,, These facts British officials cruisers. to Her Majesty's Government to contain any throw suspicion sufficient evidence of a system of action in direct upon the acts of hostility to the United States;" that it furnished toward insurgent no proof as to the building of iron-clads that "could form matter for a criminal prosecution; and that the other acts complained of were "not contrary to law." In other words, he declared that the only international offense of which Her Majesty's Government would take notice was the building of iron-clads; and that no steps would be taken, even against persons guilty of that violation of neutrality, until the officials of the United States would act the part of detectives, and secure the proof which a British court could hold competent to convict the offender of a violation of a local law. It is important, in considering the evidence which is about to be referred to, to bear in mind these constant demonstrations of partiality for the insurgents. They show a persistent absence of real neutrality, which, to say the least, should throw suspicion upon the acts of the British officials as to those vessels, and should incline the Tribunal to closely scrutinize their conduct. The United States, however, go farther than They show an abnegation of all diligence to pre vent the acts com this. They insist that Her Majesty's Government abandoned, in advance, the exercise of that due plained of. 1 Earl Russell to Mr. Adams, Vol. I, page 578. They show an diligence which the Treaty of Washington de abnegation of all diligence to pre- clares that a neutral is bound to observe. They vent the acts com plained of. say that the position of Her Majesty's Government just cited, taken in connection with the construction put upon the Foreign Enlistment Act by the British courts in the Alexandra case, was a practical abandonment of all obligation to observe diligence in preventing the use of British territory by the insurgents, for purposes hostile to the United States. They aver that it was a notice to them that no complaints in this respect would be listened to, which were not accompanied by proof sufficient to convict the offender as a criminal under the Foreign Enlistment Act. To furnish such proof was simply impossible. The Tribunal will remember that it was judicially said in the case of the Alexandra, that what had been done in the matter of the Alabama was no violation of British law, and therefore constituted They throw upon no offense to be punished. Well might Earl Russhow that the acts sell say that the Oreto and the Alabama were a complained of Great Britain the could not have Scandal to English laws. been prevented. The United States with great confidence assert that the facts which have been established justify them in asking the Tribunal of Arbitration, in the investigations now about to be made, to assume that in the violations of neutrality which will be shown to have taken place, the burden of proof Great Britain the show that the acts complained of could not have been prevented. will be upon Great Britain to establish that they They throw upon could not have been prevented. Her Majesty's burden of proof to Government declined to investigate charges and to examine evidence submitted by Mr. Adams, as to repeated violations of British territory, which subsequent events show were true in every respect. It placed its refusal upon principles which must inevitably lead to like disregard in futureprinciples which rendered nugatory thereafter any measure of diligence to discover violations of neutrality within Her Majesty's dominions. Thereby Great Britain assumed and justified all similar acts which had been or might be committed, and relieved the United States from the necessity of showing that due diligence was not exercised to prevent them. Of what use was it to exercise diligence to show the purpose for which the Florida, the Alabama, or the Georgia was constructed, or the Shenandoah was purchased, if the constructing, fitting out, or equipping, or the purchase for such objects was lawful, and could not be interfered with? What diligence could have prevented the excessive supplies of coal and other hospitalities to the insurgent cruisers, or the protection of transports, all of which made those ports bases of operations, if such acts were no violation of the duties of a neutral, of which the United States might justly complain? List of the insurgent cruisers. The cruisers for whose acts the United States ask this Tribunal to hold Great Britain responsible are (stating them in the order in which their cruises began) the Sumter; the Nashville; the Florida and her tenders, the Clarence, the Tacony, and the Archer; the Alabama and her tender, the Tuscaloosa; the Retribution; the Georgia; the Tallahasse; the Chicamauga; and the Shenandoah. The attention of the Tribunal of Arbitration is now invited to an account of each of these vessels. The Sumter. THE SUMTER. The Sumter escaped from the passes of the Mississippi on the 30th of June, 1861, and on the 30th of the following July arrived at the British port of Trinidad. She remained there six days, taking in a supply of coal. Complaint being made of this act as a "violation of Her Majesty's Proclamation of Neutrality," Lord Russell replied, that "the conduct of the Governor was in conformity to Her Majesty's Proclamation;" that "Captain Hillyar, of Her Majesty's Ship Cadmus, having sent a boat to ascertain her nationality, the commanding officer showed a commission signed by Mr. Jefferson Davis, calling himself the Presi Bernard to Seward, Vol. II, page 485. 2 Adams to Russell, Vol. II, page 484. Her dent of the so-styled Confederate States." Majesty's Government thus held this vessel to be a man-of-war as early as the 30th of July, 1861. Having got a full supply of coal and other necessary outfit, the Sumter sailed on the 5th of August, 1861, and, after a cruise in which she destroyed six vessels carrying the flag of the United States, she arrived in Gibraltar on the Before she could 18th of the following January. Finding it impossible to escape, an attempt was made to sell the Sumter, with her armament, for £4000. The consul of the United States at Gibraltar, by direction of Mr. Adams, protested against this sale. The sale was finally made "by public auction" on the 19th of December, 1862.5 Mr. Adams notified Earl Russell that the sale would not be recognized by the United States, and called upon Great Britain not to regard it, as it had been made in violation of principles of law that had been The Sumter. |