772

that time. Temple names, in his affidavit, fifteen that were destroyed after Waddell knew of the suppression of the insurrection.1 Bullock wrote him a letter, instructing him "to desist from any further destruction of United States property, and Earl Russell undertook to send the letter "through the British Consuls at the ports where the ship may be expected." It was not until the 17th day of October, 1865, that she ceased to be officially registered as a British vessel. Waddell arrived at Liverpool with the Shenandoah on the 6th of the following November, and wrote Earl Russell that the destructious committed on the 28th of June-when Temple said that he knew of the *surrender of Lee-were committed "in ignorance of the oblit [449] eration of the Government." He said that he received his first intelligence on the 2d of August. The author of the Cruise of the Shenandoah says that they received, on the 28th of June, while burning the whalers, the news of the assassination of Mr. Lincoln.3 This event took place a week after the surrender of Lee. The affidavits of Temple and Nye in Vol. VII indicate still earlier knowledge. It would seem, therefore, that Waddell's statements to Earl Russell could not have been correct.

"The re-appearance of the Shenandoah in British waters" was regarded as " an untoward and unwelcome event." The Times reminded the public that "in a certain sense it was doubtless true that the Shenandoah was built and manned in fraud of British neutrality." Great Britain dealt with the "untoward" question as it had dealt with others during the contest-by evading it. The vessel was delivered to the United States. The men who had been preying upon the commerce of the United States for months without a semblance of authority behind them, most of whom were British subjects, with unmistakable British bearing and speech, were called before an officer of the British Navy to be examined as to their nationality, they understand [450] ing in advance that it was a crime for British subjects to have served on the Shenandoah. "Each one stated that he belonged to one or the other of the States of America," and they were discharged without further inquiry.

On the 28th of December, 1865, Mr. Adams, commenting upon these proceedings, wrote to Earl Clarendon as follows: "I trust it may be made to appear—

"1. That the Sea King did depart from a British port armed with all the means she ever had occasion to use in the course of her cruise againts the commerce of the United States; and that no inconsiderable portion of her hostile career was passed while she was still registered as a British vessel, with a British owner, on the official records of the Kingdom.

"2. That the commander had been made fully aware of the suppres sion of the rebellion the very day before he committed a series of outrages on innocent, industrious, and unarmed citizens of the United States, in the Sea of Okhotsk.

"3. The list of the crew, with all the particulars attending the sources from which the persons were drawn, is believed to be so far sub

1 Vol. III, pages 482, 483; Vol. VI, page 709, et seq. This statement by Temple is confirmed by Hathaway's affidavit, Vol. VII, page 95.

2 Vol. III, page 458; Vol. VI, page 698.

3 Cruise of the Shenandoah, page 206.

4 London Times, November 8, 1865; Vol. III, page 449. Cheek to Paynter, Vol. III, page 505.

6 Vol. III, page 475.

[451] stantially *correct as to set at rest the pretense of the officer sent on board that there were no British subjects belonging to the vessel."

The United States confidently insist that they have incontestably established the points there claimed by Mr. Adams; and further,

"4. That the Shenandoah was fitted out and armed within British jurisdiction, namely, at London, for the purpose of cruising against the United States; that Great Britain had reasonable ground to believe that such was the case, and did not use due diligence to prevent it.

"5. That she came again within British jurisdiction, where all these facts were open and notorious, and the British authorities exercised no diligence to prevent her departure, but claimed the right to treat her as a commissioned man-of-war, and to permit her to depart as such.

"6. That twice within British jurisdiction she received large recruitments of men, without due diligence being used to prevent it: 1st. At Liverpool, from whence the men were forwarded by the Laurel; and, 2d, at Melbourne.

"7. That she was allowed to make repairs and to receive coal and supplies which were denied to vessels of the United States in similar circumstances."

[452] The subsequent career of the steamer Laurel, *which, with the Shenandoah, formed the hostile expedition against the United States, throws additional light on the sincerity of the British neutrality in the case of the Shenandoah. On the 7th of March, 1865, Mr. Adams wrote as follows to Earl Russell:

"I am pained to be obliged once more to call your attention to the proceedings of the vessel called the steamer Laurel:

"This is the vessel concerning which I had the honor to make a repre、 sentation, in a note dated the 10th November last, which appears to have proved, in substance, correct.

"Her departure from Liverpool on the 9th October, laden with men and arms destined to be placed on board of the steamer Sea King, her meeting with that vessel at Porto Santo, in the Madeira Islands, her subsequent transfer of her freight to that steamer, which thereupon assumed the name of the Shenandoah, and proceeded to capture and destroy vessels belonging to the people of the United States, are all facts now established by incontestable evidence.

"It now appears that this steamer Laurel, having accomplished her object under British colors, instead of immediately returning to this

Kingdom, made her way through the blockade to the port of [153] Charleston, where she changed her register and her name, and

assumed to be a so-called Confederate vessel. In this shape she next made her appearance at the port of Nassau as the Confederate States. From that place she cleared, not long since, to go, via Madeira, to the same port of Liverpool, from whence she had originally started. "It further appears that, notwithstanding the assumption of this new character, this vessel carried out from Nassau a ship mail, made up at the post-office of that port, and transported the same to Liverpool. I have the honor to transmit a copy of a letter from the postmaster at that place establishing that fact.

"Under these circumstances, I have the honor to inform your Lordship that I am instructed by my Government to remonstrate against the receipt and clearance with mails of this vessel from Nassau, and to request that such measures may be adopted in regard to her as may prevent her from thus abusing the neutrality of Her Majesty's territory,

for the purpose of facilitating the operations of the enemies of the United States."

To this Earl Russell replied "that Her Majesty's Government are advised, that although the proceedings of the steamer Confederate States, formerly Laurel, may have rendered her liable to *capture [454] on the high seas by the cruisers of the United States, she has not, so far as is known, committed any offense punishable by British law."

From all these various facts, the United States ask the Tribunal of Arbitration to find and certify as to the Shenandoah, that Great Britain has, by its acts and by its omissions, failed to fulfill its duties set forth in the three rules of the Treaty of Washington, or recognized by the principles of law not inconsistent with such rules. Should the Tribunal exercise the power conferred upon it by the seventh article of the Treaty, to award a sum in gross to be paid to the United States, they ask that, in considering the amount to be awarded, the losses in the destruction of vessels and their cargoes by the Shenandoah, and the expense to which the United States were put in the pursuit of it, may be taken into account.

Summary.

In the course of the long discussions between the two Governments, which followed the close of the insurrection, it became the duty of Mr. Adams to make a summary of the points which he maintained had been established by the United States. This he did in the following language, addressed to Earl Russell :3

"It was my wish to maintain

[455]

"1. That the act of recognition by Her Majesty's Government of insurgents as belligerents on the high seas before they had a single vessel afloat was precipitate and unprecedented.

"2. That it had the effect of creating these parties belligerents after the recognition, instead of merely acknowledging an existing fact.

"3. That this creation has been since effected exclusively from the ports of Her Majesty's Kingdom and its dependencies, with the aid and co-operation of Her Majesty's subjects.

66

4. That during the whole course of the struggle in America, of nearly four years in duration, there has been no appearance of the insurgents as a belligerent on the ocean excepting in the shape of British vessels, constructed, equipped, supplied, manned, and armed in British ports.

"5. That during the same period it has been the constant and persistent endeavor of my Government to remonstrate in every possible form against this abuse of the neutrality of this .Kingdom, and to call upon Her Majesty's Government to exercise the necessary powers to put an effective stop to it.

"6. That although the desire of Her Majesty's Ministers to exert themselves in the suppression of these abuses is freely acknowledged, the efforts which they made proved in a great degree [456] powerless, from the inefficiency of the law on which they relied, and from their absolute refusal, when solicited, to procure additional powers to attain the objects.

"7. That, by reason of the failure to check this flagrant abuse of neutrality, the issue from British ports of a number of British vessels, with the aid of the recognition of their belligerent character in all the ports of Her Majesty's dependencies around the globe, has resulted in the

1 Vol. III, page 339. 2 Vol. III, page 341. 3 Vol. III, page 533.

burning and destroying on the ocean of a large number of merchantvessels, and a very large amount of property belonging to the people of the United States.

"S. That, in addition to this direct injury, the action of these Britishbuilt, manned, and armed vessels has had the indirect effect of driving from the sea a large portion of the commercial marine of the United States, and to a corresponding extent enlarging that of Great Britain, thus enabling one portion of the British people to derive an unjust advantage from the wrong committed on a friendly nation by another portion.

"9. That the injuries thus received by a country which has meanwhile sedulously endeavored to perform all its obligations owing to the imper

fection of the legal means at hand to prevent them, as well as the [457] unwillingness to seek for more *stringent powers, are of so grave a nature as in reason and justice to constitute a valid claim for reparation and indemnification."

The United States, with confidence, maintain that every point thus asserted by Mr. Adams has been established by the proof hereinbefore referred to. In leaving in the hands of the Tribunal this part of their Case, they think it no impropriety earnestly to call attention to the magnitude of the issues to be decided.

Many a vindictive and bloody war has grown out.of less provocation than the United States thus suffered from a nation with which they supposed that they were holding friendly relations. On the 4th of July, 1777, during the war of the American Revolution, Lord Stormont was instructed to say to the French Ministers that "the shelter given to the armed vessels of the rebels, the facility they have of disposing of their prizes by the connivance of the Government, and the conveniences allowed them to refit, are such irrefragable proofs of support, that scarcely more could be done if there was an avowed alliance between France and them, and that we were in a state of war with that Kingdom." He was also directed to say that however desirous of maintain

ing the peace, His Britannic Majesty could not, "from his respect [458] to his honor and his regard to the interest of his trading *sub.

jects, submit to such strong and public instances of support and protection shown to the rebels by a nation that at the same time professes in the strongest terms its desire to maintain the present harmony subsisting between the two Crowns."1

The injuries inflicted upon the United States during the insurrection, under the cover of professions of friendship, are well described in this language of the Ministers of George III, except that the insurgents were allowed to burn, instead of assisted to dispose of their prizes. But the United States, although just emerging from a successful war, with all the appliances of destruction in their grasp, preferred to await a better state of feeling in Great Britain, rather than follow the example of that Government in resorting to war. The time came when Her Majesty's Government felt that it would not be derogatory to the elevated position of their Sovereign to express regret for the escape of the cruisers and for the depredations which they committed. The United States, receiving this expression of regret in the spirit in which it was made, stand before this Tribunal of Arbitration to abide its judg

ment.

If the facts which they bring here constitute, in the opinion of the Tribunal, no just cause for claim against Great Britain, they must

1 Vol. III, page 599.

bow to the *decision. But if, on the other hand, Great Britain [459] shall not be able to explain to their complete satisfaction the charges and the proof which they present, the United States will count upon an award to the full extent of their demand. They feel that it is their duty to insist before this August Body, not only in their own interest, but for the sake of the future peace of the world, that it is not a just performance of the duties of a neutral to permit a belligerent to carry on organized war from its territories against a Power with which the neutral is at peace.

If this Tribunal shall hold that combined operations like those of Bullock, Fraser, Trenholm & Co., Huse, Heyliger, and others, (which in the judgment of the United States constituted an organized war,) are legitimate, their decision will, in the opinion of the United States, lay the foundation for endless dissensions and wars.

If wrongs like those which the United States suffered are held by this Tribunal to be no violation of the duties which one nation owes to another, the rules of the Treaty of Washington can have little effective force, and there will be little inducement for nations in future to adopt the peaceful method of arbitration for the settlement of their differ

ences.

If it was right to furnish the Nashville at Ber*muda with a [460] full supply of coal, sufficient to carry her to Southampton, instead of what might be necessary for her return to Charleston, the United States and the other maritime nations must accept the doctrine in the future.

If there was no violation of international duty in receiving the Sumter at Trinidad, and in supplying her with the fuel necessary to enable her to continue her career of destruction, instead of giving her what was requisite, with her sailing power, to enable her to return to New Orleans or Galveston, it is important that the maritime Powers should know it.

If recognized vessels of war, like the Sumter and the Georgia, may be lawfully sold in a neutral port during time of war, the United States, as a nation whose normal condition is one of neutrality, accept the doctrine.

If the duties of a neutral in preventing, within its territory, the construction, arming, equipping, or fitting out of vessels by one belligerent, which may be intended to cruise against the other belligerent, or the furnishing of arms or military supplies to such vessel, or the recruitment of men for such belligerent, are to be limited to the exercise of the powers conferred upon the neutral Government by municipal law, the United States, with their extended frontier on both oceans, have more *interest than any other maritime Power in recogniz- [461] ing that fact.

If the recognition of belligerency by a neutral, in favor of an organized insurrection, authorizes a so-called Government of insurrectionists to issue commissions, which are to protect vessels that may have violated the sovereignty of the neutral from examination, inquiry, or punishment by the neutral authorities when again within their jurisdiction, the United States, and other nations here represented, must hold themselves at liberty in future to conform to such measure of duty, in that respect, as may be indicated by this Tribunal.

If Georgias, Alabamas, Floridas, and Shenandoahs may be allowed to go out from neutral ports without violations of international duty, to prey upon the commerce of friendly nations; if it be no offense to recruit men for them and to send the recruits to join them in Alars,