Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

"At the conference held on the 8th of March, the "American Commissioners stated. . . . that the his"tory of the Alabama and other cruisers, which had been "fitted out, or armed, or equipped, or which had received augmentation of force in Great Britain or her Colonies, "and of the operations of those vessels, showed extensive "direct losses in the capture and destruction of a large "number of vessels, with their cargoes, and in the "heavy national expenditures in the pursuit of the cruisers," etc.

66

66

It is respectfully submitted that this description of the Protocol, beyond all controversy, includes the whole list of vessels as insisted upon in the Case and CounterCase.

XIII.

NATURE AND AMOUNT OF DAMAGES CLAIMED BY THE UNITED STATES.

I. Prefatory Considerations.

1. The Counsel of the United States assume that, in the foregoing observations, and the proofs which they have adduced and expounded, they have established the responsibility of the British Government in the premises.

The legal character of this responsibility is defined by the Treaty of Washington. It is matter of express contract between the two Governments.

The contracting parties, in the first place, agree to certain"Rules," by which the conduct of the British Government in the premises is to be judged. These "Rules" constitute the principles, upon which it is to be

conventionally assumed that the British Government acts, as to the questions here at issue. These "Rules" profess to define the general obligations of a neutral Government. They expressly set forth to what such a Government is bound. They are understood by the tenor of the Treaty to define expressly what the British Government was bound, in the occurrences debated, to do or not to do with respect to the United States.

2. The Counsel of the United States have applied these Rules to the acts of commission or omission of the British Government, with conclusion as follows:

(a) The British Government did not use due diligence to prevent the fitting out, arming, or equipping, within its jurisdiction, of certain vessels, which it had reasonable grounds to believe were intended to cruise or carry on war against the United States.

(b) The British Government did not use like diligence to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of certain vessels to carry on war against the United States, such vessels having been specially adapted, in whole or in part, within such jurisdiction, to war-like use.

(c) The British Government did permit or suffer the belligerent rebels of the United States to make use of the ports or waters of Great Britain as the base of military operations against the United States, or for the purpose of renewal or augmentation of military supplies or arms, or the recruitment of men for naval warfare.

(d) The British Government did not use due diligence in its own ports and waters, and as to all persons within its jurisdiction, to prevent any violation of the stipulated Rules (Art. VI).

(e) Finally, the British Government has failed to fulfil certain duties, recognized by the principles of international law, not inconsistent with the foregoing "Rules."

3. We think we have shown that the British Government is responsible under these rules for all, or at any rate for certain, of the cruisers in question. If the Arbitrators come to the same conclusion, then they are to award a sum in gross for the claims referred to them, to be paid by Great Britain to the United States; or, after deciding the failure of the British Government to fulfil its duties as aforesaid, they may remit the question of amount to Assessors to determine what claims are valid, and what amount shall be paid on account of the liability arising from such failure, as to each vessel, according to the extent of such liability as decided by the Arbitrators (Art. X).

Thus it appears that the Treaty provides, by various forms of expression, that the liability of Great Britain to pay follows on the conviction of Great Britain of failure to perform her duty in the premises, in conformity with the law of nations and the contract "Rules."

4. What is the measure of this liability? Such is the question which remains to be discussed.

The Counsel of the United States respond to this question in general terms as follows:

The acts of commission or omission, charged to the British Government in the premises, constituted due cause of war; in abstaining from war, and consenting to substitude indemnity by arbitration for the wrongs suffered by the United States at the hands of Great Britain, the United States are entitled to redress in dam

« ZurückWeiter »