Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

ernment did indeed require, as it had the right to do, before seizing a vessel, either to have in its possession what seems to be described by the United States as "technical" evidence, that is, evidence which could be publicly produced and tested before a judicial Tribunal, or else. to have reasonable grounds for believing that such evidence would be forthcoming before the trial of the case should begin. But in no single case, from the beginning to the end of the war, did it refuse to listen to representations on the ground that they did not furnish such evidence, or refuse or forbear on that account to make any representation the subject of instant inquiry. The conduct of Mr. Adamis in 1862 could not have been affected by circumstances which occurred in 1863 and 1864. Nor does it appear that those circumstances did in fact affect in any way, or at any time, either the conduct of Mr. Adams or that of the British government; since Mr. Adams continued, after the Alexandra case, as well as before it, to make representations to the Govern ment in every case of suspicion, without producing "technical" evidence, and the Government continued in every case to investigate facts, and to detain vessels against which any proof could be obtained, on the same grounds as before.1 Finally, it is clear that, in the Alabama case, Mr. Adams's representations were not deferred till he had obtained "technical" evidence, since they were made a month before he was able to produce any evidence at all; and the Government did not refuse inquiry till after evidence was furnished, since they directed and prosecuted inquiry more than three weeks before any was furnished.

56. It is possible that the "charges" and "evidence" submitted by Mr. Adams as to "repeated violations of British territory," to which the Government of the United States refers, may have reference to certain complaints as to the existence of Confederate Agents, the negotiation of pecuniary loans, and the purchase of supplies and munitions of war for the Confederate States in this country, and as to the trade in articles contraband of war and the fitting out of ships to run the blockade, which were, undoubtedly, from time to time, made by Mr. Adams. If such complaints were in any cases not investigated, it was because they manifestly related to acts not contrary to the law of Great Britain, and which Her Majesty's Government was under no obligation by Treaty or international law to prevent.

57. It has been clearly shown that, as regards the period which elapsed before the 21st of July, no pretense exists for imputing negligence to the British Government. Eight days after that date the ves sel sailed, unarmed, and incapable of offense or defense. Within the interval written depositions to prove that she was intended for the Confederate Government were furnished in successive portions or installments to the British Government. That the question whether the evidence was credible and sufficient in law to sustain a seizure, was one on which the Government had a right, before acting, to consult its legal advisers, and to take reasonable time for consideration, is undeniable; and it has been shown that the depositions were, in fact, referred to the Law Officers as soon as they were received from time to time.

58. The United States allege in their Counter Case (Sec. VI, par. 1) that the official legal advisers of the Customs gave opinions on the evi dence contained in Mr. Adams's representations, which were in conflict with the opinions of the Law Officers of the Crown; that these opinions were given upon the questions after they had been submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown, and before the latter had rendered their opin

1 British Case, pp. 31-46; British Counter Case, p. 81.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

ions, and that the Customs Department acted on the opinions of their own advisers at a time when they must have known that the Law Officers of the Crown had the subject under consideration.

It cannot be admitted that this is an accurate representation of the facts as they occurred. The opinion of the legal advisers of the Customs upon the evidence furnished was, that it was insufficient to justify the seizure or detention of the ship by the Officers of Customs. They recommended, however, that the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown should be taken.2 In the interval which elapsed before the opinion of the Law Officers was received, the Customs Department, as was natural and right, abstained from directing a seizure which they themselves considered would be unauthorized. As soon as the decision of the Government was communicated to them, immediate steps were taken for carrying it into effect.3

59. In the Counter Case of the United States, (Sec. VI, par. 3,) it is further stated that:

It appears that the Commissioners of Customs knew on Tuesday, the 29th of July, that the Alabama had escaped that day, and that it was not until Friday, the 1st of August, that the Collectors at Holyhead and Beaumaris received instructions to detain her. On the 2d of August the Collector at Beaumaris reported that he had attended to his instructions, and had found that the Alabama had left Point Lynas on the morning of Thursday, the 31st. If, therefore, the instructions given on the 1st of August had been given on the 29th of July, the Alabama might have been detained at Point Lynas.

An examination of the facts, distances, and dates will show that such a course would have been nearly, if not quite, impossible.

The Commissioners of Customs received telegraphic information on the 29th of July that the vessel had left the port of Liverpool that morning. The opinion of the Law Officers that the vessel should be seized had not at that time been received, nor was anything known as to her movements. The United States Consul at Liverpool appears to have been in doubt, even the next day, whether she had not gone out on a trial trip and would not return to Liverpool.5

On Wednesday, July 30, the Customs Department in London received a letter from the Solicitors employed by the United States Consul, in which they stated their belief that the vessel had gone to Queenstown. On the same morning, the United States Consul at Liverpool received information that the steam-tug Hercules, which had accompanied the Alabama, had returned the night before, and that the master reported the gun-boat to be cruising off Point Lynas. This information Mr. Dudley communicated to the Collector of Customs at Liverpool, in a letter which seems to have been received at about 1 p. m. the same day. This was the first information pointing to the vicinity of Point Lynas as the place where the vessel might be found. Point Lynas is situated on the northern coast of the Island of Anglesea, about fifty miles from Liverpool, and more than two hundred miles from Queenstown. The nearest custom-house stations are Beaumaris and Holyhead, from which t is distant in a direct line about fourteen and sixteen miles respectvely, but much more by road."

Supposing, therefore, that the Customs Collector at Liverpool had been at the time aware that the Government had decided on the seizure of the vessel, and that he had telegraphed the rumor of her movements ip to London on the afternoon of the 30th of July, this would have been

Appendix to British Case, vol. i, p. 193.

* Ibid, p. 197.

* Ibid, p. 205.

Ibid., p. 200.

5 Ibid., p. 249.
6 Ibid., pp. 204, 249.
7 See map opposite.

the earliest moment at which instructions could have been sent to the Collector of Customs at Beaumaris to look out for the vessel off Point Lynas. The Collector would then have proceeded to the coast-guard station at Amlwch, and from thence to Point Lynas, to make inquiries; but supposing all possible dispatch to have been used, it is still doubtful whether he could have succeeded in arresting the Alabama, which was at Moelfra Bay, five miles away, and which left at 3 o'clock on the morning of the 31st. He would have had, moreover, nothing but a coast-guard boat at his disposal. The crew of the vessel appear to have been on the lookout, and she might without difficulty have steamed away on his approach.

60. The charge brought by the United States against Great Britain of a failure of duty in respect of the departure of the Alabama really reduces itself to this: that, in the interval between the 21st and 29th July, during which the evidence was coming in, the British Government took a little more time to satisfy itself that there was ground sufficient to warrant a seizure than the United States think was necessary. On this ground, in reality, the United States found their claim that all the losses caused by the Alabama, after she had been armed in Portuguese waters and converted into a Confederate ship of war, should be paid by Great Britain.

61. On the part of Great Britain it is submitted, that to rest such a claim on such a complaint, the complaint itself being supported by so slight and at the best so doubtful a foundation, is to assume a standard of international obligation which was never before acknowledged by any Government, and could not with safety or justice be conceded. It demands that the conduct of a Government, with its various departments, with modes of action which are of necessity complex and more or less methodical, shall always proceed with a mechanical precision which is inapplicable to the practical business of life. It makes no allowance for reasonable doubts, for the importance of careful deliberation when difficult questions of law are involved, for accidental delays occasioned by illness or other causes, or for the casual impediments which are liable to occur in matters of administration. The establishment of such a standard would be neither reasonable nor just, and would be of serious consequence, not to maritime States alone, nor in questions relating to neutrality only, but to the general peace and tranquillity of nations. It will be remembered that one cause of some delay in this case has always been understood to have been the illness of the then Queen's Advocate."

62. Further, if it should appear (which Great Britain does not admit) that, through the fault or mistake of any subordinate official of the Government, either before or after the sailing of the Alabama from Liverpool, a chance or possibility of detaining her was let slip without the knowledge of the Government, this again cannot be held to afford a foundation for charging Great Britain, as against the United States, with a failure of duty and a grave international injury.*

63. It has already been observed that an equitable judgment as to all these points must be formed with reference to the facts as they were known at the time, and not as varied or affected by subsequent information or subsequent events. Mr. Adams made a contemporan

Appendix to British Case, vol. i. p. 207.

It is stated in the report of the Customs Collector at Beaumaris, that they would not allow a boat from the shore to come alongside. (Appendix to British Case, vol. i. p. 207.)

3 British Case, p. 118; Appendix to ditto, vol. i. p. 249; British Counter Case, p. 85. 4 British Counter Case, p. 87.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »