National Republican., 1883-06-25

her Britanic majesty's government at
tempted to excuse this violation of neu-
tral obligations in various methods common in
diplomacy, and among them averred that
under her municipal regulations her officers
Of the law were unable TO prevent this out
rage. When the minister of the United
States in charge Of the correspondence
pointed out the statutes enacted by parlia-
mont which, if enforced ia good faith and
with proper vigor, would, in his opinion,
prevent tho mischief, tho British minister
responded, in substance, that tho enforce
ment of the municipal laws Of her Britanic
maiesty's government Is her own affair, In
which the government OF the United States
cannot be permitted to interfere" This re-
sponse, although technically true, was
diplomatic evasion of the grave question in
dispute, and was so treated by tho govern
ment Of tho United States, and, as we shall
presently see, was so regarded by the Geneva
tribunal of arbitrators.
1t is true as stated by the former court,
that Great Britain never did formally admit
that she had violated the international code
regulating the conduct of neutrals. She de-
MED that the American Interpretation of the
law Of nations on this point, as finally formu-
lated in what Is now known as "tho three
rules" embodied in the treaty Of Washington
was q correct Interpretation, and moreover
denied that If international law was thus cor
rectly formulated she had violated IL. But
she did agree in that treaty, for the purpose of
reaching an amicable settlement, that the
Geneva tribunal Of arbitrators might regard
those three rules" as u correct formulation of
international law, and that the arbitrators,
sitting as court, should proceed to adjudicato.
the question of her guilt or innocence under
IL as thus formulated, and also bound herself
to obey IL in future as thus set forth in all mat
tors between herself and the United States
and TO exert her influence to induce all other
maritime powers TO adopt IL.
This tribunal of arbitrators, sitting as %
court, after due consideration Of all the facts,
and being governed" as they say in their
report, "by the three rules" specified in the
treaty, land by such principles of interna-
tional law not inconsistent Herewith as the
arbitrators determined TO have been applica-
bio to tho case" found Great Britain guilty
of having violated her neutral obligations to
the United States, not by reason of her fail
ure to enforce her own municipal laws" as
the former court assumed as the basis of its
decision. Tho tribunal of arbitrators are
careful to brush away any such conclusion.
In the preamble to their decision they say,
And whereas the government of her Britain
mic majesty cannot justify itself for a failure
in duo diligence on tho plea of iusuiliciency
of the legal means of action which it pos
sessed THAT is to say, the question whether
Great Britain had or had not efficient
local laws on the subject of neutrality was not
pertinent TO the ISSUE If she had had no
such municipal law--and law uninforced is
dead letter-her duty to other nations
would remain the samo. The tribunal did
not, therefore, according to its own decara-
tion, adiudicato the question whether or not
Great Britain had properly enforced her own
municipal laws What it did decide was that
Great Britain had violated the international
code as formulated in tho "three rules" to-
gether with such other principles of inter
national law as they found to be applicable TO
the case" And then proceeded to award a
lump sum of money, to be paid by Great
Britain, supposed by the tribunal to be suffi-
cient to cover the pecunary damage done the
United States on that account.
Being unable to concur with the former
court in the opinion that Great Britain un-
derstood that she was required by the Geneva
tribunal of arbitrators TO pay for damages ac-
cruing to individuals on account of violation
of her own municipal laws, this court cannot
conclude that the money was received by tho
United States as a trust fund implying tho
moral, if not the legal, right of Great Britain
to supervise the use TO be made of it by the
United States.
The United States insisted and the Geneva
tribunal of arbitration held that Great Britain
had Violated public law binding on her in
common with all the other nations of the
world that she was bound by this intefna-
tional law to promptly use in good faith her
entire national power, civil and military to
prevent tho use of her domain by public
enemy Of the United States as base Of mill
tary operations to our injury; that having
failed in this respect, whether by negligence
or willfully, she was responsible to the United
States for all the accruing damage the
same as If it had been inflicted by her
own navy. The fact that the damage done
fell partly on private citizens and others law
fully under the protection of tho United
States was a minor incident of this public
ofiense. The overt act or the willful neglect
constitutes the crime. The amount of dam
age done is considered in fixing the penalty.
Great Britain, by her culpsble neglect, not
to say by her connivance and completely with
belligerent, through tho instrumentality of
confederate cruisers, violated the sovereign
rights of tho United States on the high seas.
This was her oflense. The damage done to
property under the protection of the United
States is u proper subject for consideration in
deciding the measure of redress due. In this
case Great Britain having apologized by
public expression of her regrets the Geneva
tribunal of arbitrators added as the full
measure Of redress remaining due the pay
mort Of sum of money as an equivalent for
the property-public and private-thus do
stroyed, the payment of which discharged
Great Britain from further liability and the
money paid became the property Of the United
States, to be disposed Of according to the SOW
ereign will of congress.
Adopting this view, Great Britain could not
be supposed to feel any concern whether this
money should be put into tho treasury of the
United States for the common benefit of all
its citizens or distributed in whole Or in part
to the individual sufferers; and if the latter,
whether only part or all of the sufferers
should be made benefciaries. And why
Great Britain should feel offended IL some
small fraction of it should be awarded TO sub
jects of Great Britain resident In the United
States and under the protection of tho United
States flag on tho high seas it is difficult to
imagine. Observing that the subjects of
all other countries resident in the United
States are made beneficiaries in common with
citizens it would &c IN more rational to con-
clude that Great Britain would be offended
by discrimination against her subjects.
Their exclusion could not be defended on the
ground that they were subjects of an offend
ing power, aud should be made TO contribute
the amount of their respective claims by way
of reprisal toward oxpiating the offense of
their sovereign. Reprisal is belligerent
act and in this case the two countries
were at peace with each other, and
Great Britain had made full atonement for her
otlense, after which rcprsals would surely be
unjustihable. 1t could not be defsdded on
the ground that the United States Is destitute
Of the right TO redress tho wrongs inflicted on
British subjects resident in the United States
or on board of her vessels on tho high seas by
Great Britain herself. For we have seen that
this right is maintained by all civilized
nations, embracing resident alien subjects of
a hostile sovereign. AS this right exists, tho
duty of the United States TO exercise IL must
also be admitted. 1t cannot be defended on
the ground that Great Britain has never as
serted or has abandoned this common right of