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

1 -
British act; and IL is also admitted that the,
clauses are intended TO be preventive. and d,
punitive.
Fourth-The eighth section Of the Unite
states act is also omitted in the English ac
Ihls section, the practical operation Of whic
is explained in the case OF the United state
| IS regarded by the United States as By far tn
most efneient pat of the act for the preveI
| ton OF violations Of the neutrality act.
| Fifth-It may not have escaped the after
ton Of the arbitrators that Her Nlaiestv,s Soy
ernment has itself furnished evidenee of IN
| superiority Of the United States statute owe
| me British act Il may remark" says 81
Frederick Bruce, British minister at Wash
| lngtoni writing TO his Government, "that TIA
! Government OF the United States has consid
| cradle advantages in proceedings agains
vessels under the statute. They have on tn
/ spot where the preparations are being made
| a District Attorney, a legal officer, who is re
sponsible 70 the Government, to whom tn
duty of investigation is committed tn
/ libel Is in the nature Of a proceeding in ad
/ mlralty IN rem, and Il Is decided by judg
conVersant with international and maritim
law without the Intervention of jury. Vol
3 Brit App, last paper, page siXty-seven, ant
vol. 4, American Evidence, page one hundred
and sixty-twO,
counter case the CORRECTNESS OF proPOsi
tions one, two and three Of Eng
lish constitutional law, on page thirty
the United states OF America thinl
mistaken when they say that the privileg,
which awitneSs is supposed 20 have OF refusing
to answer questions is a personal privilege o
WHICH n MlNutoS may vi may uOl avail MN
self II is not supposed TO see one which
court will voluntarily take for him and en-
force against his wishes.
Twelfth.-In statements, on pages thirty-ont
and thirty-twO, regarding the supposed dutie.
of officials of the Unfted states 10 keep 8
watchful eye on whatever might tend TO en-
danger the security OF interests Of the United
states. 1t Is not made quite clear whether
or not Her Majesty's government regard
these as duties OF which II had any righi
to demaud the performance Of these officials
m rs rlmffpq which they owed fftafr rVvTl
government. Although the latter lnterpreta-
lion would seem to be the most reasonable
one, there Is some ground 70 suppose that Her
MaJesty's government has made the state
ment in the former sense without admittine
in that sense to be Just, the United States in
sist that even should such obligation not be
disputed Her Majesty S government would not
thereby be relieved from the duty of an inde-
pendent, diligent and vigilant Watchfulness
In order to prevent eyil-dispOsed persons from
violating its neutrality, nor would the minis
ter OF a belligerent power, as Mr.. Adams was
in the eve OF tho British cabinet, be required
after receipt Of official information as to the
nature ana character OF the evidence that
must accompany his representation TO make
or be complained of for not making repre-
sentations OF the fact to a neutral govern
meut, except in the manner in which he had
been notified to make them thus to apply the
proposition. Mr.. Adams, being notified by
the British government that in order to secure
Official action on the complaint of cOntem-
plated violation of British neutrality by the
insurgents, he must furnish proof of the fact
sufficient to warrant a conviction for viola
ton of the foreign enlistment act, could not
be changed by that government with respon-
Sibility for not making representations en-
bOdying a lesser degree OF proof.
Eourteenth-The United states do not un-
derstand that it is true that the allegations
that vessels were being prepared for cruising
or carrying on the war, were in all cases fol-
lowed by the seizure Of vessels. When sufi-
cient pTinld Jdctd evidence of Illegal purpose
was furnished, they understood exactly the
contrary to have been the case; that until the
opinion of the law officers Of the crown, given
on the 18th day OF J Julyt lS52 the day of the es-
cape of the Alabama, all branches OF Her
Majesty's government held that il was neceS-
sary not only TO establish preparation for
cruising or carrying on war, but also an actual
arming Of the offending cruiser in British
port, in order TO justify Its seizure; and that
this prevailing opinion was atterwaTd sus-
tanned In effect by the courts OF England in
the Alexandra case, which is the still unre-
verssd judicial construction Of the act OF 1873.
Fifteenth-On page % is given what pur-
ports to be an explanation OF the meaning Of
the words registry" and clearance" of the
duties Of officers empowered TO register ships,
and Of officers of customs in respect to clear
ances. Tie acts Of Parliament prescri bing
their duties and comforting their powers are
not specially referred 10, but the United states
understood them to be the merchant shipping
act, I54, Il and Is; Victoria act, l04; customs
consolidation act, l55, 10 and Il, and Victoria
act, l07 with their several amendments.
These acts, in the opinion of the United
States, confer more extended powers on the
officers OF Her MaieSty'S government than is
stated in the British case, and they therefore
ask the attention Of the tribunal to the acts
themselves, extracts from which are here
Part four Of the British case assumes to
state certain considerations proper 10 be kept
in view by the arbitrators, in reference TO the
cases OF the Florida, Alabama, Georgia and
Shenandoah The United states have already
made II clear, both in their case and this.
II is scarcely necessary to say that the
United states deny the allegations regarding
the supposed negligence Of the navy.
First-The statements made regarding the
Alabama in the sixth part Of the British case
conflicts but little with those made in the
American case; in many instances they
strengthen the American case. First, there
is no. discrepancy as to- what took place in
Liverpool prior 70 the escape OF the vessel.
Some new facts are introduced, for example (:
"A"-That in reply to Mr.. Adams representa-
ttOns of the law, the officers OF the crown ad-
vised that he should be informed that her
Majesty's Government was investigating the
case, and that their course would depend on
the nature and sufficiency Of any evidence of
breach Of law which they might obtain.
'fB'-ThRt official legal advisers Of customs
gave their opinion on the evidence contained
IN Mr.. Adams representations, which were in
conflict with the opinions OF the law officers
OF the crown. 'C."-That these opinions We're
given on questions after they had been sub
mitted to the law officers of the crown, and
before the latter had rendered their opinions.
Next, that the customs department. Of her
Majesty's Government, to which Mr.. Adams
was referred by Lord Russell as charged with
lle u0naEeIne Ol dHalls atleQ upon the
opinions Of their own advisors at a time when
they must have known that the law officers
Of the crown had the subject under considera-
ton.
Second-The opinion Of the law officers of
the crown, now first made public, confirms
the views Of the United States presented in
their case.
Third-It appears that the Commissioners Of
Customs knew on Tuesday, twenty y-ninth Of
July, that the Alabama had escaped that day.
and that Il was not until Friday, nTst Of Au-
grfYg a f1CltnrfnrE a HniNnnan
Beaumaris received Instructions TO detain
her. On the second Of August the Collector al
his instructions, and had found that the Ala
bama had left Point LinaS on the morning
of Thursday, the thtrty-hrst II, therefore,
the instructions given on the hrst OF August,
had been given on the twenty-ninth Of July,
the Alabama might have been detained at
Fourth"aer 'i Mgesty's Government in
trodueed the dispatch OF Mr., Adams
regarding his correspondence with.
Cdptaip Craven, apparently with the
purpose OF assuming hereafter that Captain
the Tusearora, on the twenty-niRth Of July;
that he left there for Queeusto 1En, arriving at
the latter place on the thirtieth; that on the
thirty-first he reeeiVed a telegram informing
him that the Alabama was on Point Linas,
and that On the first of August he set sail from
st. Georges channel TOWARDS that point. Air.
Adams objected 70 the course ne took as
facts revealed subsequently by Mr. Adams's
dispatch show that the Alabama had left
Point Linas before Captain Craven knew
that she had been there. Without regard,
therefore, 10 the principles which might and
will be disputed, this s2ot relieves the arbi-
traitors from considering any proposed resPon-
sibility OF the United states for the acts Of the
Tuscarora al that rHs.
FIfth-The British Consul's report of the vis-
Il OF The Alabama TO Martinique shows she was
in the habit VI sailing under the British nag.
This fact was knoTH g Her Msjesty's GOV
fha SaNpntRnTlfl of Ilapgrfl
Sixth-In January, 1868, the steamer Ala
bama entered Port Royal, Jamaica, for re-
the Government in allowing such hospitali-
ties to be granted was approved by Earl Rus-
sell, February II, 1858. This approval appears
TO have been given without regard or the ad-
vice Of the Law officers Of the Crown. Appen-
dix page 2ia ff
Seventh-Great stress Is apparently laid on
the reception and acts Of the Alabama IN Bra
lillian waters The United States Invite at
tention to the striking contrast between the
course Of her Majesty's Government in the
acts eomplsipeS Of before the tribunal, ana
the course Of the Emperor's Government as
shown in enclosure No. 4, On page 20 OF the
appendix, as shown in the Brazilian circular
on page "a, stating that the Copiederate crate
been recognized as belliserents only with
the necessary restrictions, and thai the expor-
tation of warlille articles from the ports OF
the Empire to the Insurgents, whether under
Brazilian or foreign nag wss for
hidden, but that a similar trade TO ports
OF the United states M9S lQEllQlGn
only to the BRAZILIAN nag, IS 81 o.g a ia me rule
as to coal, and as shown in The carefully
drawn distinction between Aospltalitses like
those permitted in the British West India
ports for the purpose OF aiding vessei in a
hostile cruise and in hospitaiities given to en-
able vessel 70 reach home port,
~ ssseIteZHsE stsles S9yeET13Imnent aver
not eRlisted Tor the service Of the Insurgents.
The United States contend that the evidence
shows IRRE . large portion OF the crew knew
whittier they Wesree l Ss.ss
Ninth-The United states contend that II is
mn INN n aSsasE kay aid 81 elq PR make
Is, however, that they mad9 great efforts and
incurred great expense t9g thai purne,ssss me
Y Onlted states elso fespecttuliy refer the tribu-
Hal y arpitration 70 the correspondence with
lpe Eortngese OoNeInment and authorizes
concerning this vessel, which IS contained
in the documents submitted in this counter
case. - -
Ia the seventh section the evidence Of
Tered by Great Britain regarding Georgia is
N N tne main Identical with that offered 9y the
united States in many respects. New docu-
ments strengthen the case Of the United