Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1872-04-23

OF diligence bordering upon wilful negligenc
But while thus anticipating this position
Her Majesty's Governments case, they III
not and do not assent 20 its correetness. The
do not conceive that the law Of nations toi,
rates the proposition that belligerents are r
quired TO submit without redress 10 the init
RES OF neutral negligence till II reaches IN
extremity suggested.
Finh-The British case attempts to narro'
] the international duties OF the Government
the exercise OF restraining the powers cor
I ferred on IL by municipal laws
! Sixth-It oVerlOOl1s the obligation Of a net
tral TO amend It's municipal laws when IN
/ powers conferred by such law prove made
[ quate for the performance Of internationE
duties. In this view, many statements IN IN
British case, as 10 actual distribution OF pow
ers in Her Majesty's Government, though In
teresting, are Irrelevant in measuring its ex
! ternal obligations
! Seventh-The British case supposes that tn
/ liability of Great Britain to make indemnit
to the United states should be limited TO case
4 in which the United states court by afhrma
! tive proof, shows that they actively and dill
gently exerted their naval power 70 prevent
! The United states contend that such propos
| ed Limitation has no just foundation in sounI
] principles of International or other law.
! Part Two Of the British case assumes to giy'
/ an Introductory statement Of
! l. The events which attended and followed
/ the coumencemtsnt Of civil war in America
/ 2 The course pursued by Great Britain il
8. The course pursued by other maritime
powers IN relation thereto.
Part third assumes to give statement Oh
/ international rights ana duties or power
which was possessed by Her BTitanic Majes
equipments, and the manner and circum.
stances In and under which these powers were
exercised during the war.
The United States, with the reservation
heretofore made, now call attention to the
principal points OF differences between the
cases of the gOyernInents-
/. The United states insist that Her Majes
tvs government is politically and historical
Is in an error in the assertion on page sixth
that the contest terminated in 1860 in a com.
pIete re-conquest of the eleven Confederate
;. Ifit be intended by the statement on page
seventh, that in and soon after the month OF
May, 1851, a number of armed ships were fitted
and sent to sea from ports IN the Confederate
States, 10 lead the arbitrators TO suppose thai
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 cannot toe
strongly protest that Her Majestys govern
ment is in error in this respect.
g. The United States have, in their case
called attention to the tri bunal tracts of Bel
gium, ,POrtugal, Russia andPrussia, which seem
10 have been overlooked by the authors Of the
British case, in their enumeration of the acts
of maritime powers in regard 70 all the mari
time powers. The tribunal Will doubtless OBJ
serve that those which recognized the insur-
gents as lawful bellgerents, did 50 only after
Great Britain the principal maritime power
had elevated them under the name of the
Confederate states 10 this rank. and had thus
conferred on LuElu iii the huDSldDlldl aQkdU-
tages which they could gain from recognition
by the maritime powers. They viii also OBJ
serve that the other governments did not re-
eOgnize the title which the insurgents had
taken for themselves, thus, for example:
The proclamation OF the Emperor of the
French spoke Of Them as the states which
pretend TO form confederation. The circu-
lars Of the Dutch Government spoke OF
the existing circumstances in the United
the doubtful complications in the United
States of North America and the Brazilian
circular expressly states the Confederate
States to have no legal existence.
l. II is stated on page y that the ports and
wsteTs OF Her Malesty's domtniOns were re-
sorted 10 by the United states cruisers for
coaling and other purposes more frequently
than by vessels Of the Confederate states. Ii
by this IL is intended TO imply that, having
regard to the great disparity Of numbers bet
Ween the vessels Of the United States and
those Of the insurgents, the United States en-
jOyed to an equal extent with the insurgents
the hospitality Of the British ports, or that,
without regard to that disparity, these hospit-
alities were extended with impartial neutral
ity to eachs the United States emphatically
deny IL.
sit Is stated on page 25 that the acts of
which the government is understood to com
plain be long 10 class which have
not commonly been made the object OF
prohibitory legislation; that in few cOun-
tries, or in none, according to information
received by Her Britau9hic Maiestyis Govern
ment, did the law directly prohibit such acts
or make any definite proposition for pTi-
watering then or al the ime when this war
began, except in the United Stales and Great
Britain, The information of the United
States on this point does not agree with that
OF Her Majesty's Government. They have
the honor 10 refer the tribunal to the state
ments concerning the laws of Austria, Bel
gium, Denmark, France, Italy, the Neither
lands, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden and
Norway, which viii sbe found in the fourth
appendix attached TO the report of the neu-
trality laws commissioners. This document
win be found at the close Of the third volume
Of the British appendix, and in the fourth
volume OF American evidence, between pages
lZ6 and los. They also refer 70 the
documents and evidence herewith submit
tied regarding the laws of the several States
Of Europe and America for the preservation Of
their neutrality. II viii appear from all this
evidence that acts such as these of which the
United states complain have been widely
made the subject Of positive legislation, and
that in no country except Great Britain, so far
as the United states are advised, has il been
assumed that the proceedings under munich
pal or local laws are the measure OF neutral
obligations towards other governments. On
page Twenty-Five ii is stated with reference to
the steps taken by the President at Washing
ton that the measures adopted by the Exec
utiYe of the United States to restrain these
teeTs, proved inadequate, In answer 10 this
the United States recall 10 the recollection
of the tribunal that the French Min
lister that day contended that his gov
eminent denied the right to commission
prIVateers from the ports of theUnited States,
according 10 the provisions of the treaty
Of lT7S between France and the United States,
a treaty made at time when Great Britain
was at war with the United States. The re-
pressige H3easures Of President Washington
were taken under sense of the duties OF the
United States as a neutral under the law Of
nations, and in TACT Of their particular duties
ander the treaty as construed by France. In
the memoir Of Mr.. Abbot, now Lord Tenter-
den, which Will be found in the British ap-
perdiX at the end Of volume third, IL is stated
that the result Of the publication of the
rules Of the tourth Qt August, V tlch were meas
ures adopted by the Executive referred to in
the British case, was that the system prevailing
was, generally speaking, suppressed, though
cases seem 10 have occurred until the arrival
n Mr., Genst's successor, who discovered this
ACT and recalled ths commissions he had
granted to priVat3eFS,
!. The remark on pages ~ q and Is, regard
ing the manner in which the United States
have at different times performed their duties
as Neutral nation toward Spain, Portugal
aud other powers stated, was made without
any intention Of der Ma government
to cast any reErQach on the Government or
people of the United States. They are, how
ever, apparently introduced for the purpose OF
Inducing the arbitratOrs to aSsUL1e that the
United States at soIas or all Of these times did
fsiI 70 use such diligence for the suppression
OF hostile expeditions from thsiT shores which
ought 10 have been exercised, and which is re-
6f Washington. The URitsd states would
regard such imputation as a TeprOach, how
ever intended by its authors: They have,
thsrefore, determined to ask the arbitTatOrs
10 examine further the evidence on these
poiuts which they have the honor TO submit
herewith, although hey can but recognize
that the arbitrators may justly feel that nei-
ther party should add to their arduous labors
BY tie Introduction of statements and evil
dence wholly foreign TO the issues submitted
10 their discretion. The evidence now sub
mitted by the United Sf6tss regarding the
perfornanae Of their internaticngl duties Is
voluminous, and spreads over series Of yssrs
and a variety OF incidents. II relates 10 the
contest between Spain and Der colonies; to
the war between Brazil and the OTt!gas gov
eminent; to the struggles Of the Cubans for in
dependence; 10 the w-ar between spain and the
south American Republic and 70 the Crimean
war: and in all these contests, IL became the
duty of the United States 70 preserve neu-
trality under difficult circumstances, and Of
ten when the sympathy Of large mass of her
people we're enlisted In opposition TO tbs ma
tionai 6iigations, Her Majesty Government
mas thought II ought 70 call In question the eff
cheney, while admitting the good faith with
which the United states performed their du-
ties IN these Trying circumstances. The evil
dence now submitted shows coneiuSiVelY that
Her Matestys G0yernment has been nisin-
formed, aud that the United states did per
form their duties at these times with fidelity
by Great Britain during The resurrection, IL
wOuld have made the present proceedings un-
Necessary
Majesty s government, ~ Is remarks on page
tw6nty-seYen, calling attention 20 the fact
that the President of the United States, at the
request Of the Eortngese government, dlal IN
government not only the power 70 punish Of.
fepders but also toprevent ths commission OF
onensss, and that Congress did, in compliance
with such request, confer such power its II
neutrality acts Of 1877 end 1878.
9. Thai the United states srs et a loss TO un'
deTstand TO what reference is Intended by the
words op page ~ II ls needless here 70 refer
particularly 10 the more resent Instances o.
vessels ntted out in ports Of the Cnitee
states for expeditions against countries with
gbieb .he United Stdses were az peace. Thest
Instances we're vel known. Vague enis,.,na
clatiops like tlese, Yitleut definite state
msnls, ellegatioh OF proof furnish 70 fepnda-
tion for an answer I'd the only form in which
the treaty permits the United States to defend
themselves
10, The United States emphaticalIy deny
the statement on page . that their prohibi-
terry Laws have been tsfesEged by acts much
uofe 6agrant than any Gf those nov SRErged
against Great hntalI, They feel confident
thar the fair consideration OF proaf which
they have offered and Of that which they nov
offer showing the fldehty with which they
have ever performed their International du.
lies will convince the arbitrators that they
have honesty and strenuously in good faith
and due diligence slriFen TO perform these