Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

between the

Correspondence most important ports of the Union;" that he United States and acknowledges the salutary influence of the ExPortugal.

ecutive in obtaining these ameliorations;" and that he is "fully persuaded of the sincere wishes of this Government to put a stop to practices so contrary to friendly intercourse."

On the 8th of June, 1820, he gives information. of a formidable privateer, which he says is to be fitted out at Baltimore, and adds that he “has not the least doubt that the supreme Executive has both the power and the will of putting a stop to this hostile armament;" to which the Secretary of State, on the 20th July, replies that "such measures have been and will continue to be taken, under direction of the President, as are within the competency of the Executive, and may serve to maintain inviolate the laws of the United States applicable to the case."

On the 16th of July the Minister "laid before this Government the names and value of nineteen Portuguese ships and their cargoes, taken by private armed ships fitted in the ports of the Union by citizens of these States;" but he did not accompany this allegation with proof of such fitting, or with anything tending in the remotest degree to fix a liability on the United States, or to afford them the means of an independent examination. He also proposed a joint commission for the set

between the

Portugal.

tlement of these matters, which the Secretary of Correspondence State, on the 30th September, 1820, declined, United States and saying that "the Government of the United States has neither countenanced nor permitted any violation of neutrality by their citizens. They have, by various and successive acts of legislation, manifested their constant earnestness to fulfill their duties toward all parties to the war. They have repressed every intended violation of them which has been brought before their courts and substantiated by testimony." Other claims were transmitted to the United States Government on the 4th December, 1820, unaccompanied, as had been the invariable case before, by anything tending to show a liability in the United States to make compensation.

The case appears to have been closed by an offer from Portugal, on the 1st of April, 1822, to grant to the United States exceptional commercial advantages if the United States would recognize these claims, and the refusal of the United States, on the 30th of April, to do so.

It is worthy of remark that in Earl Russell's elaborate statement of this correspondence, in his note of the 30th of August, 1865, he omits, with a completeness which argues design, certain parts of it which showed that the United States were animated with a constant desire to perform their

Correspondence international duties

between the

Portugal.

Thus, nothing is said of the

United States and Portuguese note of February 4, 1819, asking that the neutrality act of 1817 may be continued in force, and the American reply, stating that it had been so continued. Nothing is said of the American note of the 22d of April, 1818, stating that the commander of the Irresistible, the vessel referred to in the Portuguese note of December 11, 1818, had returned to Baltimore and would be prosecuted. The American note of the 20th of July, 1820, is also omitted, in which, in answer to the Portuguese note of the 8th of June, 1820, it is stated that measures have been, and will continue to be, taken to maintain inviolate the laws of the United States.

Principles recognized in that correspondence.

The Tribunal of Arbitration cannot fail to observe that these suppressed notes had an important bearing in forming a judgment upon the correctness of the conduct of the Government of the United States in this case-a case which has received the official approval of Earl Russell, as Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. From a candid review of the whole correspondence, it appears that the United States admitted or asserted the following propositions, to which Her Majesty's Government, through Earl Russell, has given its assent:

1. That a neutral government is bound to use

re

cognized in that

all the means in its power to prevent the equipping, Principles fitting out, or arming, within its jurisdiction, of ves- correspondence. sels intended to cruise against a Power with which

it is at peace.

2. If the means within its power are, in the opinion of either belligerent, inadequate for the purpose, it is bound to receive suggestions of changes from the belligerent, and if it be true that the means are inadequate, it should so amend its laws, either in accordance with such suggestions or otherwise, as to put new and more effective means in the hands of its Executive.

3. That it is bound to institute proceedings under its laws against all vessels as to which reasonable grounds for suspicion are made to appear, even if the grounds for suspicion fall short of legal proof.

The Government of Portugal, during the whole correspondence, offered no evidence to prove that captures had been made by armed vessels illegally fitted out, equipped, or armed in the United States, nor even statements of facts tending to lead to the discovery of such evidence, which were not at once used for the purpose of detaining such vessels, or of punishing the guilty parties; nor did they contest by proof the allegation of Mr. John Quincy Adams that the Government of the United States had done everything in its power to perform its duties as a neutral, and to execute its laws. The

Principles cognized in that

re- correspondence shows conclusively that in every correspondence. case in which the United States was furnished

Rules in the Treaty of Washington.

either with positive legal proof, or with such an intimation of the facts as would enable them to pursue the investigation, themselves, they acted with the vigor which was required of them by International Law, and which Great Britain failed to show in similar cases during the rebellion.

The claims lay buried until they were exhumed by Mr. Figaniere, in 1850, as an offset to the "General Armstrong" case; and would have been forgotten if Earl Russell had not rescued them from oblivion.

The latest official act of Her Majesty's Government, indicating the views of Great Britain as to the duties of a neutral in time of war, is to be found in the Rules contained in Article VI of the Treaty of Washington. It is true that it was thought essential by the British negotiators to insert in that instrument a declaration on the part of Her Majesty's Government that they could not consent to those Rules as a statement of principles of International Law which were in force at the time when the claims now under discussion arose. But the United States were then, and are still, of the opinion, and they confidently think that the Tribunal of Arbitration will agree with them, not only that those rules were then in force, but that

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »