of the construction of a vessel for the purpose of hostile use against the United States did not establish such an equipment, or fitting out, or furnishing, as would bring the vessel within the terms of the Foreign Enlistment Act1 and enable the Government to hold it by proceedings

under that statute. When the Joint High Commissioners met [162] at Washington, *and had to consider what words they would use

in the Treaty, they found the Executive of the United States and the Judiciary of Great Britain differing as to the meaning of these important words.2 The Tribunal of Arbitration may therefore reasonably presume that the framers of that Treaty, after the experience of the American insurrection, sought for language which would, beyond any question, indicate the duty of the neutral to prevent the departure from its ports of any vessel that had been specially adapted for the hostile use of a belligerent, whether that adaptation began when the keel was laid to a vessel intended for such hostile use, or whether it was made in later stages of construction, or in fitting out, or in furnishing, or in equipping, or in arming, or in any other way.

The undoubted duty of the neutral to detain such a vessel, although it had not been formulated by Great Britain in any of the acts prior to 1861 which have been passed in review, is understood to have been included in the obligation to prevent her construction. The United States

regard this duty as one that existed by the law of nations prior [163] to the Treaty of Washington; but as that *Treaty provides that, for the purpose of the present discussion, the rule is to be taken as having the force of public law during the Southern Rebellion, it is 'needless to discuss that point.

Continuing force of

The United States invite the particular attention of the Tribunal to the continuing character of the second clause of this rule. The violation of the first clause takes place once for all this rule. when the offending vessel is fitted out, armed, or equipped within the jurisdiction of the neutral; but the offense under the second clause may be committed as often as a vessel, which has at any time been specially adapted, in whole or in part, to warlike use, within the jurisdiction of the neutral, enters and departs unmolested from one of its ports. Every time that the Alabama, or the Georgia, or the Florida, or the Shenandoah came within British jurisdiction, and was suffered to depart, there was a renewed offense against the sovereignty of Great Britain, and a renewed liability to the United States.

The British Government, certainly once, if not oftener, during the rebellion, admitted its duty to detain these cruisers. Mr. Duty to detain Cobden stated it forcibly in a speech in the House of Com- offending vessels admons:3 "The Government admit, through their legal ad- Britain.

mitted by Great

viser, that they have the power, if they choose to exercise it, to [164] prevent these vessels from entering our *harbors; but the honor

able and learned gentleman doubts the expediency of exercising it, and his reason is that he thinks we have not clear proof of guilt. This brings me to a striking piece of inconsistency on the part of the

1 This opinion was on the Act of 1819. The Act of 1870 provides that "equipping shall include the furnishing a ship with any tackle, apparel, furniture, provisions, arms, munitions, or stores, or any other thing which is used in or about a ship for the purpose of fitting or adapting her for the sea or for naval service."

2 "It is perfectly true that Lord Chief Baron Pollock and Baron Bramwell, as well as other great legal authorities, thought that such words as these did not convey the true meaning of our then Foreign Enlistment Act; which, in their opinion, was intended to apply only to those vessels which might be armed within our jurisdiction, either completely or at least so far as to leave our waters in a condition immediately to commence hostilities."-Sir R. Palmer's Speech, August 4, 1871, page 32.

3 Vol. V, page 590.

honorable and learned gentleman. He begins with administering a solemn exhortation, and something like a solemn reproof to English shipbuilders, for infringing our neutrality laws and disregarding the Queen's Proclamation by building these ships. Well, but if they are violating our neutrality and disregarding the Queen's Proclamation, it must have been because they built these vessels for a belligerent to be employed against some Power with which we are at peace. The honorable and learned gentleman assumes that these individuals are guilty of these acts. He knows they have been guilty of these acts; he knows that these three vessels in particular, and the Alabama more especially, have been built for the Confederate Government, and employed solely for that Government, and yet he doubts the expediency of stopping them from entering our ports. He speaks as though we were asking that he should send out ships of war to order away these vessels without trial. He says there must be legal proof; but it does not require legal proof to warrant you in telling a Government, "You have got these vessels clandestinely; you got them by the infringement of our neutrality *code, or, at least we suspect you upon fair grounds of doing [165] so; and unless you prove that they came legitimately into your hands, we must refuse them the hospitality of our ports.' Why, how do you act in private life? You hear charges and reports compromising the honor of your acquaintance or friend. You may have a moral conviction in your mind that that individual's honor is compromised, but you may not have legal proof of it, and still you may be quite justified in saying to him, 'Until you clear up these charges, which on the face of them criminate you, I must refuse you the hospitality of my house.' I hold that you have the right to say the same thing in regard to these cruisers. But what was the course of the Government in the case of the Alabama? They told Mr. Adams, the American Minister, that they should give orders to stop the Alabama, either at Queenstown or Nassau. Therefore the principle was recognized in the case of that vessel that you had a right to stop her when she reached your jurisdiction. I say, therefore, in the same way, prevent their entering your harbors until they give an account of themselves, to show how they became possessed of that vessel. This has a most important bearing, and one so apparent that it must be plain to the apprehensions of every honorable gentleman who hears it."

The French Government, during the insurrec*tion, practically [166] Also recognized by asserted the same power in the neutral to protect its

France.

violated sovereignty. The British Government in 1864 sold a screw gun-boat to persons who proved to be agents of the insurgents. This was done at a time when it was a matter of public notoriety that those agents were in England making great efforts to fit out a navy. The purchasers took the vessel to Calais to complete the equipment. On the way from the Thames to Calais the name of the vessel was changed to the "Rappahanock," the insurgent flag was hoisted, an insurgent officer, holding an insurgent commission, took the command, and the crew were mustered into the service of the insurgents. On arrival at Calais, attempts were made to complete the equipment. The French Government stopped this by placing a man-of-war across the bows, and holding the vessel as a prisoner, and the Rappahannock was thus prevented from destroying vessels and commerce, sailing under the flag of a nation with which France was at peace.

The second Rule provides that a neutral government is bound not te The second Rule permit or suffer either belligerent to make use of its ports or waters as the base of naval operations against the other,

of the Treaty.

1

or for the purpose of the renewal or augmentation of military supplies or arms, or the recruitment of men.

[167] *A question has been raised whether this rule is understood to apply to the sale of military supplies or arms in the ordinary course of commerce. The United States do not understand that it is intended to apply to such a traffic. They understand it to apply to the use of a neutral port by a belligerent for the renewal or augmentation of such military supplies or arms for the naval operations referred to in the rule. Taken in this sense, the United States maintain that the same obligations are to be found, (expressed in other words,) first, in the Foreign Enlistment Act of 1819; and, secondly, in the instructions. to the naval forces of Great Britain during the rebellion.

The Tribunal of Arbitration will not fail to observe the breadth of this rule.

The ports or waters of the neutral are not to be made the base of naval operations by a belligerent. Vessels of war may come and go under such rules and regulations as the neutral may prescribe; food and the ordinary stores and supplies of a ship, not of a warlike character, may be furnished without question, in quantities necessary for immediate wants; the moderate hospitalities which do not infringe upon impartiality may be extended; but no act shall be done to make the neu

tral port a base of operations. Ammunition and military stores [168] for cruisers cannot be obtained there; coal *cannot be stored

there for successive supplies to the same vessel, nor can it be furnished or obtained in such supplies; prizes cannot be brought there for condemnation. The repairs that humanity demand can be given, but no repairs should add to the strength or efficiency of a vessel, beyond what is absolutely necessary to gain the nearest of its own ports. In the same sense are to be taken the clauses relating to the renewal or augmentation of military supplies or arms and the recruitment of men. As the vessel enters the port, so is she to leave it, without addition to her effective power of doing injury to the other belligerent. If her magazine is supplied with powder, shot, or shells; if new guns are added to her armament; if pistols, or muskets, or cutlasses, or other implements of destruction, are put on board; if inen are recruited; even if, in these days when steam is a power, an excessive supply of coal is put into her bunkers, the neutral will have failed in the performance of its duty.

The third Rule of

The third Rule binds the neutral to exercise the same measure of diligence as required by the first Rule, in order to prevent, in its own ports and waters, and as to all persons within its the Treaty. jurisdiction, any violation of the obligations and duties prescribed by

the first and second Rules. The same wakefulness and watch[169] fulness, proportioned to the *exigencies of the case and the mag

nitude of the interests involved, that was required by the first Rule, is likewise required in the performance of the duties prescribed by the second Rule, without which the neutral will have failed in the performance of his duty.

ries.

The express recognition in the Treaty of an obligation (in case the Tribunal finds that Great Britain has failed to fulfill any of Duty to make comher duties in these respects) to pay to the United States the pensation for inju amount or amounts that may be found due, "on account of the liability arising from such failure," makes it unnecessary, in this connection, to do more than to refer to what has already been said on that subject.

The doctrines of International Law which have thus been deduced

Foregoing views in

of Europe an publicists.

from the practice of Great Britain are in harmony with the harmony with opin- views of the best publicists. The discussions between the two Governments growing out of the acts herein complained of, and unfortunately made necessary by the unwillingness of Great Britain to apply to the United States the same measure of justice which was applied to Spain in 1819, to Portugal in 1827, and which was received by Great Britain from the United States in 1793, have evoked the comments of many writers in England, in America, and on the continent of Europe. For obvious reasons the opinions of the English or American *writers favorable to their respective countries (as for instance Professor Bernard in Great Britain or President Woolsey in America)-will not be regarded.

6

[170]

On the 20th of May, 1865,1 Mr. Adams had occasion to quote to Lord Russell the opinion of Hautefeuille: "What the obligation of Her Majesty's Government really was, in this instance," he said, "is so clearly laid down by a distinguished writer, notoriously disposed never to exaggerate the duties nor to undervalue the privileges of neutrals, that I will ask the liberty to lay before you his very words: Le fait de construire un bâtiment de guerre pour le compte d'un belligérant, ou de l'armer dans les états neutres, est une violation du territoire. Toutes les prises faites par un bâtiment de cette nature sont illégitimes, en quelque lieu qu'elles été faites. Le souverain offensé a le droit de s'en emparer, même de force, si elles sont amenées dans ses ports, et d'en réclamer la restitution lorsqu'elles sont, comme cela arrive en général, conduites dans les ports hors de sa juridiction. Il peut également réclamer le désarmement du bâtiment illégalement armé sur son territoire, et même le détenir, s'il entre dans quelque lieu soumis à sa souveraineté, jusqu'à ce qu'il ait été désarmé.”” 2

*

The distinguished Dr. Bluntschli, professor at the University [171] of Heidelberg, in his pamphlet, entitled "Opinion imBluntschli. partiale sur la question de l'Alabama et sur la manière de la résoudre,” reprinted at Berlin, in 1870, from the Revue de Droit International, says as follows:

"La violation des devoirs d'un état ami, dont l'Angleterre se rendit coupable lors de l'équipement de l'Alabama, fut la circonstance la plus éclatante, mais non la seule dans laquelle se révélèrent les dispositions hostiles du gouvernement anglais. Il y eut encore d'autres croiseurs sudistes du même genre. Les nombreux coureurs de blocus qui transportaient en même temps de la contrebande de guerre, avaient tous également leur origine et leurs propriétaires en Angleterre. Partout où les troupes de l'union finirent par l'emporter et s'emparèrent des places ennemies, elles trouvèrent des armes anglaises et des canons anglais. "Tous les faits ainsi allégués n'ont pas la même importance. Mais plusieurs d'entre eux, si tant est qu'il faille les tenir pour avoués ou prouvés, ce dont nous n'avons pas à juger ici,-doivent certainement être considérés comme constituant une infraction aux devoirs d'un état neutre.

"L'état neutre qui veut garantir sa neutralité, doit s'abstenir d'aider aucune des parties belligé*rantes dans ses opérations de [172] guerre. Il ne peut prêter son territoire pour permettre à l'une des parties d'organiser en lieu sûr des enterprises militaires. Il est obligé de veiller fidèlement à ce que des particuliers n'arment point sur

1 Vol. III, page 538.

2 Hautefeuille. Des droits et des devoirs des nations neutres, (Paris, 1849,) tome 2me, pages 79-80.

son territoire des vaisseaux de guerre, destinés à être livrés à une des parties belligérantes. (BLUNTSCHLI, Modernes Völkerrecht, § 763.)

"Ce devoir est proclamé par la science, et il dérive tant de l'idée de neutralité que des égards auxquels tout état est nécessairement tenu envers les autres états, avec lesquels il vit en paix et amitié.

"La neutralité est la non-participation à la guerre. Lorsque l'état neutre soutient un des belligérants, il prend part à la guerre en faveur de celui qu'il soutient et dès lors il cesse d'être neutre. L'adversaire est autorisé à voir dans cette participation un acte d'hostilité. Et cela n'est pas seulement vrai quand l'état neutre livre lui-même des troupes ou des vaisseaux de guerre, mais aussi lorsqu'il prête à un des belligérants un appui médiat en permettant, tandis qu'il pourrait Vempêcher, que, de son territoire neutre, on envoie des troupes ou des navires de guerre.

"Partout où le droit de neutralité étend le cercle de son application,

il restreint les limites de la guerre et de ses désastreuses consé[173] quences, et il *garantit les bienfaits de la paix. Les devoirs de l'état neutre envers les belligérants sont, en substance, les mêmes que ceux de l'état ami, en temps de paix, vis-à-vis des autres états. Aucun état ne peut non plus, en temps de paix, permettre que l'on organise sur son territoire des agressions contre un état ami. Tous sont obligés de veiller à ce que leur sol ne devienne pas le point de départ d'entreprises militaires dirigées contre des états avec lesquels ils sont en paix.

"Ces devoirs internationaux universels sont aussi consacrés, dans le droit public interne, par les législations anglaises et américaines. La loi anglaise du 3 juillet 1819 contient à ce sujet (art. 7) la disposition suivante:

“And be it further enacted, That if any person within any part of the United Kingdom, or in any part of His Majesty's Dominions beyond the seas, shall, without the leave and license of His Majesty for that purpose first had and obtained as aforesaid, equip, furnish, fit out, or arm, or attempt or endeavor to equip, furnish, fit out, or arm, or procure to be equipped, furnished, fitted out, or armed, or shall knowingly aid, assist, or be concerned in the equipping, furnishing, fitting out, or arming of any ship or vessel, with intent or in order that such ship or vessel shall be employed in the service of any foreign prince, state, or [174] potentate, or of any *foreign colony, province, or part of province,

or people, as a transport or store-ship, or with intent to cruise or commit hostilities against any prince, state, or potentate, or against the persons exercising, or assuming to exercise, the powers of government in any colony, province, or part of any province or country, or against the inhabitants of any foreign colony, province, or part of any province or country with whom His Majesty shall not then be at war

"Cette loi défend incontestablement tout appui prêté en cas de guerre, peu importe que les parties belligérantes soient des états étrangers reconnus, ou des usurpateurs du pouvoir, ou des colonies, ou des provinces révoltées. Donc, le gouvernement anglais, en permettant intentionnellement ou par une négligence évidente, alors qu'il aurait pu et dû l'empêcher, l'équipement de l'Alabama, a méconnu du même coup un devoir international à l'égard de l'union américaine et les prescriptions d'une loi nationale. Par ces motifs il est aussi, d'après les règles du droit des gens, responsable envers l'état lésé.

"Il est notoire que la loi anglaise est une imitation de la loi américaine de 1818 sur la neutralité, laquelle ne faisait elle-même que reviser

et rétablir la loi antérieure de 1794. C'est même précisément la [175] question de l'équipement de corsaires sur *un territoire neutre, au profit d'une partie belligérante, qui donna la première impul