this voyage? Everything they saw, everything that was done, spoke a language too plain to be

"It is, therefore, very clear that the Irresistible was armed and manned in Baltimore, in violation of the laws and of the neutral obligations of the United States. We do not think that We do not think that any circumstances took place in the river La Plata, by force of which this taint was removed."

The course of the French Government during the insurrection in the case of the Rappahannock, already referred to, practically asserted the power

of the neutral to protect its violated sovereignty, even against a commissioned vessel of war. The British Government itself recognized this principle when it ordered the Alabama to be seized at Nassau, and when it found fault with the Governor of the Cape of Good Hope for not detaining the Tuscaloosa at Cape Town. The principle for which the United States contend has therefore been recognized by Great Britain, Spain, Portugal, France, and the United States.

Decision of the

Supreme Court of

the United States

in the cases of the Santisima Trinidad and the Gran Para.

The principle recognized by France, Great Britain, Spain, Por

tugal, and the

United States.

offense.

It is not deemed necessary to add to the forci- Deposit of the ble views of Chief Justice Marshall in the case of the Gran Para, as to the deposit of the offense of the cruiser. The United States only ask that the same just rules which they, through their highest

offense.

Deposit of the judicial officer and most eminent jurist, have established for offenses committed on their own soil,

Résumé of principles.

may be applied to the offenses against British neutrality from which they have suffered. The Alabama, the Georgia, the Florida, the Shenandoah, and the other insurgent vessels of war made no cruise that was not planned on British soil. Their respective cruises were to last till the independence of the Confederacy should be established. The career of the Florida terminated at Bahiathat of the Alabama off Cherbourg. The Shenandoah and the Georgia came eventually into the possession of the United States. The principal injuries, which will be hereinafter set forth, came from the acts of these vessels. There were, however, other vessels, whose careers and crimes, as well as those of the above-named four, will now be given in detail.

Before proceeding to do so, it will be well to note the points which have been thus far made. The United States trust that they have established to the satisfaction of the Tribunal of Arbitration as against Great Britain

1. That it is the duty of a neutral to preserve strict and impartial neutrality as to both belligerents during hostilities. (See the Queen's Proclamation; also extracts from various writers on International Law above cited.)

2. That this obligation is independent of municipal law. (See as above.)

3. That a neutral is bound to enforce its municipal laws and its executive proclamation; and that a belligerent has the right to ask it to do so; and also the right to ask to have the powers conferred upon the neutral by law increased if found insufficient. (See the precedents in General Washington's administration; Lord Palmerston's speech of July 23, 1863; the opinion of the British Attorney General during the Crimean war; and the United States Special Law of March 10, 1838.)

4. That a neutral is bound to use due diligence to prevent the fitting out, arming, or equipping, within its jurisdiction, of any vessel which it has reasonable ground to believe is intended to cruise or to carry on war against a Power with which it is at peace. (See 1st Rule of the Treaty; also the Foreign Enlistment Acts of 1819 and 1870; also the precedents in General Washington's administration; also the writers on International Law who have been cited.)

5. That a neutral is bound to use like diligence to prevent the construction of such a vessel. (See Foreign Enlistment Act of 1870; also the action of the United States Government in 1869; also the writers on International Law above cited.)

Résumé of principles.

6. That a neutral is bound to use like diligence

to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of any vessel intended to cruise or carry on war against any Power with which it is at peace; such vessel having been specially adapted, in whole or in part, within its jurisdiction, to warlike use. (See 1st Rule of the Treaty; also the Foreign Enlistment Act of 1870.)

7. That a neutral may not permit or suffer either belligerent to make use of its ports or waters as the base of naval operations against the other. (See 2d Rule of the Treaty, the Foreign Enlistment Act of 1870, and the writers on International Law above cited; also the instructions to the British naval forces during the Southern insurrection.)

8. That a neutral is bound to use due diligence in its ports or waters, to prevent either belligerent from obtaining there a renewal or augmentation of military supplies, or arms for belligerent vessels, or the recruitment of men. (See 2d Rule of the Treaty; also the precedents of General Washington's administration; also the Foreign Enlistment Acts of 1819 and 1870; also the Queen's Proclamation.)

9. That when a neutral fails to use all the means in its power to prevent a breach of the neutrality of its soil or waters, in any of the foregoing respects, the neutral should make compensation for

ciples.

the injury resulting therefrom. (See precedents of Résumé of prinGeneral Washington's administration between Great

Britain and the United States; treaty of 1794 between Great Britain and the United States; treaty of 1819 between the United States and Spain; correspondence between Portugal and the United States, 1817-22, and Articles VII and X of the Treaty of Washington.)

10. That this obligation is not discharged or arrested by the change of the offending vessel into a public man-of-war. (See the cases of the Santisima Trinidad and the Gran Para, above cited.)

11. That this obligation is not discharged by a fraudulent attempt of the offending vessel to evade the provisions a local municipal law. (See the· Gran Para, as above; also Bluntschli and other writers on International Law.)

12. That the offense will not be deposited so as to release the liability of the neutral even by the entry or the offending vessel in a port of the belligerent, and there becoming a man-of-war, if any part of the original fraud continues to hang about the vessel. (See the Gran Para, as above.)