saying,1 "It was the great object of the British Government to preserve for the subject the security of trial by jury, and for the nation the legitimate and lucrative trade of ship-building." Conclusions. Without pursuing an inquiry in this direction, which, at the best, would be profitless, the United States invite the careful attention of the Arbitrators to the facts which appear in the previous pages of this Case. In appoaching the consideration of the third branch of the subjects herein discussed, in which the United States will endeavor to show that Great Britain failed in her duties toward the United States as those duties will be defined in the second branch thereof-the Tribunal of Arbitration will find in these facts circumstances which could not but influence the minds of the members of Her Majesty's Government, and induce them to look with disfavor upon efforts to [101] repress the attempts of British subjects, and of *other persons, to violate the neutrality of British soil and waters in favor of the rebels. Some of the members of the British Government of that day seem to have anticipated the conclusion which must inevitably be drawn from their acts, should the injuries and wrongs which the United States have suffered ever be brought to the adjudication of an impartial tribunal. Lord Westbury (appointed Lord High Chancellor on the death of Lord Campbell, in June, 1861) declared, in the House of Lords, in 1868, that "the animus with which the neutral Powers acted was the only true criterion. The neutral Power might be mistaken; it might omit to do something which ought to be done, or direct something to be done which ought not to be done; but the question was whether, from beginning to end, it had acted with sincerity and with a real desire to promote and preserve a spirit of neutrality. He [Mr. Seward] said, in effect, Whether you were a sincere and loyal neutral was the question in dispute, and that must be judged from a view of the whole of your conduct. I do not mean to put it merely upon the particular transaction relative to the Alabama. I insist upon it in that case undoubtedly; * * ** but I contend that, from beginning to end, you had an undue [102] preference and predilection for the Confederate States; *that you were therefore not loyal in your neutrality; and I appeal to the precipitancy with which you issued your Proclamation, thereby involv ing a recognition of the Confederate States as a belligerent power, as a proof of your insincerity and want of impartial attention.' And now, could we prevent him from using that document for such a purpose? How unreasonable it was to say, when you go into arbitration, you shall not use a particular document, even as an argument upon the question whether there was sincere neutrality or not." 2 Such is the use which the United States ask this Tribunal to make of the foregoing evidence of the unfriendliness and insincere neutrality of the British Cabinet of that day. When the leading members of that Cabinet are thus found counseling in advance with France to secure a joint action of the two governments, and assenting to the declaration of a state of war between the United States and the insurgents, before they could possibly have received intelligence of the purposes of the Government of the United States; when it is seen that the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs advises the [103] representatives of the insurgents as to the course to be *pursued to obtain the recognition of their independence, and at the same 1 Earl Russell's Speeches and Dispatches, Vol. II, page 266. 2 Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, 3d series, Vol. CXCI, pages 347, 348. time refuses to await the arrival of the trusted representative of the United States before deciding to recognize them as belligerents; when he is found opening negotiations through Her Majesty's diplomatic representative at Washington with persons in rebellion against the United States; when various members of the British Cabinet are seen to comment upon the efforts of the Government of the United States to suppress the rebellion in terms that indicate a strong desire that those efforts should not succeed, it is not unreasonable to suppose that, when called upon to do acts which might bring about results in conflict with their wishes and convictions, they would hesitate, discuss, delay, and refrain-in fact, that they would do exactly what in the subsequent pages of this paper it will appear that they did do. THE DUTIES WHICH GREAT BRITAIN, AS A NEURTAL, SHOULD HAVE OBSERVED TOWARD THE UNITED STATES. The second branch of the subject, in the order in which the United States desire to present it to the Tribunal of Arbitration, The Queen's Proc tion of obligation law nations. involves the consideration of the duties which Great Brit- lamation a recogniain, as a neutral, should have observed toward the United under the States during the contest. However inconsiderately and precipitately issued, the Proclamation of Neutrality recognized the obligation, under the law of nations, to undertake the performance of those duties, and it becomes important to have a correct understanding of their character. gations in various In attempting to define these duties, it is natural, first, to endeavor to ascertain whether Great Britain itself has, by legislative Great Britain has or official acts, recognized any such obligations; and next recognized its oblito inquire whether the canons of international law, as ex- ways, pounded by publicists of authority, demand of a neutral, the observance of any other or broader rules than have been so recognized. The United States will pursue the examination in this order. They find, first, an evidence of Great Britain's conception of its [106] duties as a neutral in the Foreign *Enlistment Act Recognized by the which was enacted in 1819, and was in force during Foreiga Enlistment the whole of the Southern rebellion. Act of 1819. laws of Municipal laws de signed to aid a gov erminat in perform. ance of international duties. It must be borne in mind, when considering the municipal Great Britain, that, whether effective or deficient, they are but machinery to enable the Government to perform the international duties which they recognize, or which may be incumbent upon it from its position in the family of nations. The obligation of a neutral state to prevent the violation of the neutrality of its soil is independent of all interior or local law. The municipal law may and ought to recognize that obligation; but it can neither create nó destroy it, for it is an obligation resulting directly from International Law, which forbids the use of neutral territory for hostile purpose.1 The local law, indeed, may justly be regarded as evidence, as far as it goes, of the nation's estimate of its international duties; but it is not to be taken as the limit of those obligations in the eye of the law of nations. It is said by Lord Tenterden, the distinguished Secretary of the British High Commissioners, in his memorandum attached History of Foreign 1819. to the report of Her Majesty's Commissioners upon Enlistment Act of [107] the neutrality law, that the neutrality law of the United States formed the foundation of the neutrality of England.4 "The act for the amendment of the neutralty laws," he says, 1 Ortolan, Diplomatie de la mer, vol. 2, page 215. 2 Vol. IV, page 79. 3 Vol. IV, page 93, Appendix No. 3, by Mr. Abbott, now Lord Tenterden. 64 was introduced by Mr. Canning on the 10th of June, 1819, in an eloquent speech, in the course of which he said, 'It surely could not be forgotten that in 1793 this country complained of various breaches of neutrality (though much inferior in degree to those now under consideration) committed on the part of subjects of the United States of America. What was the conduct of that nation in consequence? Did it resent the complaint as an infringement of its independence? Did it refuse to take such steps as would insure the immediate observance of neutrality? Neither. In 1794, immediately after the application from the British Government, the Legislature of the United States passed an act prohibiting, under heavy penalties, the engagement of American citizens in the armies of any belligerent Power. Was that the only instance of the kind? It was but last year that the United States passed an act by which the act of 1794 was confirmed in every respect, again prohibiting the engagement of their citizens in the service of any foreign Power, and pointing distinctly to the service of Spain or the South American Provinces." It appears from the whole [108] tenor of the debate which preceded the passage of the act that its sole purpose was to enable the Executive to perform with fidelity the duties toward neutrals which were recognized as imposed upon the Govern ment by the Law of Nations. Great Britain the duties recognized The United States assume that it will be conceded that Great Britain was bound to perform all the duties of a neutral toward the bound to perform United States which are indicated in this statute. If this by that act. obligation should be denied, the United States beg to refer the Tribunal of Arbitration to the declaration of Earl Russell in his communication to Mr. Adams of August 30, 1865, where he lays down with confidence the following proposition:" "That the Foreign Enlistment Act is intended in aid of the duties * of a neutral nation."3 They also refer to Lord Palmerston's speech in the House of Commons, July 23, 1863,4 in which he says: "The American Government have a distinct right to expect that a neutral will enforce its municipal law, if it be in their favor." * Indeed, Great Britain is fully committed to this principle in its dealings with other Powers. Thus, during the Crimean war, Her Majesty's Government, feeling aggrieved at the acts of the Prussian Government in tolerating the furnishing of arms and other contraband of war to Russia, were *advised by the Law Officers of the Crown [109] that they might justly remonstrate against violations of Prussian law.5 After these declarations by British authorities, it will scarcely be contended that the United States had not the right to expect, and to demand of Great Brita in the performance of the measure of duty recognized by existing municipal laws, however inadequate those laws might be as an expression of international obligations. Duties recognized inent Act of 1819. The British Foreign Enlistment Act of 1819 consisted of twelve sections, written in the verbiage which the customs of Engby Foreign list land make necessary in the laws providing for the punishment of crimes. These sections relate to four distinct subjects. First, they repeal all former statutes; secondly, they define the acts which the British legislators regarded as acts which a neutral ought not to permit to be done within its jurisdiction; thirdly, they provide modes for prosecuting persons found guilty of committing the acts Vol. IV, pages 123, 124. 3 Vol. III, page 550. Earl Granville to Count Bernstorff, 2 Vol. III, page 549. 4 Vol. V, page 695. September 15, 1870. which are prohibited by the statute, and they indicate the punishments which may be inflicted upon them when convicted; fourthly, they exempt certain parts of the Empire from the operation of the stat ute. [110] *This Tribunal need take no notice of the penal portions of the statute, which affect only the relations between the State and those who owe allegiance to its laws by reason of residence within its territory. The United States will therefore confine themselves to at tempting to deduce from the statute the definitions of the principles, and the duties, which are there recognized as obligatory on the nation in its relations with other Powers. The adjudicated cases often disregard the distinction between the duties of a neutral, however defined, and the proceedings in its courts against persons charged as criminals. for alleged violations of its laws for the preservation of neutrality. Even some of the best publicists, in referring to this class of decisions, have not always remembered that, while in the former we have only to do with principles of public law, in the latter we are dealing with the evidence necessary for the conviction of an offender. Bearing this distinction in mind, the Tribunal of Arbitration may be able to reconcile many apparently conflicting authorities, and arrive at just conclusions. The acts which, if committed within the territory of the neutral, are to be regarded as violations of its international duties, are enumerated in the second, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth sections of the statute. [111] *Translating this statutory language into the expressions com monly employed by publicists and writers on International Law, this statute recognizes the following as acts which ought to be prevented within neutral territory during time of war. 1. The recruitment of subjects or citizens of the neutral, to be employed in the military or naval service of a foreign Government or of persons assuming to exercise the powers of government over any part of foreign territory; or the acceptance of a commission, warrant, or appointment for such service by such persons; or the enlisting or agreeing to enlist in such service; the act in each case being done without the leave or license of the Sovereign. 2. The receiving on board a vessel, for the purpose of transporting from a neutral port, persons who may have been so recruited or commissioned; or the transporting such persons from a neutral port. Authority is given to seize the vessels violating these provisions. 3. The equipping, furnishing, fitting out, or arming a vessel, with intent or in order that it may be employed in the service of such foreign Government, or of persons assuming to exercise the powers of gov ernment over any part of a foreign country, as a transport or [112] store-ship, or to *cruise or carry on war against a power with which the neutral is at peace; or the delivering a commission for such vessel, the act in each case being done without the leave or license of the Sovereign. 4. The augmenting the warlike force of such a vessel of war by adding to the number of guns, by changing those on board for other guns, or by the addition of any equipment of war, if such vessel at the tume of its arrival in the dominions of the neutral was a vessel of war in the service of such foreign Government, or of such persons, the act being done without the leave or license of the Sovereign.2 1 Vol. IV, page 86. It may interest the members of the Tribunal of Arbitration to see in this connection an abstract of the acts which are made penal by the United States Neutrality Law of 1818. The law itself will be found in Vol. IV, pages 90-92. The abstract is S. Ex. 31-4 |