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

States at some or all Of the times, did fail to
use diligence for the suppression of hostile
expeditions from their shores, which ought
| TO have been exercised, and which Is required
| by the rules Of the Treaty Of Washington.
! The United States would regard such impu-
tatiOn as q reproach, however Intended by its
| authors. They have, therefore, determined
to ask the Arbitrators TO examine further ev-
idence on these points, which they have the
honor TO submit herewith; although they
cannot but recognize that the Arbitrators
may Justly feel that neither party should add
TO their arduous labors by the Introduction
OF statements and evidence wholly foreign
TO the issues submitted at their discretion.
The evidence now submitted by the United
States regarding the performance Of their
international duties, is voluminous, and
spreads over a series of years and variety
OF incidents. IL relates TO the contest be-
tween Spain and her colonies; TO the war be-
tween Brazil and Ortego's Governments TO
the struggles Of the Cubans for Inde-
pendence; TO the war between Spain and
the South American Republics, and to the
Crimean war. In all these contests IL be-
came the duty OF the United States to pre-
serve their neutrality under difficult crCum-
stances, often when the sympathy of q large
mass of their people were enlisted in oppo-
sition to national obligations. Her Maics-
ty's Government has thought IL ought to call
in question the efficiency, while admitting
the good faith with which the United States
performed their duties in these irving cir
cumstances. The evidence now submitted
shows that Her Majesty's Government has
been msinformcd; that the United States
did perform her duties at those times with a
fidelity and activity which, had they been
initiated by Great Britain at the beginning
of the insurrection, would have made the
present proceeding unnecessary.
8. The United States unite with Her Males
ty's Government in its remarks calling atten-
tion TO the fact that the President of the
United States, at the request of the Portu
gucse Government, did, in 1917, recommend
Congress to confer upon the Government
not only power to punish offenders, but,
also, Others, to prevent the commission of
oflenses, and that Congress did, in cOmpli-
ance with such request, confer such power in
the neutrality act, in 1917 and 1878
9. The United States are at loss TO un-
derstand what reference is intended by the
words 'It is needless here to refer particu
larry to the more recent Instances of vessels
fitted out in ports of the United States for
expeditions against countries with which the
United States We're at peace. These in
stances are well known" Vague insinua-
tions like these without definite statements,
allegation or proof, furnish no foundation
for answer in the only form in which the
treaty permits the United States to defend
themselves
TO- The United States emphatically denv
have been infringed by acts much more
fragrant than any of those now charged
against Great Britain. They feel coutdcnt
that fair consideration of proof which they
have offered, and of that which they now
offer showing the fidelity with which they
have ever performed their international
duties, will convince the Arbitrators that thev
have honestly, strenuously, in good faith,
and due diligence, striven to perform their
duties.
IL. The United States think that Her Maj
esty's Government has been incorrectly in
formed regarding the United States statute
of 1915 commonly known as "Thc Neutrali-
ty Act" 1t is stated on Page 20 that the
British act of 1919 is more stringent, rigor-
Gus, and comprehensive than that of the
United States. Her Majesty's Government
does not say in what respect the superior
stringency, rigor, and comprehensiveness of
that act is supposed to consist. If the Brit
ish act could have been suspended by act of
the Crown, which is supposed to have been
the case, it may Mt least be held to have fur
nished less permanent and certain remedies
than the law of the United States. The United
States think that the qualities of stringency,
rigor, and cOmprehcnsivencss will he found
in their law in q superior degree, and they
call attention to the following points of com
parison
First. The enlistment of British subjects
only are made unlawful by the British act
| The American act, on the contrary, makes
all enlistments within neutral jurisdiction
unlawful, except naval enlistments OF sub
jects of the enlisting belligerent made on the
I deck of the vessel of belligercnt while within
neutral waters. Second. BY Executive and
judicial construction the words equip, tit
out, and fnrnish,n have much broader
meaning in America than in Great Britain,
| as the United States have explained i'm
their case. Third. The tenth and
/ eleventh sections of the American act com
] lt- 4
mitted not to be in the British and it is also
admitted that these clauses are intended to
! be preventive and not punitive. Fourth.
The eighth section of the United States act
is also omitted in the English act. This sec
tion, the practical operation of which is eX-
planned in the case OF the United States, is
regarded by the United States, by far the
most efficient of the act for the prevention
of violations of neutrality. Fifth. 1t may
not have escaped the attention of the Arbi-
traitors that Her Majesty's Government has
itself furnished evidence of the superiority
of the United States statute over the British
act. - may remark" says Sir Frederick
Bruce, British Minister at Washington, writ.
ing to his Government, "that the Govern.
ment of the United States has considerable
advantages in proceedings against vessels
under the statute. They have on the spot
where preparations are being made, District
Attorney, legal officer responsible to the
Government, to whom the duty Of inyestiga
tiOn is committed"
II. Without questioning in the Counter
case the correctness Of the propositions ]:
and Is of English Constitutional law, thC
United States think that they are not mis-
taken when they say that the privilege which
a witness is supposed to have of refusing tC
answer question is personal privilege o
which witness may or may not avail himself
1t is not supposed to be one which Court
will voluntarily take from him and enforce
against his wishes.
l3. In the statements, regarding the sup
posed duties of officials of the United State
to keep watchful eye on whatever nigh
tend to endanger the security or interests o
the United States, it is not made quite clea
whether Her Majesty's Government regarde,
these as duties of which it had the right t
demand the performance of by these officials
or as duties which they owed to their owl
Government, although the latter interpreta
ton would seem to be the most reasonable
one. There is some ground to suppose tina
Her Maiesty's Government has made tn
statement in the former sense. Withou
admitting that sense to be just to the Unitet
States, even should such obligation
not be disputed, Her Majesty
Government would not thereby be relieve,
and yigilant watchfulness, in order to pre-
vent eyildispOsed persons from violating it
neutrality, nor would Minister of belliger
ent power, as Mr.. Adams was in the eye of tn
BRUSH Cabinet, be required after the rcceip
of official information as to the nature ant
character of the evidence that must accom-
pany his representation, to make, or be com
planned of for not making, representation
of the fact to a neutral Government, cxccp
in the manner in which he had been notidel
to make them. Thus to apply the PROPOSE
tiOn: Mr.. Adams being notified by the Britis
Government that, in order to secure oflicu
action on complaint of contemplated viola
tiOn of British neutrality by the insurgents
he must furnish proof of the fact sulllcien
to warrant conviction for violation of tn
? foreign enlistment act, could not he charge
, by that Government with responsibility 70
} not making representations embOdying
lesser degree of proof
A. The United States do not understan
I that it is true that the allegations that We.
sells were being prepared for cruising or 70
/ carrying on war We're in all cases fOllowe
by seizures of vessels, when sufficien
( piiDd tdcie evidence of illegal purpo ses wa
furnished. They understood exactly tn
contrary to have been the case That unit
- the opinion Of the law officers of the Grow
, / tri,r Ia. 10. A..