WHEREIN GREAT BRITAIN FAILED TO PERFORM ITS DUTIES AS A NEUTRAL.-THE INSURGENT CRUISERS. "In the first place, I am sorry to observe that the unwarrantable practice of building ships in this country, to be used as vessels of war against a State with which Her Majesty is at peace, still continues. Her Majesty's Government had hoped that this attempt to make the territorial waters of Great Britain the place of preparation for warlike armaments against the United States might be put an end to by prosecutions and by seizure of the vessels built in pursuance of contracts made with the Confederate agents. But facts which are unhappily too notorious, and correspondence which has been put into the hands of Her Majesty's Government by the Minister of the Government of the United States, show that resort is had to evasion and subtlety in order to escape the penalties of the law; that a vessel is bought in one place, that her armament is prepared in another, and that both are sent to some distant port beyond Her Majesty's jurisdiction, and that thus an armed steamship is fitted out to cruise against the commerce of a Power in amity with Her Majesty. A crew, composed partly of British subjects, is procured separately; wages are paid to them for an unknown service. They are dispatched, perhaps, to the coast of France, and there, or elsewhere, are engaged to serve in a Confederate man-of-war. Now, it is very possible that by such shifts and stratagems, the penalties of the existing law of this country, nay, of any law that could be enacted, may be evaded; but the offense thus offered to Her Majesty's authority and dignity by the de facto rulers of the Confederate States, whom Her Majesty acknowledges as belligerents, and whose agents in the United Kingdom enjoy the benefit of our hospitality in quiet security, remains the same. It is a proceeding totally unjustifiable, and manifestly offensive to the British Crown."-Earl Russell's Letter to Messrs. Mason, Slidell, and Mann, February 13, 1865. Vol. I, page 630. The Tribunal of Arbitration will probably agree with Earl Rus[310] sell in his statement to the insurgent agents, that Earl Russell de which the United unwarranted to "the practice of building ships" in Great Britain "to nounces the acts of be used as vessels of war" against the United States, and States complain as the "attempts to make the territorial waters of Great Brit- tally unjustifiable. ain the place of preparation for warlike armaments against the United States" "in pursuance of contracts made with the Confederate agents," were "unwarrantable" and "totally unjustifiable." territory val operations of the British territory was, during the whole struggle, the base of the na val operations of the insurgents. The first serious fight British had scarcely taken place before the contracts were made the base of the na in Great Britain for the Alabama and the Florida. The insurgents. contest was nearly over when Waddell received his orders in Liverpool to sail thence in the Laurel in order to take command of the Shenandoah and to visit the Arctic Ocean on a hostile cruise.1 1 Their arsenal. There also was the arsenal of the insurgents, from whence they drew their munitions of war, their arms, and their supplies. It is true that it has been said, and may again be said, that it was no infraction of the law of nations to furnish such supplies. But, while it is not maintained that belligerents may infringe upon the rights which neutrals have to manufacture and deal in such military supplies in the ordinary course of commerce, it is asserted with confidence [311] that a neutral *ought not to permit a belligerent to use the neu tral soil as the main if not the only base of its military supplies, during a long and bloody contest, as the soil of Great Britain was used by the insurgents. 1 Vol. III, page 461. The systematic op surgents a violation of the duties.of a neutral. It may not always be easy to determine what is and what is not lawful commerce in arms and munitions of war; but the erations of the in- United States conceive that there can be no doubt on which side of the line to place the insurgent operations on British territory. If Huse had been removed from Liverpool, Heyliger from Nassau, and Walker from Bermuda; or if Fraser, Trenholm & Co. had ceased to sell insurgent cotton and to convert it into money for the use of Huse, Heyliger, and Walker, the armies of the insurgents must have succumbed. The systematic operations of these persons, carried on openly and under the avowed protection of the British Goveenment, made of British territory the "arsenal" of which Mr. Fish complained in his note of September 25, 1869. Such conduct was, to say the least, wanting in the essentials of good neighborhood and should be frowned upon by all who desire to so establish the principles of International Law, as to secure the peace of the world, while protecting the independence of nations. It is in vain to say that both parties could have *done the same [312] thing. The United States were under no such necessity. If they could not manufacture at home all the supplies they needed, they were enabled to make their purchases abroad openly, and to transport them in the ordinary course of commerce. It was the insurgents who, unable to manufacture at home, were driven to England for their entire military supplies, and who, finding it impossible to transport those supplies in the ordinary course of commerce, originated a commerce for the purpose, and covered it under the British flag to Bermuda and Nassau. Under the pressure of the naval power of the United States, their necessities compelled them to transport to England a part of the execu tive of their Government, and to carry on its operation in Great Britain. They were protected in doing this by Her Majesty's Government, although its attention was called to the injustice thereof." This conduct deprived the United States of the benefit of their superiority at sea, and to that extent British neutrality was partial and insincere. The United States confidently submit to the Tribunal of Arbitration that it is an abuse of a sound principle to extend to such combined transactions as those of Huse, Heyliger, Walker, and Fraser, Trenholm & Co., the well-settled right of a neutral to manufacture and *sell [313] to either belligerent, during a war, arms, munitions, and military supplies. To sanction such an extension will be to lay the foundation for international misunderstanding and probable war, whenever a weaker party hereafter may draw upon the resources of a strong neutral, in its efforts to make its strength equal to that of its antagonist. From the Queen's Proclamation of neutrality to the close of the struggle, Great Britain framed its rules, construed its laws ity for the insur- and its instructions, and governed its conduct in the interest of the insurgents. What could tend more to inspirit them than the news that on the eve of Mr. Adams's arrival in London, as if to show in the most public manner a purpose to overlook him, and to disregard the views which he might have been instructed by his Government to present, it had been determined to recognize their right to display on the ocean a flag which had not then a ship to carry it? How they must have welcomed the parliamentary news,3 on the heels of this proclamation, that the effect of this recognition would be to employ British subjects in warring upon the commerce of the United Continuing partial gents. States, with a protection against piracy promised in advance! How great must have been their joy, when they found British laws construed so as to confer upon them the right to use the workshops [314] *anddock-yards of Liverpool, for building ships which, without violating the municipal law of England, might leave British ports in such warlike state that they could be fitted for battle in twentyfour hours! How they must have been cheered by the official legalization of the operations of those who had been sent to Liverpool in anticipation of the proclamation, to be in readiness to act! And if these welcome sights inspirited and cheered the insurgents, as was doubtless the case, how relatively depressing must have been their effect upon the loyal people and upon the Government of the United States! The correspondence of Mr. Seward and of Mr. Adams, running through the whole of the volumes of evidence accompanying this case, bears testimony to the depth of this feeling. When Great Britain carried into practice its theory of neutrality, it was equally insincere and partial. Recapitulation of in British possessions. Its municipal laws for enforcing its obligations as a neu- hostile acts tolerated tral, under the law of nations, were confessedly inadequate, and, during the struggle, were stripped of all their force, by executive and judicial construction. Yet Great Britain refused to take any steps for their amendment, although requested so to do.1 [315] The Queen's Proclamation inhibited blockade-*running; yet the authorities encouraged it by enacting new laws or making new regulations which permitted the transshipment of goods contraband of war within the colonial ports; by officially informing the colonial officers that "British authorities ought not to take any steps adverse to merchant-vessels of the Confederate States, or to interfere with their free resort to British ports;" by giving official notice to the United States that it would not do to examine too closely, on the high seas, British vessels with contraband of war;3 and by regulations which operated to deter the United States vessels of war from entering the British ports from which the illicit trade was carried on. The Foreign Enlistment Act of 1819 forbade the employment of a British vessel as a transport; and yet vessels known to be owned by the insurgent authorities, and engaged in carrying munitions of war for them, were allowed to carry the British flag and were welcomed in British ports. Still further, the same vessel would appear one day as a blockade-runner, and another day as a man-of-war, receiving an equal welcome in each capacity. The instructions of January 31, 1862, forbade both belligerents alike to enter the port of Nassau except by permission of the governor, [316] or in stress of weather. That permission was lavishly given to every insurgent cruiser, but was granted churlishly, if at all, to the vessels of the United States. The same instructions forbade the granting to a steam man-of-war of either belligerent in British ports a supply of coal in excess of what would be necessary to take the vessel to the nearest port of its own country or some nearer destination. This rule was enforced upon the vessels of the United States, but was utterly disregarded as to the vessels of the insurgents. Those instructions also forbade the granting of any supply of coal to such a vessel if it had been coaled in a British port within three months. 1 Ante, page 251. 2 Duke of Newcastle to Governor Ord, Vol. II, page 558. These facts throw acts of British offi gent cruisers. Yet in three notable instances this salutary rule was violated, that of the Nashville, at Bermuda, in February, 1862; the Florida, at Barbadoes, in February, 1863; and the Alabama, at Capetown, in March, 1864. These admitted facts were repeatedly, and in detail, brought to the notice of the British Government, and as repeatedly the suspicion upon the answer was given that there was no cause for interference. cials toward insur At length they were, as a system, brought to Lord Russell's attention, by Mr. Adams, with the threads of evidence, which furnished him with the proof of their truth. Yet he declined to act, saying that "this correspondence does not appear *to Her Majesty's Government to contain any sufficient evidence [317] of a system of action in direct hostility to the United States;" that it furnished no proof as to the building of iron-clads that "could form matter for a criminal prosecution;" and that the other acts complained of were "not contrary to law. In other words, he declared that the only international offense of which Her Majesty's Government would take notice was the building of iron-clads; and that no steps would be taken, even against persons guilty of that violation of neutrality, until the officials of the United States would act the part of detectives, and secure the proof which a British court could hold competent to convict the offender of a violation of a local law. It is important, in considering the evidence which is about to be referred to, to bear in mind these constant demonstrations of partiality for the insurgents. They show a persistent absence of real neutrality, which, to say the least, should throw suspicion upon the acts of the British officials as to those vessels, and should incline the Tribunal to closely scrutinize their conduct. The United States, however, go further than this. They insist that Her Majesty's Government abandoned, in advance, abnegation of all dili- the exercise of that due diligence which the Treaty [318] acts complamed of. of Washington declares that a neutral is bound to observe. They say that the position of Her Majesty's Government just cited, taken in connection with the construction put upon the Foreign Enlistment Act by the British courts in the Alexandra case, was a practical abandonment of all obligation to observe diligence in preventing the use of British territory by the insurgents, for purposes hostile to the United States. They aver that it was a notice to them that no complaints in this respect would be listened to, which were not accompanied by proof sufficient to convict the offender as a criminal under the Foreign Enlistment Act. To furnish such proof was simply impossible. The Tribunal will remember that it was judicially said in the case of the Alexandra, that what had been done in the Great Britain the matter of the Alabama was no violation of British law, and show that the acts therefore constituted no offense to be punished. Well not have been pre- might Earl Russell say that the Oreto and the Alabama They show an gence to prevent the They throw upon burden of proof to complained of could vented. * were a scandal to English laws. The United States with great confidence assert that the facts which have been established justify them in asking the Tribunal of Arbitration, in the investigations now about to be made, to assume that in the violations of neutrality which will be shown to have taken place, the burden of proof *will be upon Great Britain to establish that [319] they could not have been prevented. Her Majesty's Government declined to investigate charges and to examine evidence submitted by Mr. Adams, as to repeated violations of British territory, which subsequent events show were true in every respect. It placed its refusal 1 Earl Russell to Mr. Adams, Vol. I, page 578. |