circumstance is reported in the memoirs of Mr. Trumbull, one of the Secretaries of that Commission. It appears that, being in doubt, the Commissioners consulted the Earl of Loughborough, then Lord Chancellor. The latter decided that the Commissioners, in their capacity of an international tribunal, possessed complete jurisdiction to revise the de crees of any municipal tribunal, and to decree compensation to the Government injured in its interests or in those of its subjects. The Commissioners acted accordingly.

I conceive that such is the jurisdiction recognized in the case of private claims by numerous international Commissions which have since set in England and America.

CONCLUSION.

I have now treated some of the questions argued by the Counsel of Great Britain, solely to relieve my conscience. I do not think they are of a nature to exercise preponderating influence on the conclusions of the Arbitrators. The Rules of the Treaty are decisive in all the questions raised by the United States. If those Rules are the true expression of the law of nations, as I am convinced they are, well and good; if they exceed the law of nations, they necessarily constitute the conventional law of the Tribunal.

The interpretation of the municipal law of England is of little moment. Of still less moment is the interpretation of the law of the United States. The laws of other European States are of no importance whatever. The conduct of the United States toward Spain or Mexico, or even toward Great Britain, is not here in question. There is but one single question, and it is this: Has England failed or not in the due diligence required by the Treaty of Washington?

The United States are here maintaining principles which are, in their opinion, of great importance to all maritime nations, and especially to

rapportée dans les mémoires de M. Trumbull, l'un des secrétaires de cette commission. Il parait que, dans le doute, les commissaires ont consulté le Comte de Loughborough, grand chancelier d'alors. Celui-ci décida que les commissaires, en leur qualité de tribunal international, possédaient une juridiction complète pour réviser les décrets d'un tribunal municipal quelconque et de faire droit au gouvernement lésé dans ses intérêts ou dans ceux de ses sujets. Les commissaires ont agi en conséquence.

J'estime que telle est la juridiction reconnue, dans le cas de réclamations particulières, par de nombreuses commissions internationales qui ont siégé depuis lors en Angleterre et en Amérique.

CONCLUSION.

Je viens de traiter quelques-unes des questions posées par le conseil de la GrandeBretagne uniquement pour l'acquit de ma conscience. Je ne crois pas qu'elles soient de nature à exercer une influence prépondérante sur les conclusions des arbitres. Les règles du traité sont décisives dans toutes les questions soulevées par les États-Unis. Si ces règles sont l'expression vraie du droit des gens, comme j'en suis convaincu, c'est bien; si elles dépassent le droit des gens, elles constituent forcément le droit conventionnel du tribunal.

Peu importe l'interprétation de la loi municipale d'Angleterre. L'interprétation de la loi des États-Unis importe moins encore. Les lois des autres états de l'Europe n'importent en rien. La conduite des États-Unis envers l'Espagne ou le Mexique, ou même envers la Grande-Bretagne, n'est pas ici en cause. Il n'y a qu'une seule question, et la voici: L'Angleterre a-t-elle failli, oui ou non, aux dues diligences requises par le traité de Washington?

Les États-Unis soutiennent ici des principes qui sont, à leur avis, d'une haute im

Great Britain, still more so than to the United States. In consequence, we await, with respect and submission, but also without uneasiness, the judgment of this august Tribunal.

C. CUSHING.

NOTE.

In case the Arbitrators should think it worth while to study the subject attentively, we refer them to the following documents, which clearly prove the spontaneous activity of the Executive at all times to prevent equipments and expeditions in contravention of the law of nations, attempted in the ports of the United States:

I.-Counter Case of the United States and Appendix. (French translation.)

portance pour toutes les nations maritimes, et surtout pour la Grande-Bretagne plus encore que pour les États-Unis. En conséquence, nous attendons avec respect et avec soumission, mais aussi sans inquiétude, le jugement de cet auguste tribunal.

6 août. (Vide Protocole XVIII.)

NOTE.

C. CUSHING.

Dans le cas où les arbitres penseraient qu'il vaut la peine d'étudier attentivement le sujet, nous les renvoyons aux documents suivants, qui démontrent jusqu'à l'évidence l'activité spontanée que l'exécutif a mise de tout temps à prévenir des équipements et des expéditions contraires au droit des gens, essayés dans les ports des Etats-Unis:

II.-Correspondence relative to the Affairs of Cuba in the English Supplement to the Counter Case of the United States.

Correspondence of Messrs. Potestad, Davis, Milledge, and Hoar.

II.- Correspondance relative aux affaires de Cuba dans le supplément en anglais au contremémoire des Etats-Unis.

Mr. Fish à M. Pierrepont et Mr. Barlow

103

Correspondance de MM. Potestad, Davis, Milledge et Hoar

107-116

VI.-REPLY OF MR. WAITE, AUGUST 8, TO THE ARGUMENT OF SIR ROUNDELL PALMER, UPON THE SPECIAL QUESTION AS TO SUPPLIES OF COAL IN BRITISH PORTS TO CONFEDERATE SHIPS. (SEE PROTOCOL XIX.)

The "special question as to supplies of coal in British ports to Confederate ships," necessarily involves an examination of the facts and circumstances under which permission to take such supplies was granted.

It is not contended by the Counsel of the United States, that all supplies of coal in neutral ports to the ships of war of belligerents, are necessarily violations of neutrality, and, therefore, unlawful. It will be sufficient for the purposes of this controversy, if it shall be found that Great Britain permitted or suffered the insurgents "to make use of its ports or waters as the base of naval operations against the United States," and that the supplies of coal were obtained at such ports to facilitate belligerent operations.

1. All naval warfare must, of necessity, have upon land a "base of operations." To deprive a belligerent of that is equivalent

A base of opera

naval warfare.

to depriving him of the power to carry on such a warfare tons essential to successfully for any great length of time. Without it he cannot maintain his ships upon the Ocean.

What it is.

2. A "base of operations" for naval warfare is not alone, as seems to be contended by the distinguished Counsel of Great Britain, (sec. 3, chap. iii, of his Argument,) "a place from which operations of naval warfare are to be carried into effect." It is not, of necessity, the place where the belligerent watches for, and from which he moves against, the enemy; but it is any place at which the necessary preparations for the warfare are made; any place from which ships, arms, ammunition, stores, equipment, or men are furnished, and to which the ships of the navy look for warlike supplies and for the means of effecting the necessary repairs. It is, in short, what its name implies the support, the foundation, which upholds and sustains the operations of a naval war.

This was the doctrine recognized by Earl Russell on the 25th of March, 1862, three days after the Florida got out from the port of Liverpool, and while the correspondence in reference to her construction and outfit was fresh in his mind. In writing to Mr. Adams, at that time, in reference to complaints made of the treatment of the United States vessel of war Flambeau at Nassau, in the month of December previous, he used this language:

On the other hand, the Flambeau was avowedly an armed vessel in the service of the Federal Government. She had entered the port of Nassau, and had remained there for some days, without any apparent necessity for doing so, and the authorities had not been informed of the object of her visit. To supply her with coal might, therefore, be to facilitate her belligerent operations, and this would constitute an infraction of the neutrality prescribed by the Queen's proclamation of the 13th of May last. (Am. App., vol. i, p. 348.)

3. This "base of operations" must be within the territory of the belligerent or of his ally. A neutral which supplies it violates his neutrality, and may be treated as an ally. A bellig.entral territory.

It should not be in