upon principles which must inevitably lead to like disregard in futureprinciples which rendered nugatory thereafter any measure of diligence to discover violations of neutrality within Her Majesty's dominions. Thereby Great Britain assumed and justified all similar acts which had been or might be committed, and relieved the United States from the necessity of showing that due diligence was not exercised to prevent them. Of what use was it to exercise diligence to show the purpose for which the Florida, the Alabama, or the Georgia was constructed, or the Shenandoah was purchased, if the constructing, fitting out, or equipping, or the purchase for such objects was lawful, and could not be interfered with? What diligence could have prevented the excessive supplies of coal and other hospitalities to the insurgent cruisers, or the protection of transports, all of which made these ports bases of operations, if such acts were no violation of the duties of a neutral, of which the United States might justly complain? [320] *The cruisers for whose acts the United States ask this Tribunal to hold Great Britain responsible are (stating them List of the insurin the order in which their cruises began) the Sunter; the gent cruisers. Nashville; the Florida and her tenders, the Clarence, the Tacony, and the Archer; the Alabama and her tender, the Tuscaloosa; the Retribution; the Georgia; the Tallahassee; the Chickamauga; and the Shenandoah. The attention of the Tribunal of Arbitration is now invited to an account of each of these vessels. a THE SUMTER. The Sumter. The Sumter escaped from the passes of the Mississippi on the 30th of June, 1861, and on the 30th of the following July arrived at the British port of Trinidad. She remained there six days, taking in a supply of coal. Complaint being made of this act as "violation of Her Majesty's Proclamation of Neutrality," Lord Russell replied, that "the conduct of the Governor was in conformity to Her Majesty's Proclamation;" that "Captain Hillyar, of Her Majesty's Ship Cadmus, having sent a boat to ascertain her nationality, the commanding officer showed a commission signed by Mr. Jefferson [321] Davis, calling himself the President of the so-styled Confederate States.' Her Majesty's Government thus held this vessel to be a man-of-war as early as the 30th of July, 1861. Having got a full supply of coal and other necessary outfit, the Sumter sailed on the 5th of August, 1861, and, after a cruise in which she destroyed six vessels carrying the flag of the United States, she arrived in Gibraltar on the 18th of the following January. Before she could again be supplied with coal and leave that port, she was, shut in by the arrival of the Tuscarora, a vessel of war of the United States, which "anchored off Algeciras."4 The Tuscarora was soon followed by · the Kearsarge, both under the instructions of the Government of the United States. Finding it impossible to escape, an attempt was made to sell the Sumter, with her armament, for £4,000.5 The consul of the United States at Gibraltar, by direction of Mr. Adams, protested against this. sale.1 The sale was finally made "by public auction" on the 19th of December, 1862.2 Mr. Adams notified Earl Russell that the sale would not be recognized by the United States, and called upon Great Britain not to regard it, as it had been made in violation of principles of law that had been *adopted by British courts and publicists.3 He [322] maintained that "Her Majesty's Government, in furnishing shelter for so long a period to the Sumter in the harbor of Gibraltar, as a ship of war of a belligerent, had determined the character of the vessel;"4 and that "the purchase of ships of war belonging to enemies is held in the British courts to be invalid."5 After reflecting upon this simple proposition for more than five weeks, Earl Russell denied it. He said, "The British Government, when neutral, is not bound to refuse to a British subject the right to acquire by purchase a vessel which a belligerent owner may desire to part with, but it would not deny the right of the adverse belligerent to ascertain, if such vessel were captured by its cruisers, whether the vessel had rightfully, according to the law of nations, come into the possession of the neutral." Mr. Adams also maintained that the sale was fictitious," to which Earl Russell replied that he "could not assume that the Sumter had not been legally and bona fide sold to a British owner for commercial and peaceful purposes." Mr. Adams insisted (and the result proved that he was correct) that the sale of the Sumter was [323] fictitious, and that the purchaser was an agent of Fraser, Tren * 9 holm & Co., the treasury agents and depositaries, &c., for the insurgent authorities at Richmond. His representations were disregarded, and the vessel was taken to Liverpool and thoroughly repaired. She then took on board a cargo of arms and munitions of war, and, under the the name of the Gibraltar, fortified with a British register, became an insurgent transport.10 In all these proceedings on the part of British officials the United States find a partiality toward the insurgents, which is inconsistent with the duties of a neutral: 1. The Sumter was permitted to receive at Trinidad a full supply of coal. The United States, however, were forbidden by Great Britain even to deposit coal in the British West Indies for their own use, under such regulations as might be prescribed by Her Majesty's Government. What took place at Nassau in December, 1861, has already been told. In Bermuda, on the 19th of February, 1862, their consul was officially informed that "the Government of Her Britannic Majesty *had determined not to allow the formation in any British colony [324] of a coal-depot for the use of their vessels of war, either by the Government of the United States or of the so-styled Confederate States."11 Sprague to Codrington, Vol. II, page 509. 2. Sprague to Adams, Vol. II, page 515. 3 Adams to Russell, Vol. II, page 522. 4 Adams to Russell, Vol. II, page 523. 5 Adams to Russell, Vol. II, page 522. 6 Russell to Adams, Vol. II, page 526. 7 Adams to Russell, Vol. II, page 520. 8 Russell to Adams, Vol. II, page 521. 9 The nominal purchasers were M. G. Klingerder & Co., (Vol. II, page 529.) Thi house was connected with Fraser, Trenholm & Co., and paid regularly a portion of th wages of the men on the Alabama to their families in Liverpool. (See Dudley to Adams, Vol. III, page 210.) 10 Vol. II, pages 521-538. 11 Ord to Allen, Vol. II, page 590. See also the reports of the officers of the Keystone and the Quaker City, who, in December, 1861, were refused supplies of coal at this port. Vol. VI, pages 52 and 53. See also the case of the Florida, post, where this subject is more fully discussed. Before this Case is finished it will be seen how thoroughly this determination was disregarded as to the "so-styled Confederate States." If it should be thought that the habitually insincere neutrality of Great Britain, as already detailed, did not constitute such a violation of the duties of a neutral as would entail responsibility for the acts of all the insurgent cruisers, (which the United States, with confidence, maintain that it did,) it is clear that the Sumter was furnished with an excessive supply of coal at Trinidad, which supply enabled her to inflict the subsequent injuries on the commerce of the United States. It is not contended that at that time there were any precedents which settled absolutely the quantity of coal which might be furnished to a bellige rent steam man-of-war by a neutral. When the proclamation of neutrality was issued, it seemed to be the opinion of leading members of the House of Lords, (Lords Brougham and Kingsdown, for [325] instance,) that coal for the use of vessels of war *might be regarded as contraband of war. The instructions issued by Her Majesty's Government a few months later permitted this article to be furnished, provided the supply should be measured by the capacity of the vessel to consume it, and should be limited to what might be necessary to take it to the nearest port of its own country, or to some nearer destination. This rule, as subsequently modified by the United States,* appears to be a just medium between the excessive supply furnished to the Sumter in Trinidad and the absolute refusal to permit the United States to supply itself. Under this rule the Sumter would have been entitled to receive only what would be necessary to take her to New Orleans or to Galveston. 3 2. The Sumter was in the port of Gibraltar when the instructions of January 16, 1862, (Vol. IV, p. 175,) were published there, on the 11th February. By their terms they were to go into effect six days after that date. Under those instructions the Sumter, having been rec[326] ognized as a man-of-war, ought to have been required to leave 4 * the port of Gibraltar within twenty-four hours, or, if without coal, within twenty-four hours after getting a supply of coal. Instead of that she was allowed to remain there for twelve months, while Lord Russell's instructions were rigidly enforced against the vessels of the United States. The reason for this partiality may be easily gathered from the correspondence of the United States Consul at Gibraltar. The vessels of war of the United States were on her track, and had the instructions of Earl Russell been complied with, the well-laid schemes of the United States officers for her destruction would have been successful. But the Tribunal will observe that the instructions, which were so offensively enforced against the United States vessels Connecticut and Honduras, were ignored as to the insurgent vessel Sumter. 3. The sale of the Sumter was palpably an evasion. She went into the hands of Fraser, Trenholm & Co.; and, knowing the connection between that firm and the insurgents, it is not too much to ask the Tribunal to assume as a probability that there was never any change of ownership. But if it should be thought that the transaction was made bona fide, then there is an equal proabability that the money found its 1 Vol. IV, pp. 486-491. 2 The President's Proclamation of October 8, 1870, issued during the Franco-German war, limited the supply of coal to the war vessels or privateers of the belligerents to so much as might be sufficient, if without sail-power, to carry the vessel to the nearest European port of its own country; if with sail-power, to half that quantity. 3 Vol. II, pages 502, 503. 4 Sprague to Adams, Vol. II, pages 502, 503, 506, 507. way to the *credit of the insurgents in their Liverpool trans- [327] actions. By reason of these repeated acts of insincere neutrality, or of actual disregard of the duties of a neutral, the United States were great sufferers. Before arriving at Trinidad the Sumter captured eleven American vessels. After leaving that port, and before arriving at Gibraltar, she captured six other vessels belonging to citizens of the United States. The injury did not stop there. The United States made diligent efforts to capture this vessel which was destroying their commerce. For this purpose they dispatched across the Atlantic two of their men-of-war, the Kearsarge and the Tuscarora. These vessels followed on the track of the Sumter, and the plans of the United States would have been successful had Earl Russell's instructions of January 31, 1862, been carried out toward the Sumter in the port of Gibraltar, as they were carried out toward the vessels of the United States in all the colonial ports of Great Britain. Under these circumstances, the United States ask the Tribunal to find and certify as to the Sumter that Great Britain, by the acts or omissions hereinbefore recited or referred to, failed to fulfill the duties set forth in the three rules in Article *VI of the Treaty of Washing [328] ton, or recognized by the principles of International Law not inconsistent with such rules. Should the Tribunal exercise the power conferred upon it by Article VII of the Treaty, to award a sum in gross to be paid to the United States, they will ask that, in considering the amount so to be awarded, the losses of individuals in the destruction of their vessels and cargoes by the Sumter, and also the expense to which the United States were put in the pursuit of that vessel, may be taken into account. The Nashville. The Nashville, a large paddle-wheel steamer, formerly engaged on the New York and Charleston line, lightened to diminish her draught, armed with two guns, and commanded by an officer who had been in the Navy of the United States, ran out from Charleston on the night of the 26th of October, 1861.2 She arrived at the British port of St. George, Bermuda, on the afternoon of the 30th3 of the same month, having been about three and a half days making the passage. She took on board there, by the permission of the Governor, six hundred tons of coal, and this act was approved by Her Majesty's prin- [329] cipal Secretary of State for the Colonies. This approval seems 4 5 to have been elicited by the complaints which had been made to the Governor by the Consul of the United States at that port. It may also be that Her Majesty's Government preferred to have the question settled, before it could be made the subject of diplomatic representation on the part of the United States. In view of the rule as to supplies of coal which was soon after adopted by Her Majesty's Government, the United States insist, as they have already insisted in regard to the Sumter, that a supply of six hundred 1 Bernard to Seward, Vol. II, page 485. 2 Bernard's Neutrality of Great Britain, page 267. 3 Wells to Seward, Vol. II, page 538. 4 Governor Ord to the Duke of Newcastle, Vol. II, page 557. • Wells to Ord, Vol. II, page 539. tons was greatly in excess of the needs of the Nashville. There are no means of knowing whether she had any coal on board at the time she arrived in the port of St. George. Assuming that she had none, the utmost she should have received was enough to take her back to Charleston, from which port she had just come in three days and a half. Instead of that, she received more than a supply for a voyage to Southampton. She left Bermuda on the afternoon of the 5th of November,1 and anchored in Southampton waters on the morning of the 21st [330] of the same month; *having destroyed at sea the United States merchant-ship Harvey Birch3 on the passage. A correspondence ensued between Earl Russell and Mr. Adams as to the character of this vessel, in which Lord Russell said, "The Nashville appears to be a Confederate vessel of war." She was received as such, was "taken into dock for calking and other repairs," and "received one hundred and fifty tons of coal" on the 10th of January. On the 25th "Captain Patey, of Her Majesty's Navy, reported the Nashville coaled and necessary repairs completed." On the 4th of the following February the Nashville left Southampton and proceeded to Bermuda, where she arrived on the evening of the 20th. On the day previous to that (the 19th) the Consul had received from the Governor the official notice already alluded to, that the Government of Her Britannic Majesty had determined not to allow the formation, in any British Colony, of a coal depot for the use of the vessels of war of the United States. The Government of the United States was, therefore, not a little astonished to learn from the Consul at Bermuda that the Nashville had taken on board one hundred [331] *and fifty tons of coal at that place, and that she left "under the escort of Her Majesty's steamer Spiteful." 6 These circumstances, in accordance with the principles herein before stated, justify the United States in asking the Tribunal of Arbitration as to this vessel, to find and certify that Great Britain, by the acts or omissions hereinbefore recited or referred to, failed to fulfill the duties set forth in the three rules in Article VI of the Treaty of Washington or recognized by the principles of International Law not inconsistent with such rules. Should the Tribunal exercise the power conferred upon it by Article VII of the Treaty, to award a sum in gross to be paid to the United States, they will ask that, in considering the amount so to be awarded, the losses of individuals in the destruction of their vessels and cargoes by the Nashville, and also the expenses to which the United States were put in the pursuit of that vessel, may be taken into account. [332] *THE FLORIDA, AND HER TENDERS, THE CLARENCE, THE TACONY, AND THE ARCHER. The Florida, originally known as the Oreto, was an iron-screw gunboat, of about seven hu.fred tons burden, bark-rigged, and The Florida and had two smoke-stacks and three masts. The contract for her tenders. 1 Wells to Seward, vol. II, page 540. 8 Captain Patey to the Secretary of the Admiralty, Vol. II, pages 543, 544. 3 Russell to Adams, Vol. II, page 555. 4 Vol. II, page 587. 5 Ord to Allen, Vol. II, page 590. 6 Adams to Seward, Vol. II, page 542. 7 Allen to Seward, Vol. II, page 591. 8 Dudley to Adams, Vol. II, page 594. |