laws of the United the request of Great Britain. The neutrality gather on the northern frontier of the United States enacted at States, Mr. Fox, the British Minister at Washington, "solemnly appealed to the Supreme Government promptly to interpose its sovereign authority for arresting the disorders," and inquired what means it proposed to employ for that purpose. The President immediately addressed a communication to Congress, calling attention to defects in the existing statute, and asking that the Executive might be clothed with adequate power to restrain all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States from the commission of acts of the character complained of. Congress, thereupon, passed the act of 1838. Thus Great Britain once more asked the United States to amend their neutrality laws, in British interest, so as to give more power to the Executive, and the request was complied with. Case of the bark Maury. In the year 1855, Great Britain being then at war with Russia, it was supposed by the British Consul, at New York, that a vessel called the Maury, which was being innocently fitted out at New York for the China trade, was intended as a Russian privateer. The British Minister at Washington at once called the attention of Mr. Marcy, the then Secretary of State, to this vessel. The affidavits which he inclosed for the consideration of the Secretary of State fell far, very far, short of the evidence which Mr. Adams submitted to Earl Russell in regard to the Liverpool cruisers. The whole foundation which the British Minister furnished for the action of the United States was the "belief" of the Consul, his lawyer, and two police officers, that the vessel was intended for Russian service. This was communicated to the Government of the United States on the 11th of October. Notwithstanding the feebleness of the suspicion, the prosecuting officer of the United States was, on the 12th of October, instructed by telegraph to "prosecute if cause appears," and was at work on the 13th in order to prevent a violation of the sovereignty of the United States to the injury of Great Britain. The 'proceedings given at length in the accompanying volumes show with what rapidity and zeal the investigation was made, and that the charge was at once proved to be unfounded. In all this correspondence and these precedents, the following principles appear to have been assumed by the two Governments: 1. That the belligerent may call upon the neutral to enforce its municipal proclamations as well as its municipal laws. 2. That it is the duty of the neutral, when the fact of the intended violation of its sovereignty is 1 Vol. IV, pages 53-62. Case of the bark Maury. Principles thus recognized by the two Governments. Principles thus disclosed, either through the agency of the repre recognized by the two Governments. sentative of the belligerent, or through the vigilance of the neutral, to use all the means in its Obligation to make compensa power to prevent the violation. 3. That when there is a failure to use all the means in the power of a neutral to prevent a breach of the neutrality of its soil or waters, there is an obligation on the part of the neutral to make compensation for the injury resulting therefrom. The United States are aware that some eminent tion for injuries. English publicists, writing on the subject of the "Alabama Claims," have maintained that the obligation in such case to make compensation would not necessarily follow the proof of the commission of the wrong; but the United States confidently insist that such a result is entirely inconsistent with the course pursued by Great Britain and the United States, during the administration of General Washington, when Great Britain claimed of the United States compensation for losses sustained from the acts of cruisers that had received warlike additions in the ports of the United States, and the United States admitted the justice of the claim, and paid the compensation demanded. The United States also point to the similar compensation made by them to Spain in the treaty of 1819, for similar injuries inflicted on to Spanish commerce during the War of the Inde- Obligation make compensapendence of the Spanish American Colonies, as tion for injuries. showing the sense of Spain on this point. In the course of the long discussions between Correspondence between the the two Governments on the Alabama claims, United States and Portugal. Great Britain has attempted to justify its course by a reference to the conduct of the United States toward Portugal between 1816 and 1822.1 The several replies of Mr. Adams amply defended the course of the United States in that affair. From the replies and from the official documents referred to in them, it would appear that in the year 1850 the United States had brought to the point of settlement a long-standing claim against Portugal, for the destruction of the American armed brig General Armstrong, in the harbor of Fayal, in the year 1814. They were at the same time pressing some other claims against Portugal, and were conducting a correspondence with the Portuguese Legation at Washington, growing out of the seizure of a Portuguese slaver.2 The Portuguese Government, as an offset to these claims of the United States, revived some exploded claims of Portugal against the United States, for alleged violation of neutrality, that had slumbered for nearly thirty years. These are the claims referred to by Earl Russell in his note to 1 Vol. III, pages 556–560. Executive Document No. 53, 32d Congress, 1st session. between the United States and Portugal. Correspondence Mr. Adams of May 4, 1865,' and his note to the same of August 30, 1865, and his note to the same dated November 2, 1865.3 Lord Russell asserts that the complaints of Portugal were more frequent and extended to a larger amount of property after 1818 than they had done before. Mr. Adams denies this allegation,' and his denial is supported by the evidence in possession of the Government of the United States. The facts appear to be these: On the 20th December, 1816, the Portuguese Minister informed the then Secretary of State (Mr. Monroe) of the fitting out of privateers at Baltimore to act against Portugal, in case it should turn out that that Government was at war with the "self-styled Government of Buenos Ayres." He further stated that he did not make the application in order "to raise altercations or to require satisfaction," but that he solicited "the proposition to Congress of such provisions by law as will prevent such attempts for the future," being "persuaded that my [his] magnanimous Sovereign will receive a more dignified satisfaction, and worthier of his high character, by the enactment of such laws by the United States." Mr. Monroe replied, on the 27th of the same month, "I have communicated your letter to the President, and have now the honor to transmit to you a copy |