Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

Bermudas, Bahamas, and Laurels, the United States as a neutral will be relieved, when other States are at war, from a great part of the difficulties they encounter in watching a long line of coast.

If Tallahassees and Chickamaugas may be constructed in neutral territory, without violation of international duty, to serve as it may suit

the pleasure of a belligerent, alternately either as blockade[462] runners or as men-of-war, those maritime *nations whose normal

condition is one of neutrality need not regret such a doctrine, when viewed, not in the light of principle, but as affecting their pecupiary interests.

And if it be no offense, as in the case of the Retribution, to take a cap. tured cargo into a neutral port, and there to dispose of it with the knowledge and without the interference of the local magistracy, the maritime Powers, knowing that such buccaneering customs are to be permitted, will be the better able to guard agaiust them.

It will depend npon this Tribunal to say whether any or all of these precedents are to be sanctioned and are to stand for future guidance.

The condnct of

tontriated with that of Great Britain.

The United States, in closing this branch of the Case, desire to call the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that they came out from this long and bloody contest without serious cause of other many complaint against any nation except Great Britain.

The Executives of other nations issued notices to their citizens or subjects, enjoining upon them to remain neutral in the contest.

Belgium issued a notice on the 25th of June, 1861, warning [163] Belgians against engaging as priva*teers. The United States

bad never any cause of complaint in this respect against Belgium. The Emperor of the French, on the 10th of June, 1861, issued a proclamation commanding his subjects to "maintain a strict neutrality in the struggle entered upon between the Government of the Union and the States which pretended to form a separate confederation."2 The United States refer to the foregoing recital of the proceedings against Mr. Arman's vessels, as a proof of the fidelity with which the Imperial Government maintained the neutrality which it imposed upon its subjects.

The Government of the Netherlands forbade privateers to enter its ports, and warned the inhabitants of the Netherlands and the King's subjects abroad not to accept letters of marque. The United States bare no knowledge that these directions were disobeyed.

The Government of Portugal shut the harbors of the Portuguese dominions against privateers and their prizes. Of this the United States had no complaint to make. At a later period that Government went so far “ as to forbid the coaling of any steamer designing to violate the

blockade," and to "require a bond to be given, before allowing [464] *coals to be furnished at all, that the ship receiving the supply

will not run the blockade.95 When the insurgent iron-clad Stonewall came into Lisbon Harbor in March, 1865, it was ordered to leave in twenty-four hours. The United States bear willing testimony to this honorable conduct of Portugal.

The Prussian Government announced that it would not protect its shipping or its subjects who might take letters of marque, share in priVol. IV,

page
3.

? Vol. IV, page 4. 3 Vol. IV, page 6.

4 Vol. IV, page 7. Mr. Harvey to Mr. Seward, Diplomatic Correspondence, 1864, part 4, page 296. Same to same, Diplomatic Correspondence, 1865, part 3, page 109.

vateering enterprises, carry merchandise of war, or forward dispatches. The United States have no reason to suppose that the subjects of the King of Prussia departed from the line of duty thus indicated.

The Russian Government ordered that even “the fag of men-of-war belonging to the seceded States must not be saluted."2

Spain followed France in the track of England, but care was taken to avoid, in the Royal Proclamation, the use of the word " belligerents.": It has been seen with what fidelity and impartiality the authorities at Cardenas carried out the letter and the spirit of this proclamation, when the * Florida arrived there from Nassau, in the sum- (465) mer of 1862.

The Emperor of Brazil required his subjects to observe a strict neutrality; and his Government informed them what acts of the belligerents would forfeit the right of hospitality. It was ordered that "a bel. ligerent who has once violated neutrality shall not be admitted into the ports of the Empire;” and that “ vessels which may attempt to violate neutrality sball be compelled to leave the maritime territory immediately, and they shall be allowed to procure no supplies." These rules were enforced. The Alabama was refused the hospitality of Brazilian ports in consequence of violations of the neutrality which the Emperor had determined to maintain. When the Tuscaloosa came to St. Catharine's from Simon's Bay, in November, 1863, she was refused supplies and ordered to leave, because she was a tender and prize of the Alabama, and was tainted by the acts of that vessel. The commander of the Shenandoah boarded a vessel between Cardiff and Bahia, opened the manifest, and broke the seal of the Brazilian Consul; for this act his vessel, and any vessel which he might command, were excluded from Brazilian ports. The Imperial Government, in all these proceedings, appeared desirous of asserting its sovereignty, and [466] of maintaining an honest neutrality.

Mr. Fish, in one of his first utterances after he became Secretary of State, expressed the sense which the United States entertained of this difference between the conduct of Great Britain and that of other nations. “There were other Powers," he said, " that were contemporaneous with England in similar concessions; but it was in England only that that concession was supplemented by acts causing direct damage to the United States. The President is careful to make this discrimination, because he is anxious, as much as possible, to simplify the case, and to bring into view these subsequent acts, which are so important in determining the question between the two countries."6

page 8.

i Vol. IV, · Vol. IV, page 9. 3 Vol. IV, page 10. 4 Vol. IV, page 9. 5 Vol. VI, page 538. 6 Mr. Fish to Mr. Motley, May 15, 1869, Vol. VI, page 4.

[ocr errors][merged small]

THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD AWARD A SUM IN GROSS TO THE

UNITED STATES.

Offer of the Amer.

Rejection of the oner by the British Commissioners

Terms of the submission by the

In the opening conference of the Joint High Commission relating to the Alabama Claims, the American Commissioners stated the nature of the demands of the United States. They said in combine end that there were “ extensive direct losses in the capture and Commission. destruction of a large number of vessels with their cargoes, and in the heavy national expenditures in the pursuit of the cruisers, and indirect injury in the transfer of a large part of the American commercial marine to the British flag, in the enhanced payments of insurance, in the prolongation of the war, and in the addition of a large sum to the cost of the war and the suppression of the rebellion.” They further said that the amount of the direct losses to individuals - which had thus far been presented, amounted to about fourteen millions of dollars, without interest, which amount was liable to be greatly increased by claims which had not been presented :" and that the direct loss to the Government

" in the pursuit of cruisers could easily be ascertained by certifi[168] cates of Government accounting officers." They added that *"in

the hope of an ainicable settlement, no estimate was made of the indirect losses, without prejudice, however, to the right of indemnification on their account in the event of no such settlement being made.91

The British Commissioners declined to make the “ amicable settlement” which was proposed on the part of the United States. The Joint High Commission then entered into negotiations which resulted in an agreement “in order to remove and adjust all complaints and claims on the part of the United Treats. States, and to provide for the speedy settlement of such claims," that all the claims " growing out of the acts committed by the several vessels which have given rise to the claims generically known as the Alabama Claims,” should be referred to this Tribunal of Arbitration. It was further agreed that this Tribunal, should it find that Great Britain bad, by any act or omission, failed to fulfill any of the duties set forth in the rules in the sixth article of the Treaty, or recognized by principles of International Law not inconsistent with such rules, might then " proceed to award a sum in gross to be paid by Great Britain to the

United States for all the claims referred to it.” (169) *The claims as stated by the American Commissioners may

be classified as follows: 1. The claims for direct losses growing out of the destruc. of the Claims. tion of vessels and their cargoes by the insurgent cruisers.

2. The national expenditures in the pursuit of those cruisers.

3. The loss in the transfer of the American commercial marine to the British flag.

4. The enhanced payments of insurance.

5. The prolongation of the war and the addition of a large sum to the cost of the war and the suppression of the rebellion. So far as these various losses and expenditures grew out of the acts

Ante, pages 10, 11.

General statement

[ocr errors]

Claims growing out of destruction of res. sels and cargoes.

Government vessels.

Merchant-venkels.

committed by the several cruisers, the United States are entitled to ask compensation and remuneration therefor before this Tribunal. The claims for direct losses growing out of the destruction of ressels

and their cargoes may be further subdivided into: 1. Claims for destruction of vessels and property of the Government of

the United States. 2. Claims for the destruction of vessels and property under the flag of the United States. 3. Claims for damages or injuries to persons, growing out of the destruction of each class of vessels. In the accompanying Volume, VII, the Tribunal will find ample data for determining *the amount of damage which [470] should be awarded in consequence of the injuries inflicted by reason of the destruction of vessels or property, whether of the Gov. ernment or of private persons. The Government vessels destroyed were of two classes—those under

the charge of the Treasury Department, and those in charge

of the Nary Department. The Tribunal of Arbitration will find in Volume VII detailed statements of this class of losses, certified by the Secretary of the Nary, or by the Secretary of the Treasury, as the case may be.

The United States reserve, however, as to this and as to all other classes of claims, the right to present further claims and further evidence in support of these and such further claims, for the consideration of this Tribunal; and also similar rights as to all classes of claims, in case this Tribunal 'shall determine not to award a sum in gross to the United States. The United States, with this reservation, present a detailed statement

of all the claims which have as yet come to their knowledge,

for the destruction of vessels and property by the cruisers. The statement shows the cruiser which did the injury, the vesseldestroyed,

the several claimants for the vessel and for the cargo, the amounts [471] insured upon each, and all the other *facts necessary to enable the

Tribunal to reach a conclusion as to the amount of the injury committed by the cruiser. It also shows the nature and character of the proof placed in the hands of the United States by the sufferers. The originals of the documents referred to are on file in the Department of State at Washington, and can be produced if desired. The United States only ask a reasonable notice, giving them suflicient opportunity to produce them. It is impossible, at present, for the United States to present to the

Tribunal a detailed statement of the damages or injuries to

persons growing out of the destruction of each class of ves. sels. Every vessel had its officers and its crew, who were entitled to the protection of the flag of the United States, and to be included in the estimate of any sum which the Tribunal may see fit to award. It will not be difficult, from the data which are furnished, to ascertain the names and the tonnage of the difïerent vessels destroyed, and to form an estimate of the number of hardy, but helpless, seamen who were thus deprived of their means of subsistence, and to determine what aggregate sum it wonld be just to place in the hands of the United States on that account. It cannot be less than hundreds of thousands, and pos sibly millions of dollars. *The United States present to the Tribunal a detailed state. [172]

ment of the amount of the national expenditure in

the pursuit of the insurgent cruisers, verified in the manner proposed by the American members of the Joint Iligh Commission. The aggregate of this amount is several millions of dollars.

Injuries to persons.

Expenditures in pursuit of cruisers.

Transfer of vessels

wars.

The United States ask the Tribunal of Arbitration to estimate the amount which onght to be paid to them for the transfer of the American commercial marine to the British flag, in con- to the British ilias. sequence of the acts of the rebel cruisers.

On the 13th of May, 1864, Mr. Cobilen warned the House of Commons of the great losses which the United States were suffering in this respect. He said: 1

“ You have been carrying on hostilities from these shores against the people of the United States, and have been inflicting an amount of dam. age on that country greater than would be produced by many ordinary

It is estimated that the loss sustained by the capture and burning of American vessels has been about $15,000,000, or nearly £3,000,000 sterling. But that is a small part of the injury which has been inflicted

on the American marine. We have rendered the rest of her vast [473] mercantile property for the present value* less. Under the sys

tem of free trade, by which the commerce of the world is now so largely carried on, if you raise the rate of insurance on the flag of any Maritime Power you throw the trade into the hands of its competitors, because it is no longer profitable for merchants or mamuíacturers to employ ships to carry freights when those vessels become liable to war risks. I have here one or two facts which I should like to lay before the honorable and learned gentleman, in order to show the way in which this has been operating. When he has heard them, he will see what a crnel satire it is to say that our laws have been found sufficient to enforce our neutrality. I hold in my hand an account of the foreign trade of New York for the quarter ending Jue 30, 1860, and also for the quarter ending June 30, 1863, which is the last date up to which a comparison is made. I find that the total amount of the foreign trade of New York for the first-inentioned period was $92,000,000, of which $62,000,000 were carried in American bottoms and $50,000,000 in foreigy. This state of things rapidly changed as the war continued, for it appears that for the quarter ending June 30, 1863, the total amount of the foreign trade of New York was $88,000,000, of which amount

823,000,000 were carried in American vessels and $65,000,000 in [174] foreign, the change *brought about being that while in 1860 two

thirds of the commerce of New York were carried on in Ameri. can bottoms, in 1863 three-fourths were carried on in foreign bottoms. You see, therefore, what a complete revolution must have taken place in the value of American shipping; and what has been the consequence? That a very large transfer has been made of American shipping to English owners, because the proprietors no longer found it profitable to carry on their business, A document has been laid on the table which gives us some important information on this subject. I refer to an account of the number and tonnage of United States vessels which have been registered in the United Kingdom and in the ports of British North America between the years 1858 and 1863, both inclusive. It shows that the transfer of United States shipping to English capitalists in ch of the years comprised in that period was as follows:

" In 1858, vessels 33, tonnage 12,684.
“ In 1859, vessels 49, tonnage 21,308.
* In 1860, vessels 41, tonnage 13,638.
" In 1861, vessels 126, tonnage 71,673.
“In 1862, vessels 135, tonnage 64,578.
“In 1863, vessels 348, tonnage 252,579.2
1 Hansard, 3d series, Vol. 175, pp. 496-500; Vol. V, page 589.

In the year 1864 one hundred and six vessels were transferred to the British flag, with an aggregate tonnage of 92,052 tons.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »