Maiesty's officials, or for
any other supposed relevant purpose, the
United States will ask the Tribunal to take
note that the American citizens referred to
were criminals in the eye of American law at
the time when they were elevated to the
rank of recognized belligerents against the
United States by the act of Her Maiesty's
Government, an act in which the United
States did not participate and against which
they have never ceased to protest
The British Case seems to concede that a
belllgerent who has wrOnged neutral by
violating its sovereignty, and by forcing it to
take part indirectly in war, may, neverthe-
less, by some subsequent act, such as com
missioning without jurisdiction of the neu-
tral, vessel Of war improperly constructed
within its jurisdiction deprive the neutral of
the right Of taking cognizance of the original
offense. The United States suggest that
such right cannot be lost by the mere act
Of an offending belligerent.
The British Case attempts to limit the
operation of the due diligence in manner
inconsistent with tne principles OF law well
established on the Continent Of Europe, in
the United Kingdom and in the United States
III sets up as the measure of standard
which tluctuates with each succeeding gov
Crnment in the circuit of the globe, viz:
Such care as governments ordinarily employ
in their domestic concerns.
III the United States have correctly inter-
preted its somewhat vague language on
Page 161, the British Case asserts that, in
case like the present, belligerent should be
n shNuy ont tla -
as foundation for a claim for compensation,
an absence of care nearly equivalent to will.
full negligence.
Anticipating this position in Her Maiesty's
Governments Case, the United States did
not ana do not assent to its correctness, but
they presented, for the consideration of the
Arbitrators, certain facts exhibiting an un-
friendly feeling towards them on the part
Or individual members of Her Maiesty's
Government during the contest which might
naturally lead to, and would account for a
want OF diligence bordering upon wilful
negligence.
The British Case attempts to narrow the
international duties of a Government to the
exercise of the restraining powers conferred
ON it by municipal laws. 1t overlooks the
oDllgation of neutral to amend its muni-
yclpal law when the powers conferred by such
INV proves inadequate for the performance
of international duties.
Inc British Case proposes that the liabili-
tv of Great Britain to make indemnity to the
United States should be limited to cases in
which they cannot show by affirmative proof
that they actively and diligently exerted
their naval power to prevent. The United
States contend that such proposed limita-
tion has no just foundation in sound princi-
pies of international or other law.
The United States with the reservation
heretofore made, call atteation only to some
of the principal points of differences between
the cases of the two Governments:
/. The United States insist that Her Maies-
tvs Government is politically and historical
ly in-error in the assertion, on Page 6, that
the contest to secede ended in 1868, in the
compile reconquest of the eleven Confederate
States.
2. If It be intended by the statement on
Page Z, That in and soon after the month OF
May, 1861, number of armed ships were fit
ted out and sent to sea from ports IN the
Confederate States, to lead the Arbitrators
suppose that there was any insurgent vessel
preying on the commerce of the United
States when the Florida or when the Alabama
escaped from Liverpool, the United States
Government cannot too strongly protest that
Her Majesty's Government is in error in thi;
respect.
8. The United States have in their case
called the attention of the Tribunal to the
acts of Belgium, Portugal, Russia and Prus
sia, which seem to have been overlooked by
the authors of the British Case i'm theil
enumeration of the acts of maratime pow
ers. In regard to all the maritime powers
the Tribunal will doubtless observe that
those which recognized the insurgents as
lawful belligerents, did so only after Great
Britain, the principal maritime power, had
elevated them, under the name of the Con
federate States to this rank, and had thu;
conferred on them all the substantial advan
tages which they could get from a genera
recognition by maritime powers. They viii
also observe that other Governments did no
recognize the title which the insurgents haC
taken for themselves.
t. The United States most emphaticall'
deny that, having regard to the great dispar
ity of numbers between the vessels of thu
United States and those of the insurgents
the United States enjoyed, to an equal eX
tent with the insurgents, the hospitalities OF
British ports, or that, without regard to tina
disparity, these hospitalities were EXTENDED
with an impartial neutrality to each.
3. 1t is stated that the acts of which th
Government of the United States is under
stood to complain, belong to a class whicl
have not commonly been made the object
of prohibitory legislation; that in few coun
tries, or none, according to the information
received by Her Britannia Majesty's Govern
ment, did the law directly prohibit such acts
or make any definite proposition for prevent
ing them at the time, except in the Unitet
States and Great Britain. The information
of the United States on this point does no
agree with that of Her Majesty's Govern
ment. They have the honor to refer tn
Tribunal to statements concerning the law
of Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy
the Netherlands, Portugal Spain and Swe
den and Norway, which will be found in tn
fourth appendix attached to the report of tn
Neutrality Laws Commissioners, They alst
refer TO the documents and evidence here
with submitted, regarding the laws of tn
several powers in Europe and America 70
the preservation of their neutrality. 1t vii
appear from all this evidence that acts sucl
as these of which the United States com
plain have been widely made the subject o
positive legislation, and in no country eN
cept Great Britain, so far as the United State
are advised, has it been assumed that pre-
ceedings under municipal or local laws are
measure of neutral obligations toward othe
Governments.
fnreply to the statement with referencet t
the steps taken by President Washington
that the measures adopted by the Exeeutiv
of the United States to restrain these enter
la f,,e DO.