burning and destroying on the ocean of a large number of merchantvessels, and a very large amount of property belonging to the people of the United States.

"8. That, in addition to this direct injury, the action of these Britishbuilt, manned, and armed vessels has had the indirect effect of driving from the sea a large portion of the commercial marine of the United States, and to a corresponding extent enlarging that of Great Britain, thus enabling one portion of the British people to derive an unjust advantage from the wrong committed on a friendly nation by another portion.

"9. That the injuries thus received by a country which has meanwhile sedulously endeavored to perform all its obligations owing to the imperfection of the legal means at hand to prevent them, as well as the [457] unwillingness to seek for more *stringent powers, are of so grave á nature as in reason and justice to constitute a valid claim for reparation and indemnification."

The United States, with confidence, maintain that every point thus asserted by Mr. Adams has been established by the proof herein before referred to. In leaving in the hands of the Tribunal this part of their Case, they think it no impropriety earnestly to call attention to the magnitude of the issues to be decided.

Many a vindictive and bloody war has grown out of less provocation than the United States thus suffered from a nation with which they supposed that they were holding friendly relations. On the 4th of July, 1777, during the war of the American Revolution, Lord Stormont was instructed to say to the French Ministers that "the shelter given to the armed vessels of the rebels, the facility they have of disposing of their prizes by the connivance of the Government, and the conveniences allowed them to refit, are such irrefragable proofs of support, that scarcely more could be done if there was an avowed alliance between France and them, and that we were in a state of war with that Kingdom." He was also directed to say that however desirous of maintain

ing the peace, His Britannic Majesty could not, "from his respect [458] to his honor and his regard to the interest of his trading *sub

jects, submit to such strong and public instances of support and protection shown to the rebels by a nation that at the same time professes in the strongest terms its desire to maintain the present harmony subsisting between the two Crowns."1

The injuries inflicted upon the United States during the insurrection, under the cover of professions of friendship, are well described in this language of the Ministers of George III, except that the insurgents were allowed to burn, instead of assisted to dispose of their prizes. But the United States, although just emerging from a successful war, with all the appliances of destruction in their grasp, preferred to await a better state of feeling in Great Britain, rather than follow the example of that Government in resorting to war. The time came when Her Majesty's Government felt that it would not be derogatory to the ele vated position of their Sovereign to express regret for the escape of the cruisers and for the depredations which they committed. The United States, receiving this expression of regret in the spirit in which it was made, stand before this Tribunal of Arbitration to abide its judg

ment.

If the facts which they bring here constitute, in the opinion of the Tribunal, no just cause for claim against Great Britain, they must

1 Vol. III, page 599.

bow to the decision. But if, on the other hand, Great Britain [459] shall not be able to explain to their complete satisfaction the charges and the proof which they present, the United States will count upon an award to the full extent of their demand. They feel that it is their duty to insist before this August Body, not only in their own interest, but for the sake of the future peace of the world, that it is not a just performance of the duties of a neutral to permit a belligerent to carry on organized war from its territories against a Power with which the neutral is at peace.

If this Tribunal shall hold that combined operations like those of Bullock, Fraser, Trenholm & Co., Huse, Heyliger, and others, (which in the judgment of the United States constituted an organized war,) are legitimate, their decision will, in the opinion of the United States, lay the foundation for endless dissensions and wars.

If wrongs like those which the United States suffered are held by this Tribunal to be no violation of the duties which one nation owes to another, the rules of the Treaty of Washington can have little effective force, and there will be little inducement for nations in future to adopt the peaceful method of arbitration for the settlement of their differ

ences.

If it was right to furnish the Nashville at Ber*muda with a [460] full supply of coal, sufficient to carry her to Southampton, instead of what might be necessary for her return to Charleston, the United States and the other maritime nations must accept the doctrine in the future.

If there was no violation of international duty in receiving the Sumter at Trinidad, and in supplying her with the fuel necessary to enable her to continue her career of destruction, instead of giving her what was requisite, with her sailing power, to enable her to return to New Orleans or Galveston, it is important that the maritime Powers should know it.

If recognized vessels of war, like the Sumter and the Georgia, may be lawfully sold in a neutral port during time of war, the United States, as a nation whose normal condition is one of neutrality, accept the doctrine.

If the duties of a neutral in preventing, within its territory, the construction, arming, equipping, or fitting out of vessels by one belligerent, which may be intended to cruise against the other belligerent, or the furnishing of arms or military supplies to such vessel, or the recruitment of men for such belligerent, are to be limited to the exercise of the powers conferred upon the neutral Government by municipal law, the United States, with their extended frontier on both oceans, have more *interest than any other maritime Power in recogniz- [461] ing that fact.

If the recognition of belligerency by a neutral, in favor of an organized insurrection, authorizes a so-called Government of insurrectionists to issue commissions, which are to protect vessels that may have violated the sovereignty of the neutral from examination, inquiry, or punishment by the neutral authorities when again within their jurisdiction, the United States, and other nations here represented, must hold themselves at liberty in future to conform to such measure of duty, in that respect, as may be indicated by this Tribunal.

If Georgias, Alabamas, Floridas, and Shenandoahs may be allowed to go out from neutral ports without violations of international duty, to prey upon the commerce of friendly nations; if it be no offense to recruit men for them and to send the recruits to join them in Alars,

Bermudas, Bahamas, and Laurels, the United States as a neutral will be relieved, when other States are at war, from a great part of the difficulties they encounter in watching a long line of coast.

If Tallahassees and Chickamaugas may be constructed in neutral territory, without violation of international duty, to serve as it may suit the pleasure of a belligerent, alternately either as blockade[462] runners or as men-of-war, those maritime *nations whose normal

condition is one of neutrality need not regret such a doctrine, when viewed, not in the light of principle, but as affecting their pecuniary interests.

And if it be no offense, as in the case of the Retribution, to take a captured cargo into a neutral port, and there to dispose of it with the knowl edge and without the interference of the local magistracy, the maritime Powers, knowing that such buccaneering customs are to be permitted, will be the better able to guard against them.

It will depend upon this Tribunal to say whether any or all of these precedents are to be sanctioned and are to stand for future guidance.

trasted with that of Great Britain.

The United States, in closing this branch of the Case, desire to call the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that they came out The conduct of from this long and bloody contest without serious cause of other nations concomplaint against any nation except Great Britain. The Executives of other nations issued notices to their citizens or subjects, enjoining upon them to remain neutral in the contest.

Belgium issued a notice on the 25th of June, 1861, warning [463] Belgians against engaging as priva*teers. The United States had never any cause of complaint in this respect against Belgium. The Emperor of the French, on the 10th of June, 1861, issued a proclamation commanding his subjects to "maintain a strict neutrality in the struggle entered upon between the Government of the Union and the States which pretended to form a separate confederation." The United States refer to the foregoing recital of the proceedings against Mr. Arman's vessels, as a proof of the fidelity with which the Imperial Government maintained the neutrality which it imposed upon its subjects. The Government of the Netherlands forbade privateers to enter its ports, and warned the inhabitants of the Netherlands and the King's subjects abroad not to accept letters of marque. The United States have no knowledge that these directions were disobeyed.

The Government of Portugal shut the harbors of the Portuguese dominions against privateers and their prizes. Of this the United States had no complaint to make. At a later period that Government went so far as to forbid the coaling of any steamer designing to violate the

blockade," and to "require a bond to be given, before allowing [464] *coals to be furnished at all, that the ship receiving the supply

will not run the blockade." When the insurgent iron-clad Stonewall came into Lisbon Harbor in March, 1865, it was ordered to leave in twenty-four hours. The United States bear willing testimony to this honorable conduct of Portugal.

The Prussian Government announced that it would not protect its shipping or its subjects who might take letters of marque, share in pri

1 Vol. IV, page 3.

3 Vol. IV, page 6.

2 Vol. IV, page 4.

4

Vol. IV, page 7.

Mr. Harvey to Mr. Seward, Diplomatic Correspondence, 1864, part 4, page 296. *Same to same, Diplomatic Correspondence, 1865, part 3, page 109.

vateering enterprises, carry merchandise of war, or forward dispatches.1 The United States have no reason to suppose that the subjects of the King of Prussia departed from the line of duty thus indicated.

The Russian Government ordered that even "the flag of men-of-war belonging to the seceded States must not be saluted."

Spain followed France in the track of England,3 but care was taken to avoid, in the Royal Proclamation, the use of the word "belligerents."+ It has been seen with what fidelity and impartiality the authorities at Cardenas carried out the letter and the spirit of this proclamation, when the *Florida arrived there from Nassau, in the sum- [465] mer of 1862.

The Emperor of Brazil required his subjects to observe a strict neutrality; and his Government informed them what acts of the belligerents would forfeit the right of hospitality. It was ordered that "a belligerent who has once violated neutrality shall not be admitted into the ports of the Empire;" and that "vessels which may attempt to violate neutrality shall be compelled to leave the maritime territory immediately, and they shall be allowed to procure no supplies." These rules were enforced. The Alabama was refused the hospitality of Brazilian ports in consequence of violations of the neutrality which the Emperor had determined to maintain. When the Tuscaloosa came to St. Catharine's from Simon's Bay, in November, 1863, she was refused supplies and ordered to leave, because she was a tender and prize of the Alabama, and was tainted by the acts of that vessel. The commander of the Shenandoah boarded a vessel between Cardiff and Bahia, opened the manifest, and broke the seal of the Brazilian Consul; for this act his vessel, and any vessel which he might command, were excluded from Brazilian ports. The Imperial Government, in all these proceedings, appeared desirous of asserting its sovereignty, and [466] of maintaining an honest neutrality.

Mr. Fish, in one of his first utterances after he became Secretary of State, expressed the sense which the United States entertained of this difference between the conduct of Great Britain and that of other nations. "There were other Powers," he said, "that were contemporaneous with England in similar concessions; but it was in England only that that concession was supplemented by acts causing direct damage to the United States. The President is careful to make this discrimination, because he is anxious, as much as possible, to simplify the case, and to bring into view these subsequent acts, which are so important in determining the question between the two countries."

THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD AWARD A SUM IN GROSS TO THE UNITED STATES.

the High

In the opening conference of the Joint High Commission relating to the Alabama Claims, the American Commissioners stated Offer of the Amerthe nature of the demands of the United States. They said in Commissioners that there were "extensive direct losses in the capture and Commission. destruction of a large number of vessels with their cargoes, and in the heavy national expenditures in the pursuit of the cruisers, and indirect injury in the transfer of a large part of the American commercial marine to the British flag, in the enhanced payments of insurance, in the prolongation of the war, and in the addition of a large sum to the cost of the war and the suppression of the rebellion." They further said that the amount of the direct losses to individuals “which had thus far been presented, amounted to about fourteen millions of dollars, without interest, which amount was liable to be greatly increased by claims which had not been presented:" and that the direct loss to the Government

"in the pursuit of cruisers could easily be ascertained by certifi[468] cates of Government accounting officers." They added that "in

Commissioners. Terms of the submission by the

Treaty.

the hope of an amicable settlement, no estimate was made of the indirect losses, without prejudice, however, to the right of indemnifica tion on their account in the event of no such settlement being made." The British Commissioners declined to make the "amicable settlement" which was proposed on the part of the United States. Rejection of the The Joint High Commission then entered into negotiations Offer by the British which resulted in an agreement "in order to remove and adjust all complaints and claims on the part of the United States, and to provide for the speedy settlement of such claims," that all the claims "growing out of the acts committed by the several vessels which have given rise to the claims generically known as the Alabama Claims," should be referred to this Tribunal of Arbitration. It was further agreed that this Tribunal, should it find that Great Britain bad, by any act or omission, failed to fulfill any of the duties set forth in the rules in the sixth article of the Treaty, or recognized by principles of International Law not inconsistent with such rules, might then "proceed to award a sum in gross to be paid by Great Britain to the United States for all the claims referred to it."

[469]

*The claims as stated by the American Commissioners may be classified as follows:

General statement

1. The claims for direct losses growing out of the destruc- of the Claims. tion of vessels and their cargoes by the insurgent cruisers.

2. The national expenditures in the pursuit of those cruisers.

3. The loss in the transfer of the American commercial marine to the British flag.

4. The enhanced payments of insurance.

5. The prolongation of the war and the addition of a large sum to the cost of the war and the suppression of the rebellion.

So far as these various losses and expenditures grew out of the acts