Geneva arbitration - United States. Department of State - Google grāmatas

Meklēšana Attēli Maps Play YouTube Ziņas Gmail Disks Vēl »

Grāmatas

III. ARGUMENT OF SIR ROUNDELL PALMER-Continued.

They followed up all information received by proper inquiries.

Necessity and propriety of seeking evidence from those who

give information

Mr. Jefferson's letter of September 5, 1793

Onus imposed on British claimants against the United States

under the Treaty of 1794...

Uniform reference of the Executive Authorities of the United

States in similar cases to legal procedure and the necessity for

legal evidence....

Of the suggestion that the belief of the consuls of the United

States in British ports should be treated as sufficient prima-

facie evidence...

The preventive efficacy of the American law tried by the test of

practical results...

The general result proves that many failures may happen, with-

out want of due diligence, from causes for which Governments

cannot be held responsible...

Attempt of the United States to change the onus probandi in this

2. The effect of the commissions of the Confederate ships of war on their en-

trance into British ports..

The Rule cannot require an act wrongful by international law....

There is no rule obliging a neutral to exclude from his ports ships

of this description...

In any view the latter part of Rule I cannot apply to the Georgia or

the Shenandoah...

The distinction suggested by the United States between ships of war

of recognized nations and ships of a non-recognized State....

All the ships in question were duly commissioned ships of war..

3. On supplies of coal to Confederate vessels in British ports.

Both parties in the war equally received such supplies..

Such supplies are not within the rule as to not using neutral terri-

tory as a base of operations...

What is meant by the words "a base of naval operations

What is not meant by those words..

Consequences of a lax use of the phrase..

Effect of the addition of the words "renewal or augmentation of

military supplies or arms".

[blocks in formation]

4. Principles of construction applicable to the Rules of the Treaty.

Importance of the second and third questions, as to the principles of

construction applicable to the three Rules.

Rules for the interpretation of public conventions and treaties....

Applications of these principles to the interpretation of the three

Rules as to the points in controversy.

Influence on the construction of the retrospective terms of the

The admitted intention of both parties as to the second Rule..........

Influence upon the construction of the agreement to propose the

three Rules for general adoption to other maritime nations....

IV. ARGUMENT OF MR. EVARTS IN REPLY TO THE SPECIAL ARGUMENT OF SIR

ROUNDELL PALMER..

Scope of the discussion.

The construction of the Rules of the Treaty

The arming and equipping the cruisers forbidden by the law of nations..

They should therefore have been disarmed when they came again within

IV.—ÂRGUMENT OF MR. EVARTS, &C.—Continued.

Due diligence..

The Rules of the Treaty the law of this Case..

Sir R. Palmer's attempt to disparage the Rules examined.

How far the Tribunal may resort to the Rules of International Law..

Sir R. Palmer's principles for the construction of Treaties examined..

Effect of a commission.

United States construction of the first Rule.

Effect of the words "reasonable ground to believe

The rules of law respecting the effect of a commission.

Extent of the right of exterritoriality granted to ships of war..

Recognition of belligerency not a recognition of sovereignty.

Application of the principles..

Acts done in violation of neutrality are hostile acts..

The neutral whose neutrality has been violated is under no obligation

of comity to the violator..

Authorities to show that the construction in neutral territories of a ship

intended to carry on war against a belligerent is forbidden by the law

The applicability of the rule to the Georgia and the Shenandoah.

The question of coaling is a branch of the greater question of the use

of British ports as bases of hostile operations..

The doctrine of asylum considered...

Analogy between the duties of a neutral on land and his duties at sea..

Limitation of the right of commercial dealings in contraband of war..

Use of a neutral port as a base of hostile operations; what it is

In the case of the Nashville...

In the case of the Shenandoah..

The question of the use of the neutral port as a base of hostile opera-

tions being established, there remains the inquiry whether the neutral

did or did not exercise due diligence to prevent it.....

Such proceedings are not mere dealings in contraband of war.

Statement of the British argument on this point...

Review of Sir R. Palmer's criticisms upon the Argument of the United

The prerogative of the Crown.

Preventive and punitive powers of each Government.

The failure of Great Britain to originate investigations or proceedings.

The due diligence required by the Rules is a diligence to prevent a hostile

V.-ARGUMENT OF MR. CUSHING IN REPLY TO THE SPECIAL ARGUMENT OF SIR

Views of Sir Roundell Palmer in the case of Lairds' rams.

Definition of due diligence..

Powers of the Crown..

Obligations imposed by international law as distinguished from muni-

VI-REPLY OF MR. WAITE TO THE ARGUMENT OF SIR ROUNDELL PALMER

UPON THE SPECIAL QUESTION AS TO SUPPLIES OF COAL IN BRITISH

PORTS TO CONFEDERATE SHIPS.

A base of operations essential to naval warfare.

VI.-REPLY OF MR. WAITE, &C.-Continued.

It should not be in nentral territory..

The insurgents had no such base within their own territory.

Great Britain knew this...

The advantages of these facts to the United States...

Efforts of the insurgents to obtain bases of operations in neutral terri-

Toleration of use equivalent to permission

Toleration implies knowledge..

Great Britain had reasonable ground to believe that the insurgents in-

tended to use its ports....

Their effective vessels of war came from Great Britain.

When obtained they were useless without a base of operations.

They might have been excluded from British ports...

This would have prevented the injuries which followed.

The United States requested Great Britain to prevent this abuse of its

Great Britain refused to prevent it..

Great Britain encouraged the use of its ports by the insurgents for re-

pairs and for obtaining provisions and coal

All this constituted a violation of neutrality which entailed responsi-

VII.—ARGUMENT OF SIR ROUNDELL PALMER ON THE QUESTION OF THE RE-

CRUITMENT OF MEN FOR THE SHENANDOAH AT MELBOURNE,

VIII. OBSERVATIONS ADDRESSED TO THE TRIBUNAL BY MR. CUSHING, IN THE

NAME OF THE COUNSEL OF THE UNITED STATES, ON THE 21ST AUGUST, 1872,

AND MEMORANDUM AS TO THE ENLISTMENTS FOR THE SHENANDOAH AT MEL-

IX.-ARGUMENT OF SIR ROUNDELL PALMER ON THE SPECIAL QUESTION AS TO

THE LEGAL EFFECT OF THE ENTRANCE OF THE FLORIDA INTO THE PORT OF

MOBILE, OR THE RESPONSIBILITY, IF ANY, OF GREAT BRITAIN FOR THAT SHIP..

X.-REPLY OF THE COUNSEL OF THE UNITED STATES TO THE ARGUMENT OF HER

BRITANNIC MAJESTY'S COUNSEL ON THE SPECIAL QUESTION OF THE LEGAL EF-

FECT, IF ANY, OF THE ENTRY OF THE FLORIDA INTO THE PORT OF MOBILE, AFTER

LEAVING THE BAHAMAS, AND BEFORE MAKING ANY CAPTURES.

XI.-ARGUMENT OF SIR ROUNDELL PALMER ON THE CLAIM OF THE UNITED

STATES FOR INTEREST BY WAY OF DAMAGES.

XII.-REPLY ON THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES TO THE ARGUMENT OF HER

BRITANNIC MAJESTY'S COUNSEL ON THE ALLOWANCE OF INTEREST IN THE COM-

PUTATION OF INDEMNITY UNDER THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON..

XIII.-COMPARATIVE TABLES PRESENTED BY THE AGENT OF THE UNITED STATES

ON THE 19TH of August, 1872, IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUEST OF THE

TRIBUNAL.......

XIV. TABLES PRESENTED BY THE AGENT OF HER BRITANNIC MAJESTY ON THE

19TH OF AUGUST, 1872, IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUEST OF THE TRIBUNAL.

XV.-REPLY OF THE AGENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO THE NEW MATTER INTRO-

DUCED BY THE AGENT OF HER BRITANNIC MAJESTY ON THE CALL OF THE

TRIBUNAL FOR ELUCIDATION IN RESPECT TO THE TABLES PRESENTED BY THE

TWO GOVERNMENTS..

XVI-A NOTE ON SOME OBSERVATIONS PRESENTED BY MR. BANCROFT DAVIS ON

THE 29TH AUGUST..

[blocks in formation]

« iepriekšējā Turpināt »