Duke de Loule to Mr. Harvey, (translation) Jan. 16, 1864 405 74 406 74 Inclosure: Instructions to the governors of the Azores and Madeira, Jan. 23, 1864 (translation.) The Duke de Loule to Mr. Harvey, (translation). Mr. Harvey to the Duke de Loule No. 3.-Limitation of asylum to the Florida at Funchal. Inclosure: The Duke de Loule to Mr. Harvey, (translation) The military governor of Ferrol to the consular agent of the United, Mar. 10, 1865 No. 1. Code pénal fédéral. (Extrait).. No. 2. Notification du conseil fédéral concernant la neutralité de la Suisse No. 5. Loi fédérale concernant les enrolements pour un service militaire No. 6. Message du conseil fédéral à la haute assemblée fédérale concernant Table of contents-Continued. ADDITIONAL MEMORANDA TOUCHING NEUTRALITY LAWS AND THE EXECUTION THEREOF IN COUNTRIES OTHER THAN THE UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN. Ordonnance du roi.. Mai 4, 1803 Lettre patente concernant la rentrée en vigueur de l'ordonnance royale du 4 mai, 1803. Extrait de la note circulaire contenant la déclaration de neutralité du roi. General instruction for commanders of ships in Danish waters during the state of neutrality of Denmark, (translation.) Traduction française du § 76 du code pénal du 10 février, 1866 English translation of paragraph 76 of the Danish penal code of February 10, 1866. Law relating to the registration of Danish ships, (translation)........ No. 10, memorandum of questions between Brazil, Germany, and France.. Extracts from the history of Don F'co de Miranda's attempt to effect a The supplemental consolidation act Aug. 14, 1855 Additional evidence from Melbourne and Cape Town submitted to the arbitrators on the 15th of December, 1871, but not included in the evidence then printed. Mr. Adamson to Mr. Davis ..... THE COUNTER CASE OF THE UNITED STATES, PRESENTED TO THE TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION, AT GENEVA, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON, *The IVth article of the treaty of Washington permits each. [1] party, within four months after the delivery of the case, to deliver in duplicate to the arbitrators, and to the agent of the other party, a counter case and additional documents, correspondence, and evidence, in reply to the case, documents, correspondence, and evidence presented by the other party. Availing themselves of this right, the United States present this as their counter case, together with additional documents, correspondence, and evidence, in reply to the case, documents, correspondence, and evidence submitted by Her Majesty's government. In laying this counter case before the tribunal of arbitration, they deem it proper to premise that they do not consider it within the province of this paper to discuss all the propositions within the British case which they regard as justly disputable or requiring argumentative discussion. So far as the positions taken by Her Majesty's government in its case vary from those which the United States had the honor to lay before the tribunal in their case, they respectfully refer to that document for an expression of the views which they regard as supported by sound principles of reason and by the acquiescence of other powers, and by the writings of publicists of authority. [2] So far, too, as contestations of questions of fact are raised between the parties, on their respective cases, and the supporting evidence on either side, a mere renewal of the contestation in the counter case would be superfluous. The United States therefore refer to their original case for their views and estimates of the contested matters of fact. It has seemed to them to be more in accordance with the spirit of the treaty, and with the convenience of the tribunal, thus to reserve for their counsel the general analysis and discussion of these matters, so far as they shall prove important in their bearing upon the substantial controversy between the parties in the argument which will be prepared by them for submission under the Vth article of the treaty, and in such oral arguments, if any, as the tribunal may express a wish to hear. Reserving, therefore, their rights and the freedom of their counsel in these respects, they ask the attention of the tribunal to the following observations upon some of the main points of difference between the case and other matter submitted on the part of * Her Majesty's government, and those submitted on the part of the United States. [3] I. Certain errors of sense, which run through the case of Her Majesty's government, first claim attention. 1. It is assumed in that case that the rebels of the United States were, by Her Majesty's proclamation of May 3, 1861, invested with some unde fined political attributes. But the United States have hitherto understood that Her Majesty's government merely assumed to regard the persons who resisted the power of the United States as a body of insur rectionists who might be recognized as clothed with belligerent rights at the discretion of neutral powers. They therefore think it right to conclude that the frequent use in the British Case of language implying recognized political attributes in the insurrection is an inadvert ence. 2. Her Majesty's government assume that the reclamations of the United States are to be confined to claims growing out of the acts of the Florida, the Alabama, the Georgia, and the Shenandoah. The claims growing out of the acts of the other vessels named in the Amer[4] ican case are regarded by the *United States as also embraced within the terms of the Treaty. They form part of the claims generally known as the "Alabama claims." They are enumerated in the fourth of a series of five volumes printed by order of the Senate of the United States, which are part of the "documents, correspondence, and evidence" submitted with the case of the United States. These volumes, when thus collected and printed, were entitled: "Claims of the United States against Great Britain." It is believed that under that title they were in the library of the foreign office at London before Her Majesty's high commissioners received their instructions. It may also be said, without impropriety, that under the same title they were on the table of the joint high commission during the negotiations which preceded the conclusion of the treaty. The United States, therefore, while re-asserting their construction of the language of the treaty in this respect, feel that they have the right to ask the arbitrators to assume that Her Majesty's high commissioners had notice of, and acquiesced in, that construction. 3. The United States are at a loss to understand why several obser vations are introduced into the British Case which apparently aim to limit the operation of the three rules of the treaty. If, by the princi ples of construction which are suggested, Her Majesty's Govern ment intend to ask for a modification *or change in those rules, the United States cannot too strongly protest against it. [5] 4. It is averred in several places that some of the acts of which the United States complain were committed by American citizens. If these statements are introduced for the purpose of urging this fact as an excuse for the negligence of Her Majesty's officials, or for any other supposed relevant purpose, the United States will ask the tribunal to take note that the American citizens" referred to were criminals in the eye of American law, at the time when they were elevated to the rank of recog nized belligerents against the United States by the act of Her Majesty's government, an act in which the United States did not participate, and against which they have never ceased to protest. It would seem, there fore, to be impossible to impute to the United States any consequences of responsibility for the conduct of the persons thus described as "American citizens." |