should find it necessary to adopt further measures within the limits of public law. Her Majesty will be advised to adopt such measures. It is the earnest desire of Her Majesty to preserve intact the friendly relations between Her Majesty and the United States of America. The undersigned, &c. [22] (Signed) RUSSELL. * On the 2d December, 1861, Mr. Adams answered the foregoing note as follows: Mr. Adams to Earl Russell.1 LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, The undersigned, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States, has the honor to acknowledge the receipt of a note from the Right Honorable Earl Russell, Her Majesty's principal secretary of state for foreign affairs, dated on the 28th of November, and in answer to the note of the undersigned soliciting an investigation into the case of the armed steamer the Nashville. While the undersigned regrets that Her Majesty's government has determined to give what he cannot but think a liberal construction to the evidence furnished of the character of the voyage of the Nashville, it is yet a source of great satisfaction to him to learn the intention expressed by the government to apply all its power to the prevention of measures taken within this kingdom by ill-disposed persons to fit out enterprises of a hostile character to the United States. The undersigned entertains no doubt that this information, which has been already transmitted by him to this government, will be received with much pleasure. The undersigned, &c. (Signed) CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. Reports of the nature of the repairs which the Nashville was undergoing, showing that nothing whatever was being done to fit her more completely as a vessel of war, were from time to time received at the Foreign Office from the senior naval officer at Southampton, and were forwarded to Mr. Adams for his information. Mr. Adams, in acknowledging the receipt of these reports, added, "It is a source of gratification to him (Mr. Adams) to observe the continued supervision exercised by Her Majesty's government over the outfit of that vessel.”—(28th December, 1861.)2 On the 15th December, 1861, the United States war-steamer Tuscarora arrived in Southampton Water. She remained there, occasionally shifting her anchorage, until after the departure of the Nashville, which occurred on the 3d February following. While the two ships remained in British waters, Her Majesty's government enforced with strict impartiality the rule which had previously been enforced by the French authorities at Martinique in the case of the Sumter and Iroquois, that, if either should sail, the other should not follow within twenty-four hours afterward. The facts are stated in reports addressed by Captain Patey as senior naval officer to Her Majesty's board of admiralty. Both ships coaled at Southampton. In July, 1862, the Tuscarora returned to Southampton, and remained in that port undergoing repairs for three weeks or thereabouts. GENERAL COURSE PURSUED BY HER BRITANNIC MÁJESTY'S GOVERNMENT, AND BY OTHER MARITIME POWERS, IN REGARD TO THE RECEPTION OF BELLIGERENT CRUISERS. From the beginning of the war to the end of it, Her Britannic Majesty's government scrupulously observed, in respect of vessels entering British ports or waters under the flag of either belligerent, the duties of a neutral power. The cruisers of both were admitted upon the same 2 Ibid., p. 105. 1Appendix, vol. ii, p. 102. 3 For a summary of the proceedings of the two vessels, see Appendix, vol. ii, p. 120. terms; and the regulations which it was found necessary to make from time to time in order to prevent the hospitality thus accorded from being abused, whether by design or through inadvertence, were impartially applied to both. Unremitting care and vigilance were employed to prevent these necessary precautions from being infringed or eluded, and especially to prevent any belligerent vessel from engaging in hostilities, or from enlisting seamen or otherwise increasing its military force, within British territory, or using such territory as a station from whence to observe and attack enemy's ships. The difficulties occasioned, especially in Her Majesty's colonial possessions, by the resort of belligerent cruisers to British ports and waters, were considerable, and called for the exercise of much judgment and moderation on the part of the local authorities. By United States cruisers the ports and waters of Her Majesty's dominions were resorted to for coaling and other purposes more frequently than by vessels of the Confederate States. The impartial neutrality maintained in these respects by Her Majesty's government was nevertheless made a frequent subject of complaint by the Government of the United States, which continued to insist that confederate vessels ought to have been treated as piratical, or at least excluded altogether; whilst the Confederate States, on their part, complained that the regulations enforced were unequal in operation, and unduly disadvantageous to a belligerent whose ports and coasts were under blockade. The neutrality observed by Great Britain was observed also throughout the war by other maritime powers. By them, as by Great Britain, the armed vessels of both belligerents were admitted impartially and indifferently into their ports, subject to such regulations and conditions as they respectively judged it expedient to impose for their own protection, and to prevent their hospitality from being abused. STATEMENT ON INTERNATIONAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES; ON THE POWERS WHICH WERE POSSESSED BY HER BRITANNIC MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT OF PREVENTING UNLAWFUL EQUIPMENTS, AND THE MANNER AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN AND UNDER WHICH THESE POWERS WERE EXERCISED DURING THE WAR. PART 111.-Intro With a view to enable the tribunal to form a just appreciation of the circumstances under which certain vessels were productory statement. cured from ports in Great Britain by the government of the Confederate States, it will be proper to state, in the first place, some general propositions, applicable to the subject, which are believed by Her Britannic Majesty's government to be in accordance with international law and practice; secondly, to explain the means of prevention which were at the command of Her Majesty's government; and, thirdly, to describe in some detail the manner in which those means of prevention were exercised during the war. GENERAL PROPOSITIONS. Her Britannic Majesty's government believes the following propositions to be in accordance with the principles of international law and the practice of nations: 1. A neutral government is bound to exercise due diligence, to the intent that no place within its territory be made use of by either belligerent as a base or point of departure for a military or naval expedition, or for hostilities by land or sea. 2. A neutral government is not, by force of the above-mentioned obligation or otherwise, bound to prevent or restrain the sale within its territory, to a belligerent, of articles contraband of war, or the manufacture within its territory of such articles to the order of a belligerent, or the delivery thereof within its territory to a belligerent purchaser, or the exportation of such articles from its territory for sale to, or for the use of, a belligerent. 3. Nor is a neutral government bound, by force of the above-mentioned obligation or otherwise, to prohibit or prevent vessels of war in the service of a belligerent from entering or remaining in its ports or waters, or from purchasing provisions, coal, or other supplies, or undergoing repairs therein; provided that the same facilities be accorded to both belligerents indifferently; and provided also that such vessels be not permitted to augment their military force, or increase or renew their supplies of arms or munitions of war, or of men, within the neutral territory 4. The unlawful equipment, or augmentation of force, of a belligerent vessel within neutral waters being an offense against the neutral power, it is the right of the neutral power to release prizes taken by means or by the aid of such equipment or augmentation of force, if found within its jurisdiction. 5. It has been the practice of maritime powers, when at war, to treat as contraband of war vessels specially adapted for warlike use and found at sea under a neutral flag in course of transportation to a place possessed or occupied by a belligerent. Such vessels have been held liable to capture and condemnation as contraband, on proof in each case that the destination of the ship was an enemy's port, and provided there were reasonable grounds for believing that she was intended to be sold or delivered to or for the use of the enemy. 6. Public ships of war in the service of a belligerent, entering the ports or waters of a neutral are, by the practice of nations, exempt from the jurisdiction of a neutral power. To withdraw or refuse to recognize this exemption without previous notice, or without such notice to exert, or attempt to exert, jurisdiction over any such vessel, [24] would be a violation of a common understanding, which all nations are bound by good faith to respect. 7. A vessel becomes a public ship of war by being armed and commissioned, that is to say, formally invested by order or under the authority of a government with the character of a ship employed in its naval service and forming part of its marine for purposes of war. There are no general rules which prescribe how, where, or in what form the commissioning must be effected, so as to impress on the vessel the character of a public ship of war. What is essential is that the appointment of a designated officer to the charge and command of a ship likewise designated be made by the government, or the proper department of it, or under authority delegated by the government or department, and that the charge and command of the ship be taken by the officer so appointed. Customarily a ship is held to be commissioned when a commissioned officer appointed to her has gone on board of her and hoisted the colors appropriated to the military marine. A neutral power may indeed refuse to admit into its own ports or waters as a public ship of war any belligerent vessel not commissioned in a specified form or manner, as it may impose on such admission any other conditions at its pleasure, provided the refusal be applied to both belligerents indifferently; but this should not be done without reasonable notice. 8. The act of commissioning, by which a ship is invested with the character of a public ship of war, is, for that purpose, valid and conclusive, notwithstanding that the ship may have been at the time registered in a foreign country as a ship of that country, or may have been liable to process at the suit of a private claimant, or to arrest or forfeiture under the law of a foreign state. The commissioning power, by commissioning her, incorporates her into its naval force; and by the same act which withdraws her from the operation of ordinary legal process assumes the responsibility for all existing claims which could otherwise have been enforced against her. 9. Due diligence on the part of a sovereign government signifies that measure of care which the government is under an international obli gation to use for a given purpose. This measure, where it has not beer defined by international usage or agreement, is to be deduced from the nature of the obligation itself, and from those considerations of justice equity, and general expediency on which the law of nations is founded 10. The measure of care which a government is bound to use in order to prevent within its jurisdiction certain classes of acts, from which harm might accrue to foreign states or their citizens, musi always (unless specifically determined by usage or agreement) be dependent, more or less, on the surrounding circumstances, and cannot be defined with precision in the form of a general rule. It would commonly, however, be unreasonable and impracticable to require that it should exceed that which the governments of civilized states are accustomed to employ in matters concerning their own security or that of their own citizens. That even this measure of obligation has not been recognized in practice might be clearly shown by reference to the laws in force in the principal countries of Europe and America. It would be enough, indeed, to refer to the history of some of these countries during recent periods, for proof that great and enlightened states have not deemed themselves bound to exert the same vigilance and employ the same means of repression, when enterprises prepared within their own territories endangered the safety of neighboring states, as they would probably have exerted and employed had their own security been similarly imperiled. 11. In every country where the executive is subject to the laws, foreign states have a right to expect (a.) That the laws be such as in the exercise of ordinary foresight might reasonably be deemed adequate for the repression of all acts which the government is under an international obligation to repress; (b.) That, so far as may be necessary for this purpose, the laws be enforced and the legal powers of the government exercised. But foreign states have not a right to require, where such laws exist, that the executive should overstep them in a particular case, in order to prevent harm to foreign states or their citizens; nor that, in order to prevent harm to foreign states or their citizens, the executive should act against the persons or property of individuals, unless upon evidence which would justify it in so acting if the interests to be protected were its own or those of its own citizens. Nor are the laws or the mode of judicial or administrative procedure which exist in one country to be applied as constituting a rule or standard of comparison for any other country. Thus, the rules which exist in Great Britain as to the admission and probative force of various kinds of testimony, the evidence necessary to be produced in certain cases, the questions proper to be tried by a jury, the functions of the executive in regard to the [25] prevention and prosecution of offenses, may differ, as the * organi zation of the magistrature and the distribution of authority among central and local officers also differ, from those which exist in France, Germany, or Italy. Each of these countries has a right, as well in matters which concern foreign states or their citizens, as in other matters, to administer and enforce its own laws in its own forum, and according to its own rules and modes of procedure; and foreign states cannot justly complain of this, unless it can be clearly shown that these rules and modes of procedure conflict in any particular with natural justice, or, in other words, with principles commonly acknowledged by civilized nations to be of universal obligation. In connection with the foregoing propositions are to be taken the three rules stated in Article VI of the treaty, and accepted by Her Britannic Majesty's government in the manner expressed in that article. NEUTRALITY LAWS-LAW OF THE UNITED STATES. The case of a vessel which is dispatched from a neutral port to or for the use of a belligerent, after having been prepared within the neutral territory for warlike use, is one which may be regarded from different |