« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
incurred any liability to the United States, the question will then arise what should be deemed the just measure and extent of that liability. Her Britannic Majesty's government abstains at present from entering into that question, and will reserve such observations as may be titly offered in relation to it on the part of Great Britain to a later stage of the proceedings. Here it is sufficient to remark that a claim on the part of a belligerent to be indemnified at the expense of a neutral for losses inflicted or occasioned by any of the ordinary operations of war, on the plea that those operations were assisted or facilitated by negligence on the part of the neutral government, is one which involves grave considerations and requires to be weighed with the utmost care. Losses of which such negligence is the direct and proximate cause, (and it is in respect of such only that compensation could justly be awarded,) are commonly not easy to separate from those springing from other causes. Success in warlike operations is generally due not only to the force possessed, but to the skill and courage exerted by the successful combatant. If claims of this nature were to be freely admitted, a belligerent might demand to be indemnified by the neutral against consequences fairly attributable, in part or altogether, not to the fault of the latter but to his own want of capacity and enterprise. Her Majesty's government has been compelled to point out that in respect of the vessels to which the foregoing statement relates there was, on the part of the Government of the United States or its officers, an extraordinary remissness in using the naval forces at their disposal, and that if ordinary activity had been exerted in the endeavor to intercept and capture these vessels, the losses of which the United States now complain would probably have been in great measure averted. It cannot be consistent with any reasonable view of international obligations that a belligerent state, alleging itself to be aggrieved by some imputed negligence of a neutral government, should on that account claim indemnity from the neutral for losses in the course of warlike operations which it has not actively and diligently exerted itself to prevent or arrest.
It was the constant aim of Her Britannic Majesty's government throughout the war to observe with fidelity and exactness the obligations, and to maintain unimpaired the rights, which the law and practice of nations have assigned to neutral powers. In upholding those rights all the nations of the world are interested ; and it was the duty of Great Britain, as a maritime power of the first order, brought by circumstances into closer contact with the war than any other state, to resist on the one hand any encroachment on them, and to abstain on the other from any attempt to extend them beyond the just and expedient limits traced out by international law. Her Majesty's government has given the best proof of its sincerity in these respects, as well as its earnest desire to promote the pacific and amicable settlement of international differences, by proposing and agreeing to refer to the judg. ment of impartial arbitrators the question whether, in the matters complained of by the United States, it has failed to discbarge any
international duty. In deciding on the questions submitted to  it, the tribunal will be called upon to apply to *them principles
and considerations of wide application, not confined to maritime neutrality, nor to the acts and conduct of maritime nations alone. Great Britain is prepared to accept the award, whether favorable or unfavorable to her. She desires only that it shall be just. She claims only that it shall be founded on a true and equitable interpretation of the law of nations, and on principles which she herself and all other powers may be satisfied, whether as neutral or as belligerent, to acknowledge and abide by in time to come.
THE COUNTER CASE
THE UNITED STATES
PRESENTED TO TIIE
TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION,
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON, WITH AN APPENDIX CONTAINING ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS,
CORRESPONDENCE, AND EVIDENCE.
The figures in brackets in the text indicate the pages of the edition which was laid before the tribunal of arbitration at Genera; the * indicates the word with which each page commences.
LIST OF PAPERS ACCOMPANYING THE COUNTER CASE OF THE
Vr. Monroe to Mr. Steele..
July 18, 1811 Same to collector of Charleston.
Sept. 19, 1811
445 Same to Mr. Dallas
Nov. 4,1811 2 445 Same to Governor Claiborne.
Dec. 5, 1811 3 446 Same to governor of Tennessee.
Sept. 3, 1812
446 Same to Governor Howard.
Sept. 3, 1812 5 446 Same to governors of Louisiana and Mississippi Territory, and to Mr. Feb. 14, 1814
447 Robinson. Same to Dr. Robinson.
Feb. 14, 1814 8 448 Same to Governor Claiborne.
Feb. 17, 1814 9 448 Same to Mr. Robinson
Feb. 17, 1814 9 Same to Mr. Conner
Apr. 19, 1814 10 449 Same to district attorneys, (circular)
Sept. 1, 1815 11 419 President's proclamation
Sept. 1, 1815 12 149 Mr. Brent to governors of Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Missouri Sept. 9,1815 14 450
Sept. 13, 1815
450 Mr. Dick to Mr. Monroe
Mar. 1, 1816 15 431 Mr. Monroe to Mr. Dick
Jue 7, 1816 19 Mr. Monroe to Mr. Dorsey, United States Navy
June 25, 1816 19 453 dr. Glenn to Mr. McCulloch
June 29, 1816 22 453 Mr. Jonroe to Mr. McCulloch
July 19, 1816 22 434 Mr. McCulloch to Mr. Monroe..
July 23, 1816 24 454 Mr. Monroe to district attorney for Virginia.
July 25, 1816 27 450 Inclosed remark of the Attorney-General in case of the Romp.
July 23, 1816 28 456 Mr. Monroe to Mr. Wirt
Aug. 2, 1816 30 Mr. McCulloch to Captain Spence, Uvited States Navy
Aug. 19, 1816 31 457 Same to Captain White
Aug. 20, 1816 32 Mr. Chacon to Mr. McCulloch
Aug. 26, 1816 33 458 Mr. McCulloch to Mr. Dallas
Aug. 22, 1816 31
459 Jr. Glenn to Mr. Monroe
Aug. 20, 1816 35 459 Mr. Monroe to Mr. Blake
Aug. 27, 1816 35 160 Mr. Lowry to Mr. McCulloch.
Aug. 28, 1816 36 160 Mr. McCulloch to Mr. Monroe.
Aug. 29, 1816 37 461 Mr. Glenn to Mr. Chacon.
Sept. 4, 1816
461 Ur. Monroe to Mr. Glenn
Sept. 12, 1816 43 402 Ur, Graham to Mr. McCulloch
Sept. 12, 1816
163 Jr. McCulloch to Messrs. Hanson & Watts.
Nov. 5, 1816
463 Same to Captaiu Beard
Nov. 5, 1916 46 464 Same to the surveyor
Dec. 13, 1816 47 President's message
Dec. 26, 1816 49 465 Mr. Monroe to Mr. McCulloch
Jan. 3, 1817 49 Same to Mr. Gleun
Jan, 3, 1817 50 Yr. McCulloch to same
Jan. 9, 1817 51 466 Mr. Monroe to same
Feb. 15, 1817 52 466 Mr. Gleno to Mr. Monroe
Feb. 25, 1817 52 466 " Neutrality Act
Mar. 3, 1817 56 468 Mr. Kush to Mr. Glenn
Mar. 18, 1817 50 469 Same to Mr. McCulloch
Mar. 21, 1817 59 470 Same to Mr. Wirt
Mar. 23, 1817 60 470 Same to Mr. Mallory.
Mar. 2, 1817 60 470 Ur. Rush to Mr. McCulloch
Mar. 28, 1817 02 471 Mr. Zamorano to Mr. McCulloch.
Apr. 14, 1817 63 471 Mr. McCulloch to Mr. Zamorano
Apr. 14, 1817 64 472 Jr. JcCulloch to Captain Beard.
Apr. 16, 1817
472 Same to same.
May 2, 1817 65 473
June 27, 1817 67 473 Hr. Ingersoll to Mr. Adams
Nov. 14, 1817 68 474 Mr. Kenguent to Mr. Ingersoll
Nov. 13, 1817 69 474 Jr. Aslamto Mr. Ingersoll
Nov. - 1817 70 473 Mr. Tugersoll to Mr. Adams.
Nov. 15, 1817 71 475 Mr. Adams to district attorneys, (circular)
Dec, 13, 1817 79 478 Mr. Robbins to Mr. Adams
Dec. 23, 1817 80 478 Jir. Davies to Mr. Adams.
Jan. 2. 1818
479 Mr. McCulloch to Captain Beard..
Apr. 92, 1818
481 Unted States Neutrality Act.
Apr. 20, 1818 88 481 Mr. Monroe to Mr. Fish
July 20, 1813
481 Mr. Wirt to the President
Sept. 10, 1818 89 482
Same to same.