enjoyed to an equal extent with the insurgents the hospitalities of the British ports, or that, without regard to that disparity, those hospitalities were extended with an impartial neutrality to each, the United States emphatically deny it.

5. It is stated, on page 25, that "the acts of which the Government of the United States is understood to complain belong to a class which have not commonly been made the object of prohibitory legislation;" that "in few countries, or in none, according to the information received by Her Britannic Majesty's government, did the law directly prohibit such acts, or make any definite provision for preventing them at the time when this war began, except in the United States and Great Britain." The information of the United States on this point does not agree with that of Her Majesty's Government. They have the honor to refer the tribunal to statements concerning the laws of Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Prussia, Spain, and Sweden and Norway, which will be found in the fourth appendix attached to the report of the neutrality laws commissioners. This document will be found at the close of the third volume of the British appendix, and in the fourth volume of the American evidence, between pages 126 and 168. They also refer to the documents and evidence herewith submitted *regarding the laws of several powers in Europe and America for the preservation of their neutrality. It will appear, from all this evidence, that acts such as those of which the United States complain have been widely made the subject of positive legislation, and that in no country, except Great Britain, so far as the United States are advised, has it been assumed that proceedings under the municipal or local laws are the measure of neutral obligations toward other governments.

[12]

6. On page 25 it is stated, with reference to the steps taken by President Washington, that "the measures adopted by the Executive of the United States to restrain these enterprises [the fitting out of French privateers] proved inadequate." In answer to this, the United States recall to the recollection of the tribunal that the French minister of that day contended that his government derived the right to commission privateers from the ports of the United States from the provisions of the treaty of 1778 between France and the United States-a treaty made at a time when Great Britain was at war with the United States. The repressive measures of President Washington were taken under a sense of the duties of the United States as a neutral under the laws of nations, and in the face of their particular duties under the treaty, as construed by France. In the memoir of Mr. Abbott, now Lord Tenterden,) which will be found in the British appendix, at the [13] end of volume three, it is stated that "the result of the publication of the rules of the 4th of August [which were the measures adopted by the Executive referred to in the British case] was that the system of privateering was, generally speaking, suppressed, though cases seem to have occurred until the arrival of Mr. Genet's successor, in February, 1794, who disavowed his acts, and recalled the commission he had granted to privateers."

7. The remarks on pages 26, 27, and 28, regarding the manner in which the United States have at different times performed their duties as a neutral nation towards Spain, Portugal, and other powers, are stated to be made without any "intention of Her Majesty's government to cast any reproach upon the Government or people of the United States." They are, however, apparently introduced for the purpose of inducing the arbitrators to assume that the United States, at some or

all of those times, did fail to use the diligence for the repression of hostile expeditions from their shores which ought to have been exercised, and which is required by the rules of the treaty of Washington. The United States would regard such an imputation as a reproach, however intended by its authors. They have therefore determined to ask the

arbitrators to examine the further evidence on these points which [14] they have the honor to submit herewith, although they cannot but recognize that the arbitrators may justly feel that neither party ought to add to their arduous labors by the introduction of statements and evidence wholly foreign to the issues submitted to their decision. The evidence now submitted by the United States regarding the performance of their international duties is voluminous and spreads over a series of years and a variety of incidents. It relates to the con test between Spain and her colonies, to the war between Brazil and the Artigas government, to struggles of Cubans for independence, to the war between Spain and the South American republics, and to the Crimean war. In all these contests it became the duty of the United States to preserve their neutrality under difficult circumstances; often when the sympathies of large masses of their people were enlisted in opposition to the national obligations. Her Majesty's government has thought it right to call in question the efficiency, while admitting the good faith with which the United States performed their duties in these trying circumstances. The evidence now submitted shows conclusively that Her Majesty's government has been misinformed; that the United States did perform their duties as a neutral at those times with a fidelity and activity which, had they been imitated by Great Britain during the insurrection, would have made the present proceedings unneces sary.

[15] 8. The United States unite with Her Majesty's government in its remarks on page 27, calling attention to the fact that the President of the United States, at the request of the Portuguese government, did, in 1817, recommend Congress to confer upon the government, not only power to punish offenders, but also power to prevent the commission of the offenses; and that Congress did, in compliance with such request. confer such power in the neutrality acts of 1817 and 1818.

9. The United States are at a loss to understand to what reference is intended by the words on page 28: "It is needless here to refer particularly to more recent instances of vessels fitted out in ports of the United States for expeditions against countries with which the United States were at peace. These instances are well known." Vague insinuations like these, without definite statement, allegat on, or proof, turnish no foundation for an answer in the only form in which the treaty permits the United States to defend themselves.

10. The United States emphatically deny the statement on page 28, that their prohibitory laws have "been infringed by acts much more flagrant than any of those now charged against Great Britain." They feel confident that a fair consideration of the proof which they have [16] offered and of that which they now offer, showing the fidelity with which they have ever performed their international duties, will convince the arbitrators that they have honestly, strenuously, in good faith, and with due diligence, striven to perform those duties.

*

11. The United States think that Her Majesty's government has been incorrectly informed regarding the United States statute of 1818, commonly known as the neutrality act. It is stated on page 29 that the British act of 1819 is "more stringent, rigorous, and comprehensive than that of the United States." Her Majesty's government does not

say in what respect the superior stringency, rigor, and comprehensiveness of that act is supposed to consist. If the British act could have been suspended by the act of the Crown, which is supposed to have been the case, it may at least be held to have furnished less permanent and certain remedies than the law of the United States. The United States think that the qualities of stringency, rigor, and comprehensiveness will be found in their law in a superior degree; and they call attention to the following points of comparison: 1. Enlistments of British subjects only are made unlawful by the British.act; the American act, on the contrary, makes all enlistments within the neutral jurisdiction

unlawful, except naval enlistments of subjects of the enlisting [17] belligerent, made on the deck of a vessel of the belligerent *while

within the neutral waters. 2. By executive and judicial construction, the words "equip," "fit out," and "furnish" have received a much broader meaning in America than in Great Britain, as the United States have explained in their case. 3. The tenth and eleventh sections of the American act, commonly known as the bonding clauses, are admitted not to be in the British act. And it is also admitted that these clauses are intended to be preventive, not punitive. 4. The eighth section of the United States act is also omitted in the English act. This section, the practical operation of which is explained in the case of the United States, is regarded by them as by far the most efficient part of the act for the prevention of violations of neutrality. 5. It may not have escaped the attention of the arbitrators that Her Majesty's government has itself furnished evidence of the superiority of the United States statute over the British act. "I may remark," says Sir Frederick Bruce, the British minister at Washington, writing to his government, "that the Government of the United States has considerable advantages in proceeding againstv essels underthe statute. They have, on the spot where the preparations are being made, the district attor ney, a legal officer responsible to the Government, to whom the duty of investigation is committed. The libel is in the nature of a proceed

ing in admiralty in rem. It is decided by a judge conversant [18] *with international and maritime law, without the intervention of a jury." (Vol. 3, Brit. App., last paper, p. 67; vol. 4, Am. evidence, page 162.)

12. Without questioning, in the counter case, the correctness of propositions 1, 2, and 3 of English constitutional law, on page 30, the United States think that they are not mistaken when they say that the privilege which a witness is supposed to have of refusing to answer a question is a personal privilege, of which the witness may or may not avail himself. It is not supposed to be one which a court will voluntarily take for him, and enforce against his wishes.

13. In the statements on pages 31 and 32, regarding the supposed duties of the officials of the United States "to keep a watchful eye on whatever might tend to endanger the security or interests of the United State," &c., it is not made quite clear whether Her Majesty's government regard these as duties of which it had the right to demand performance of these officials, or as duties which they owed to their own government. Although the latter interpretation would seem to be the most reasonable one, there is some ground to suppose that Her Majesty's government has made the statement in the former sense. Without admitting it in that sense to be just, the United States insist that, even

should such an obligation not be disputed, Her Majesty's gov[19] ernment would not thereby be relieved from the duty of an independent, diligent, and vigilant watchfulness, in order to prevent

evil-disposed persons from violating its neutrality. Nor would the minister of a belligerent power (as Mr. Adams was in the eye of the English cabinet) be required, after the receipt of official information as to the nature and character of the evidence that must accompany his repre sentations, to make, or complained of for not making, representations of fact to the neutral government, except in the manner in which he had been notified to make them. Thus, (to apply the proposition,) Mr. Adams, being notified by the British government that, in order to secure official action on a complaint of a contemplated violation of British neutrality by the insurgents, he must furnish proof of the fact sufficient to warrant conviction for a violation of the foreign-enlistment act, could not be charged by that government with responsibility for not making representations embodying a lesser degree of proof.

14. The United States do not understand that it is true that "allegations that vessels were being prepared for cruising or carrying on war," were in all cases followed by seizure of the vessels when sufficient prima facie evidence of the illegal purpose was furnished. They understand exactly the contrary to have been the case; that until the opinion of

the law-officers of the Crown, given on the 29th day of July, 1862, [20] (the day of the escape of the Alabama,) all branches of Her

Majesty's Government held that it was necessary, not only to establish a preparation for cruising or carrying on war, but also an actual arming of the offending cruiser in a British port, in order to justify seizure, and that this prevailing opinion was afterward sustained in effect by the courts of England in the Alexandra case, which is still the unreversed judicial construction of the act of 1819.

15. On page 57 is given what purports to be an explanation of the meaning of the words "registry" and "clearance," and of the duties of the officers empowered to register ships, and of the officers of the cus toms in respect to clearances. The acts of Parliament, prescribing the duties and conferring the powers, are not specially referred to; but the United States understand them to be "the merchant shipping act, 1854," (17 and 18 Vict., cap. 104,) and the "customs consolidation act, 1853," (16 and 17 Vict., cap. 107,) with their several amendments. These acts, in the opinion of the United States, confer more extended powers upon the officers of Her Majesty's government than is stated in the British Case, and they therefore ask the attention of the tribunal to the acts themselves, extracts from which are submitted herewith.

Part IV of the British Case assumes to state certain considerations proper to be kept in view by the arbitrators in reference to the cases of the Florida, Alabama, Georgia, and Shenandoah.

The United States have already made it clear, both in their case and in this paper, that they regard many of these statements as not "proper to be kept in view by the arbitrators" in reference to any of these vessels. Without repeating their views on this subject, they confine themselves to calling attention to a great error into which the arbi trators may be led in consequence of the use of inaccurate or careless language in the closing paragraph of this statement in the British Case. It is there stated that "claims for the interference of Her Majesty's government in the case of these and other vessels were based, according to the statement of Mr. Adams, in his letter to Earl Russell dated 9th of October, 1862, on evidence considered by him to apply directly to infringements of the municipal law, and not to anything beyond it."

It is quite possible-perhaps it is not too much to say that it is probable that the arbitrators may derive from this statement the impression that all the official representations of Mr. Adams in respect to these four vessels were expressly based on evidence offered by *him in support of allegations of infringements of the munici- [22] pal law. The United States call attention to this, feeling confident that Her Majesty's government will be anxious to exclude a construction of its language which is so little in accordance with the facts.

V.

Part V of the British Case is entitled, "Statement of facts relative to the Florida." The evidence in support of this part of the case is to be found in volume one of the appendix, between pages 1 and 165, inclusive. There are few discrepancies in the two accounts of the career of this ressel. The new evidence furnished by Her Majesty's government sustains and confirms the views of the United States, and attention is called to some instances of this character.

1. It now appears clearly that, before the Florida left Liverpool, the British government received information from the government of His Majesty the King of Italy that the pretense that the Florida was constructed for the Italian government was a fraud.

2. The participation of the legal authorities at Nassau in the conspiracy for the discharge of the Florida, which was charged by the United States, is established by the official reports accompanying the British case.

3. Her Majesty's government introduces, on *pages 73-4 of its [23] appendix, evidence which sustains the allegations in the American case that the Florida was, in outward appearance, a British manof-war, and that, in such an assumed character, with the British flag flying, she passed the blockading squadron off Mobile, and that her real character was not suspected until too late to stop her. This act was described at the time by the distinguished admiral who witnessed it as only "an apparent want of vigilance."

4. The official report of the governor of Barbadoes of what took place there in February, 1863, shows that there has been an evident mistake on the part of the governor as to the San Jacinto. It also brings home to the governor positive knowledge of the fact that the act which he was committing was a violation of international duty toward the United States.

5. It now appears in clear colors that Bermuda was made a base of hostile operations by the Florida. The commander of that vessel, having coaled, and having been at Barbadoes within less than seventy days, and having then cruised off the port of New York, destroying American vessels, arrived at Bermuda and informed the governor of all these facts. The governor, with a knowledge of them, gave him a hospitable reception, and permitted him to coal and repair. These facts were officially reported to Her Majesty's government, and were formally ap proved at the foreign office. *Until now, the United States [24] have been unable to establish, without the help of presumptions, all the links in the chain of evidence.

6. It is stated in the British Case that "had the vessel been seized by Her Majesty's government, a court of law would have ordered, and would, indeed, have been bound to order, the immediate restoration of her for want of evidence to support a forfeiture." It is not for the United States to challenge the statements of Her Majesty's government regard