Duty to detain harbors; but the honorable and learned gentleman

offending vessels

admitted by Great doubts the expediency of exercising it, and his

Britain.

reason is that he thinks we have not clear proof
of guilt. This brings me to a striking piece of
inconsistency on the part of the honorable and
learned gentleman. He begins with administering
a solemn exhortation, and something like a solemn
reproof to English ship-builders, for infringing our
neutrality laws and disregarding the Queen's Proc-
lamation by building these ships. Well, but if
they are violating our neutrality and disregarding
the Queen's Proclamation, it must have been
because they built these vessels for a belligerent to
be employed against some Power with which we
are at peace.
The honorable and learned gentle-
man assumes that these individuals are guilty of
these acts. He knows they have been guilty of
these acts; he knows that these three vessels in
particular, and the Alabama more especially, have
been built for the Confederate Government, and
employed solely for that Government, and yet he
doubts the expediency of stopping them from
entering our ports. He speaks as though we were
asking that he should send out ships of war to
order away these vessels without trial. He says
there must be legal proof; but it does not require
legal proof to warrant you in telling a Government,
You have got these vessels clandestinely; you
got them by the infringement of our neutrality

offending vessels Britain.

code, or, at least we suspect you upon fair grounds Duty to detain of doing so; and unless you prove that they came admitted by Great legitimately into your hands we must refuse them the hospitality of our ports.' Why, how do you act in private life? You hear charges and reports compromising the honor of your acquaintance or friend. You may have a moral conviction in your mind that that individual's honor is compromised, but you may not have legal proof of it, and still you may be quite justified in saying to him, 'Until you clear up these charges, which on the face of them criminate you, I must refuse you the hospitality of my house.' I hold that you have the right to say the same thing in regard to these cruisers. But what was the course of the Government in the case of the Alabama? They told Mr. Adams, the American Minister, that they should give orders to stop the Alabama, either at Queenstown or NasTherefore the principle was recognized in the case of that vessel that you had a right to stop her when she reached your jurisdiction. I say, therefore, in the same way, prevent their entering your harbors until they give an account of themselves, to show how they became possessed of that vessel. This has a most important bearing, and one so apparent that it must be plain to the apprehensions of every honorable gentleman who hears it."

sau.

The French Government, during the insurrec

by France.

แ

Also recognized tion, practically asserted the same power in the neutral to protect its violated sovereignty. The British Government in 1864 sold a screw gun-boat to persons who proved to be agents of the insurgents. This was done at a time when it was a matter of public notoriety that those agents were in England making great efforts to fit out a navy. The purchasers took the vessel to Calais to complete the equipment. On the way from the Thames to Calais the name of the vessel was changed to the Rappahannock," the insurgent flag was hoisted, an insurgent officer, holding an insurgent commission, took the command, and the crew were mustered into the service of the insurgents. On arrival at Calais, attempts were made to complete the equipment. The French Government stopped this by placing a man-of-war across the bows, and holding the vessel, as a prisoner, and the Rappahannock was thus prevented from destroying vessels and commerce, sailing under the flag of a nation with which France was at peace.

The second Rule of the Treaty.

The second Rule provides that a neutral government is bound not to permit or suffer either belligerent to make use of its ports or waters as the base of naval operations against the other, or for the purpose of the renewal or augmentation of military supplies or arms, or the recruitment

of men.

A question has been raised whether this rule is understood to apply to the sale of military supplies or arms in the ordinary course of commerce. The United States do not understand that it is intended to apply to such a traffic. They understand it to apply to the use of a neutral port by a belligerent for the renewal or augmentation of such military supplies or arms for the naval operations referred to in the rule. Taken in this sense, the United States maintain that the same obligations are to be found, (expressed in other words,) first, in the Foreign Enlistment Act of 1819; and, secondly, in the instructions to the naval forces of Great Britain during the rebellion.

The Tribunal of Arbitration will not fail to observe the breadth of this rule.

The ports or waters of the neutral are not to be made the base of naval operations by a belligerent. Vessels of war may come and go under such rules and regulations as the neutral may prescribe; food and the ordinary stores and supplies of a ship not of a warlike character may be furnished without question, in quantities necessary for immediate wants; the moderate hospitalities which do not infringe upon impartiality may be extended; but no act shall be done to make the neutral port a base of naval operations. Ammunition and military stores for cruisers cannot be obtained there; coal

The second Rule of the Treaty.

The second Rule cannot be stored there for successive supplies to

of the Treaty.

The third Rule of the Treaty.

the same vessel, nor can it be furnished or obtained in such supplies; prizes cannot be brought there for condemnation. The repairs that humanity demand can be given, but no repairs should add to the strength or efficiency of a vessel, beyond what is absolutely necessary to gain the nearest of its own ports.

As

In the same sense are to be taken the clauses relating to the renewal or augmentation of military supplies or arms and the recruitment of men. the vessel enters the port, so is she to leave it, without addition to her effective power of doing injury to the other belligerent. If her magazine is supplied with powder, shot, or shells; if new guns are added to her armament; if pistols or muskets or cutlasses, or other implements of destruction, are put on board; if men are recruited; even if, in these days when steam is a power, an excessive supply of coal is put into her bunkers, the neutral will have failed in the performance of its duty.

The third Rule binds the neutral to exercise the same measure of diligence as required by the first Rule, in order to prevent, in its own ports and waters, and as to all persons within its jurisdiction, any violation of the obligations and duties prescribed by the first and second Rules. The same wakefulness and watchfulness, proportioned to the