Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

Mr. Fish's instruc

cusable, and such as indisputably to devolve on The charges in that Government full responsibility for all the tion of September depredations committed by her.

25, 1869, sustained

Indeed, this by this evidence.

conclusion seems in effect to be conceded in Great Britain. [See the preface to Earl Russell's Speeches and Dispatches.] At all events, the United States conceive that the proofs of responsible negligence in this matter are so clear that no room remains for debate on that point, and it should be taken for granted in all future negotiations with Great Britain."

[merged small][ocr errors]

WHEREIN GREAT

PART V.

BRITAIN FAILED TO PERFORM ITS DUTIES AS A NEUTRAL.—THE INSURGENT CRUISERS.

"In the first place, I am sorry to observe that the unwarrantable practice of building ships in this country, to be used as vessels of war against a State with which Her Majesty is at peace, still continues. Her Majesty's government had hoped that this attempt to make the territorial waters of Great Britain the place of preparation for warlike armaments against the United States might be put an end to by prosecutions and by seizure of the vessels built in pursuance of contracts made with the confederate agents. But facts which are unhappily too notorious, and correspondence which has been put into the hands of Her Majesty's government by the minister of the Government of the United States, show that resort is had to evasion and subtlety in order to escape the penalties of the law; that a vessel is bought in one place, that her armament is prepared in another, and that both are sent to some distant port beyond Her Majesty's jurisdiction, and that thus an armed steamship is fitted out to cruise against the commerce of a power in amity with Her Majesty. A crew, composed partly of British subjects, is procured separately; wages are paid to them for an unknown service. They are dispatched, perhaps, to the coast of France, and there or elsewhere are engaged to serve in a confederate man-of-war.

Now, it is very possible that by such shifts and stratagems, the penalties of the existing law of this country, nay, of any law that could be enacted, may be evaded; but the offense thus offered to Her Majesty's authority and dignity by the de facto rulers of the confederate States, whom Her Majesty acknowledges as belligerents, and whose agents in the United Kingdom enjoy the benefit of our hospitality in quiet security, remains the same. It is a proceeding totally unjustifiable, and manifestly offensive to the British Crown."-Earl Russell's Letter to Messrs. Mason, Slidell, and Mann, February 13, 1865. Vol. I, page 630.

Earl Russell de

The Tribunal of Arbitration will probably agree with Earl Russell in his statement to the insur- nounces the acts

of which the Uni

plain as unwar

ted States com- gent agents, that "the practice of building ships" ranted and totally in Great Britain "to be used as vessels of unjustifiable.

British territory the base of the

war" against the United States, and the "attempts to make the territorial waters of Great Britain the place of preparation for warlike armaments against the United States" "in pursuance of contracts made with the Confederate agents," were "unwarrantable" and "totally unjustifiable." British territory was, during the whole struggle, naval operations the base of the naval operations of the insurgents The first serious fight had scarcely taken place. before the contracts were made in Great Britain for the Alabama and the Florida. The contest was nearly over when Waddell received his orders in Liverpool to sail thence in the Laurel in order to take command of the Shenandoah and to visit the Arctic Ocean on a hostile cruise.1

of the insurgents.

Their arsenal.

There also was the arsenal of the insurgents, from whence they drew their munitions of war, their arms, and their supplies. It is true that it has been said, and may again be said, that it was no infraction of the law of nations to furnish such supplies. But, while it is not maintained that belligerents may infringe upon the rights which neutrals have to manufacture and deal in such military supplies in the ordinary course of commerce, it is asserted with confidence that a neutral Vol. III, page 461.

ought not to permit a belligerent to use the neutral Their arsenal. soil as the main, if not the only base of its military supplies, during a long and bloody contest, as the soil of Great Britain was used by the insurgents.

It

may not always be easy to determine what is The systematic and what is not lawful commerce in arms and muni

tions of war; but the United States conceive that there can be no doubt on which side of the line to place the insurgent operations on British territory. If Huse had been removed from Liverpool, Heyliger from Nassau, and Walker from Bermuda; or if Fraser, Trenholm & Co. had ceased to sell insurgent cotton and to convert it into money for the use of Huse, Heyliger, and Walker, the armies of the insurgents must have succumbed. The systematic operations of these persons, carried on openly and under the avowed protection of the British Government, made of British territory the "arsenal" of which Mr. Fish complained in his note of September 25, 1869.1 Such conduct was, to say the least, wanting in the essentials of good neighborhood, and should be frowned upon by all who desire to so establish the principles of International Law, as to secure the peace of the world, while protecting the independence of nations.

It is in vain to say that both parties could have

1 Vol. VI, page 4.

operations of the insurgents a viola

tion of the duties

of a neutral.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »