The counter case of the United States presented to the tribunal of arbitration, at Geneva, under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington, with an appendix containing additional documents, correspondence, and evidence. April 15, 1871.

[Page [416]]

NOTE.

The figures in brackets in the text indicate the pages of the edition which was laid before the tribunal of arbitration at Geneva; the *indicates the word with which each page commences.

[Page [417]]

LIST OF PAPERS ACCOMPANYING THE COUNTER CASE OF THE UNITED STATES.

PART I.

From whom and to whom. Date. Geneva edition. Present edition.
Page. Page.
Mr. Monroe to Mr. Steele July 18, 1811 1 445
Same to collector of Charleston Sept. 19, 1811 2 445
Same to Mr. Dallas Nov. 4, 1811 2 445
Same to Governor Claiborne Dec. 5, 1811 3 446
Same to governor of Tennessee Sept. 3, 1812 4 446
Same to Governor Howard Sept. 3, 1812 5 446
Same to governor of Louisiana and Mississipi Territory, and to Mr. Robinson. Feb. 14, 1814 7 447
Same to Dr. Robinson Feb. 14, 1814 8 448
Same to governor Claiborne Feb. 17, 1814 9 448
Same to Mr. Robinson Feb. 17, 1814 9 448
Same to Mr. Conner Apr. 19, 1814 10 449
Same to district attorneys, (circular) Sept. 1, 1815 11 449
President’s proclamation Sept. 1, 1815 12 449
Mr. Brent to governors of Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Missouri Territories, (circular.) Sept. 9, 1815 14 450
Mr. Brent to district attorneys, (circular) Sept. 13, 1815 14 450
Mr. Dick to Mr. Monroe Mar. 1, 1816 15 451
Mr. Monroe to Mr. Dick June 7, 1816 19 452
Mr. Monroe to Mr. Dorsey United States Navy. June 25, 1816 19 453
Mr. Glenn to Mr. McCulloch June 29, 1816 22 453
Mr. Monroe to Mr. McCulloch July 19, 1816 22 454
Mr. McCulloch to Captain Spence, United States Navy July 23, 1816 24 454
Mr. Monroe to district attorney for Virginia July 25, 1816 27 456
Inclosed remark of the Attorney-General in case of the Romp July 23, 1816 28 456
Mr. Monroe to Mr. Wirt Aug. 2, 1816 30 457
Mr. McCulloch to Captain Spence, United States Navy Aug. 19, 1816 31 457
Same to Captain White Aug. 20, 1816 32 458
Mr. Chacon to Mr. McCulloch Aug. 26, 1816 33 458
Mr. McCulloch to Mr. Dallas Aug. 22, 1816 34 459
Mr. Glenn to Mr. Monroe Aug. 26, 1816 35 459
Mr. Monroe to Mr. Blake Aug. 27, 1816 35 460
Mr. Lowry to Mr. McCulloch Aug. 28, 1816 36 460
Mr. McCulloch to Mr. Monroe Aug. 29, 1816 37 461
Mr. Glenn to Mr. Chacon Sept. 4, 1816 39 461
Mr. Monroe to Mr. Glenn Sept. 12, 1816 43 462
Mr. Graham to Mr. McCulloch Sept. 12, 1816 44 463
Mr. McCulloch to Messrs. Hanson & Watts Nov. 5, 1816 44 463
Same to Captain Beard Nov. 5, 1816 46 464
Same to the surveyor Dec. 13, 1816 47 464
President’s message Dec. 26, 1816 49 465
Mr. Monroe to Mr. McCulloch Jan. 3, 1817 49 465
Same to Mr. Glenn Jan. 3, 1817 50 465
Mr. McCulloch to same Jan. 9, 1817 51 466
Mr. Monroe to same Feb. 15, 1817 52 466
Mr. Glenn to Mr. Monroe Feb. 25, 1817 52 466
“Neutrality Act” Mar. 3, 1817 56 468
Mr. Rush to Mr. Glenn Mar. 18, 1817 59 469
Same to Mr. McCulloch Mar. 21, 1817 59 470
Same to Mr. Wirt Mar. 28, 1817 60 470
Same to Mr. Mallory Mar. 28, 1817 60 470
Mr. Rush to Mr. McCulloch Mar. 28, 1817 62 471
Mr. Zamorano to Mr. McCulloch Apr. 14, 1817 63 471
Mr. McCulloach to Mr. Zamorano Apr. 14, 1817 64 472
Mr. McCulloch to Captain Beard Apr. 16, 1817 64 472
Same to same May 2, 1817 65 473
Same to same June 27, 1817 67 473
Mr. Ingersoll to Mr. Adams Nov. 14, 1817 68 474
Mr. Kenguemt to Mr. Ingersoll Nov. 13, 1817 69 474
Mr. Adams to Mr. Ingersoll Nov. __, 1817 70 475
Mr. Ingersoll to Mr. Adams Nov. 15, 1817 71 475
Mr. Adams to district attorneys, (circular) Dec. 13, 1817 79 478
Mr. Robbins to Mr. Adams Dec. 23, 1817 80 478
Mr. Davies to Mr. Adams Jan. 2, 1818 83 479
Mr. McCulloch to Captain Beard Apr. 22, 1818 87 481
United States Neutrality Act Apr. 20, 1818 88 481
Mr. Monroe to Mr. Fish July 20, 1818 481
Mr. Wirt to the President Sept. 10, 1818 89 482
[Page 418]Captain Saunders to Mr. Adams July —, 1818 90 483
Mr. Wirt to Mr. Glenn Oct. 12, 1818 92 483
Mr. Glenn to Mr. Adams Oct. —, 1818 93 484
Mr. Swift to Mr. McCulloch Oct. 29, 1818 95 484
Affidavit of John M. Grass Oct. 29, 1818 96 485
Mr. McCulloch to Captain Beard Oct. 29, 1818 97 485
Mr. Wirt to Mr. Glenn Nov. 6, 1818 98 485
Same to same Nov. 9, 1818 105 488
Mr. Swift to Mr. McCulloch Dec. 16, 1818 106 489
Mr. McCulloch to Captain Beard Dec. 17, 1818 107 489
Mr. Brent to Mr. Fish Feb. 4, 1819 108 489
Act to protect the commerce of the United States and punish piracy Mar. 3, 1819 109 490
Mr. McCulloch to Lieutenant Marshall Mar. 26, 1819 112 491
Same to Mr. Crawford Apr. 16, 1819 113 491
Same to Lieutenant Marshall Apr. 22, 1819 115 492
Same to Mr. Crawford May 3, 1819 116 493
Same to Lieutenant Marshall May 8, 1819 120 494
Mr. Adams to Mr. Glenn May 11, 1819 121 494
Mr. McCulloch to Mr. Crawford May 14, 1819 121 494
Mr. Glenn to Mr. McCulloch May 21, 1819 125 496
Mr. McCulloch to Mr. Glenn May 22, 1819 125 496
Same to Mr. Parker May 26, 1819 126 496
Same to Captain Daniels July 6, 1819 127 497
Mr. Glenn to Mr. McCulloch Aug. 24, 1819 128 497
Mr. McCulloch to Mr. Lowry Aug. 25, 1819 128 497
Same to same, (inclose report of J. Burn, inspector) Oct. 25, 1819 129 498
Same to Mr. Lowry Nov. 15, 1819 130 498
Mr. Adams to Mr. Glenn Nov. 19, 1819 131 499
Mr. McCulloch to Mr. Jackson Dec. 3, 1819 131 499
Same to Captain Webster Dec. 3, 1819 132 499
Mr. McCulloch to any officer of the United States Navy or Army Dec. 18, 1819 133 500
Same to Captain Webster Jan. 8, 1820 134 500
Same to same Dec. 18, 1819 134 500
Same to Mr. Glenn Jan. 11, 1820 135 501
Mr. Adams to Mr. Drayton Apr. 15, 1820 136 501
Same to Mr. Nicholson Apr. 17, 1820 137 502
Same to Austin May 25, 1820 138 502
Same, to Mr. Prince May 25, 1820 139 503
Same to Mr. Parker July 29, 1820 140 503
Mr. McCulloch to Mr. Glenn Aug. 2, 1820 143 504
Mr. McCulloch to Mr. Glenn Nov. 1, 1820 144 505
Same to Captain Webster Nov. 3, 1820 145 505
Same to same Dec. 13, 1820 146 506
Same to Mr. Lowry Aug. 18, 1821 147 506
Same to Mr. Crawford Oct. 3, 1821 147 506
Same to same (inclosing report of J. Bum, inspector) Nov. 8, 1821 149 507
Same to Captain Webster Nov. 15, 1821 150 508
Same to Mr. Lowry Dec. 16, 1822 151 508
Same to Mr. Johnston Mar. 19, 1823 152 508
Same to Mr. Crawford Mar. 26, 1823 154 509
Same to Mr. Lowry Aug. 9, 1824 156 510
Same to Captain Webster Aug. 9, 1824 156 510
Mr. Sterling to Mr. Williams Jan. 30, 1872 158 511
Mr. Graham to Commodore McCauley Nov. 17, 1851 163 512
Mr. Fillmore to General Hitchcock United States Army Nov. 18, 1851 165 512
Mr. Conrad to General Hitchcock United States Army Nov. 19, 1851 166 513
General Hitchcock to Mr. Hammond Sept. 22, 1853 168 514
Mr. Hammond to Mr. Guthrie Sept. 30, 1853 169 514
Same to General Hitchcock Sept 30, 1853 170 515
Same to Commodore Dulany Sept. 30, 1853 171 515
Same to General Richardson Sept. 30, 1853 173 516
Mr. Davis to General Wool Jan. 12, 1854 174 516
Mr. Cushing to Mr. Inge Jan. 16, 1854 174 517
President’s proclamation Jan. 18, 1854 175 517
Extract from President’s message Dec. 4, 1854 177 518
Mr. Cushing to Mr. Mckeon Apr. 25, 1855 178 518
Same to same May 25, 1855 179 519
Same to the President Aug. 9, 1855 181 519
Same to Mr. McClelland Aug. 24, 1855 221 532
Same to Mr. Mckeon Sept. 10, 1855 223 532
Same to Mr. Van Dyke Sept. 12, 1855 223 533
Same to same Sept. 17, 1855 225 533
Report of the case of Hertz vs. Perkins, charged with enlisting men for the Crimea. 1855 227 534
Mr. Cushing to Mr. Van Dyke Sept. 12, 1855 461 617
Same to same Sept. 17, 1855 463 617
Confession of Henry Hertz Oct. 11, 1855 465 618
Mr. Cushing to district attorneys, (circular) Dec. 8, 1855 498 626
[Page 419]Mr. Cushing to Mr. Hallet and Mr. Jewett Dec, 8, 1855 499 626
Same to Mr. Inge and Mr. Ord Dec. 11, 1855 500 627
Same to Mr. Van Dyke Dec. 12, 1855 501 627
Mr. Van Dyke to Mr. dishing Dec. 14, 1855 502 628
Mr. McCoy to same Dec. 18, 1855 502 628
Inclosure: Mr. McCoy to Colonel Porter Dec. 17, 1855 503 629
The President to Mr. McCoy Dec. 26, 1855 504 629
Mr. Gushing to Mr. McKeon Dec. 24, 1855 504 629
Mr. McKeon to Mr. Cushing Dec. 26, 1855 506 630
Mr. Cushing to Mr. McKeon Dec. 27, 1855 506 630
Mr. Addison to Mr. Cushing Dec. 28, 1855 508 631
Mr. Pierce to Captain Bigelow Jan. 9, 1856 508 631
Mr. Joachinson to Mr. Cushing Jan. 9, 1856 509 631
Mr. Cushing to Mr. Cannon Jan. 14, 1856 509 632
Mr. Cannon to Mr. Cushing Jan. 16, 1856 510 632
Mr. McKeon to Mr. Cushing Jan. 16, 1856 510 632
Same to same Jan. 16, 1856 511 633
Mr. Cushing to Mr. McKeon Jan. 19, 1856 512 633
Mr. Ord to Mr. Cushing Feb. 16, 1856 512 633
Same to same Feb. 16, 1856 513 634
Mr. Cushing to Mr. Inge Mar. 1, 1856 514 634
Mr. Inge to Mr. Cushing Apr. 1, 1856 514 634
Mr. McCoy to Mr. Cushing Apr. 9, 1856 516 635
Same to same Apr. 10, 1856 517 635
Charge of Judge Willson to the grand jury, southern district of Ohio. (Extract.) 1856 517 636
Mr. Cushing to the President May 27, 1856 521 637
President’s message May 29, 1856 543 645
Mr. Dallas to Mr. Marcy May 1, 1856 544 645
In closures: Mr. Dallas to Lord Clarendon May 1, 1856 544 645
Lord Clarendon to Mr. Dallas Apr. 30, 1856 546 646
Mr. Marcy to Mr. Dallas May 27, 1856 572 655
Same to Mr. Crampion May 28, 1856 604 665
Same to Mr. Barclay May 28, 1856 605 666
Inclosure: Revocation to exequatur May 28, 1856 606 666
Same to Mr. Rowcroft May 28, 1856 607 667
Mr. Cushing to Mr. McKeon Dec. 17, 1856 609 667
Same to Mr. Marcy Dec. 17, 1856 609 667
Same to Mr. McKeon Dec. 12, 1856 610 668
Mr. McKeon to Mr. Vanderbilt Dec. 18, 1856 610 668
President’s message Jan. 7, 1858 612 668
Inclosure No. 1: Mr. Toucey to Commander Chatard Oct. 2, 1857 621 671
Inclosure No. 2: Mr. Cass to______ Sept. 18, 1857 622 672
Inclosure No. 3: Mr. Toucey to Flag-Officer Paulding, United States Navy Oct. 3, 1857 623 672
Inclosure C: Flag Officer Paulding to Mr. Rynders Dec. 11, 1857 624 673
Inclosure No. 17: Same to Mr. Toucey Dec. 15, 1857 625 673
Mr. Kennedy to Mr. Black Nov. 25, 1858 629 674
Mr. Semmes to same Dec. 27, 1858 630 675
Mr. Miller to same Sept. 1, 1859 630 675
Same to same Sept. 9, 1859 631 676
Mr. Hatch to the President Sept. 22, 1859 631 676
Same to same Sept. 27, 1859 633 677
Mr. Miller to Mr. Black Oct. 7, 1859 634 677
Same to same, (telegram) Oct. 8, 1859 635 678
Mr. Kennedy to same, (telegram) Oct. 8. 1859 635 678
Mr. Miller to same Oct. 10, 1859 636 678
Mr. Miller to Mr. Black Oct. 20, 1859 638 679
President’s message June 1, 1850 641 680
Mr. Clayton to the President May 31, 1850 642 681
Same to Mr. Hunton Aug. 9, 1849 642 681
Same to Don A. C. de la Barca Aug. 9, 1849 646 682
Same to Mr. Hall Aug. 10, 1849 646 683
President’s message Aug. 11, 1849 648 683
Mr. Clayton to Don A. C. de la Barca Aug. 17, 1849 650 684
Same to district attorney of Alabama Aug. 23, 1849 651 685
Same to Mr. Hall, (telegram) Sept. 6, 1849 652 685
Same to same, (telegram) Sept. 6, 1849 652 685
Same to same, (telegram) Sept. 7, 1849 653 685
Mr. Hall to Mr. Clayton Sept. 8, 1849 653 666
Mr. Clayton to Mr. Hall Sept. 19, 1849 656 687
Mr. Sewell to Mr. Clayton Oct. 25, 1849 657 687
Mr. Clayton to Don A. C. de la Barca Jan. 22, 1850 658 688
Same to Mr. Hunton Jan. 22, 1850 659 688
Same to Don A. C. de la Barca May 18, 1850 660 689
Same to Mr. Hall May 17, 1850 663 690
Mr. Hall to Mr. Clayton May 20, 1850 665 691
Same to same May 25, 1850 665 691
[Page 420]Mr. Clayton to Mr. Williams, (telegram) May 25, 1850 666 692
Mr. Hall to Mr. Clayton May 25, 1850 666 692
Same to same May 25, 1850 667 692
Mr. Clayton to Mr. Hall May 26, 1850 668 693
General Jones to Colonel Crane Aug. 24, 1849 668 693
Mr. Preston to the President May 25, 1850 670 694
Mr. Preston to Commodore Sloat May 15, 1850 670 694
Same to Commodore Downes May 15, 1850 670 694
Same to Commodore Parker May 15, 1850 671 695
Same to Commodore Tatnall May 15, 1850 671 695
Same to same May 17, 1850 674 696
Same to Captain Newton, (telegram) May 16, 1850 675 697
Same to Commodore Parker Aug. 9, 1849 676 697
Same to Lieutenant Hunter Aug. 14, 1849 679 698
Same to Captain McCauley Aug. 14, 1849 681 699
Same to Commodore Parker Aug. 14, 1849 682 700
Same to Commodore Lowndes Aug. 21, 1849 683 700
Same to Commodore Downes Aug. 21, 1849 684 701
Same to Commodore Parker Aug. 23, 1849 685 701
Commodore Randolph to Mr. Preston Aug. 28, 1849 686 701
Inclosure, Commodore Randolph to the persons encamped on Round Island. Aug. 28, 1849 688 702
Commandant Newton to Mr. Preston Aug. 31, 1849 691 704
Inclosures, Commandant Newton to Commander Randolph Aug. 17, 1849 692 704
Same to same Aug. 18, 1849 692 704
Same to Lieutenant-Commandant Totten Aug. 19, 1849 693 705
Same to same Aug. 20, 1849 694 705
Same to same Aug. 20, 1849 695 706
Same to Lieutenant-Commandant Farrand Aug. 23, 1849 695 706
Same to same Aug. 27, 1849 696 706
Same to same Aug. 28, 1849 697 707
Same to Commander Parker Aug. 27, 1849 697 707
Same to Commander Randolph Aug. 28, 1849 698 707
Same to Master Pearson Aug. 28, 1849 698 708
Same to same Aug 28, 1849 699 708
Same to Commander Randolph Sept 6, 1849 700 708
Mr. Preston to Commander Randolph Sept. 20, 1849 701 709
Mr. Meredith to Mr. Peters Aug. 10, 1849 701 709
Same to collectors, (circular) May 28, 1850 703 710
President’s proclamation Aug. 11, 1849 704 710
President’s proclamation Apr. 25, 1851 705 711
President’s proclamation Dec. 8, 1855 707 712
President’s proclamation Oct. 30, 1858 708 712

correspondence relative to the monitors catawba and oneota, at new orleans.

From whom and to whom. Date. Geneva edition. Present edition.
Page. Page.
Mr. Goni to Mr. Seward May 23, 1868 713 714
Same to same June 30, 1868 715 715
Mr. Seward to Mr. Goni July 9, 1868 717 716
Mr. Goni to Mr. Seward July 29, 1868 722 718
Same to same Nov. 24, 1868 728 720
Mr. Seward to Mr. Goni Nov. 30, 1868 729 721
Mr. Garcia to Mr. Seward May 8, 1868 730 722
Same to same July 28, 1868 731 722
Mr. Roberts to Mr. Fish Apr. 3, 1869 731 722
Mr. Fish to Mr. Roberts Apr. 7, 1869 733 723
Same to same Apr. 14, 1869 734 724
Mr. Roberts to Mr. Fish Apr. 15, 1869 735 724

correspondence relative to the florida, at philadelphia.

From whom and to whom. Date. Geneva edition. Present edition.
Page. Page.
Mr. Fish to Mr. Boutwell Apr. 3, 1869 737 725
Same to Mr. Hoar Apr. 3, 1869 737 725
Mr. Hoar to Mr. Fish Apr. 10, 1869 738 725
Mr. Boutwell to Mr. Fish Apr. 12, 1869 739 726
Inclosures: Mr. Moore to Mr. Boutwell Apr. 8, 1869 741 727
Mr. Litzenberg to collector of customs, Philadelphia Apr. 8, 1869 741 727
Mr. Boutwell to collector of customs, Philadelphia Apr. 12, 1869 742 728
Mr. Hoar to Mr. Smith May 14, 1869 743 728
Mr. Fish to Mr. Hoar May 15, 1869 744 728
[Page 421]Mr. Hoar to Mr. Smith May 18, 1869 744 729
Same to Mr. Andrews May 18, 1869 744 729
Inclosure: Mr. Hoar to Mr. Barlow May 10, 1869 745 729
Mr. Hoar to Mr. Fish May 18, 1869 749 730
Same to same May 18, 1869 750 731
Mr. Fish to Mr. Murray July 29, 1869 750 731
Same to Mr. Roberts Oct. 7, 1869 751 732

correspondence relative to the spanish gun-boats at new york.

From whom and to whom. Date. Geneva edition. Present edition.
Page. Page.
Admiral Porter to Mr. Fish, (with inclosure) May 15, 1869 753 732
Mr. Davis to Mr. Robeson Aug. 3, 1869 754 733
Admiral Porter to Mr. Fish Aug. 4, 1869 755 733
Mr. Field to Mr. Davis Aug. 4, 1869 755 733
Mr. Field to Mr. Pierrepont, (telegram) Aug. 3, 1869 756 734
Mr. Pierrepont to Mr. Hoar, (telegram) Aug. 3, 1869 757 734
Mr. Barlow to Mr. Hoar, (telegram) Aug. 4, 1869 757 735
Mr. Davis to Mr. Pierrepont Aug. 4, 1869 758 735
Mr. Barlow to Mr. Hoar Aug. 4, 1869 759 735
Mr. Davis to Mr. Barlow Aug. 4, 1869 761 736
Mr. Fish to Mr. Robeson Aug. 10, 1869 762 737
Mr. Barlow to Mr. Hoar, (telegram) Aug. 10, 1869 763 737
Inclosures: Mr. Fish to Mr. Pierrepont Aug. 10, 1869 764 737
Same to Mr. Barlow Aug. 10, 1869 764 738
Mr. Barlow to Mr. Hoar, (telegram) Aug. 10, 1869 765 738
Mr. Field to Mr. Barlow, (telegram) Aug. 11, 1869 765 738
Mr. Smith to Mr. Fish Aug. 11, 1869 766 739
Mr. Davis to Mr. Barlow Aug. 13, 1869 767 739
Same to Mr. Hoar Aug. 13, 1869 767 739
Mr. Fish to Mr. Boutwell Sept. 14, 1869 768 740
Mr. Fish to Mr. Pierrepont Nov. 25, 1869 769 740
Mr. Pierrepont to Mr. Fish Nov. 25, 1869 770 741
Mr. Fish to Mr. Pierrepont Nov. 25, 1869 771 741
Mr. Harlow to Mr. Fish Nov. 26, 1869 773 742
Mr. Roberts to Mr. Fish Nov. 27, 1869 774 743
Mr. Fish to Mr. Roberts Nov. 30, 1869 782 746
Mr. Hoar to Mr. Pierrepont Nov. 30, 1869 790 748
Mr. Roberts to Mr. Fish Dec. 1, 1869 790 749
Mr. Fish to Mr. Roberts Dec. 4, 1869 795 750
Same to same Dec. 8, 1869 797 751
Mr. Roberts to Mr. Fish Dec. 8, 1869 798 751
Mr. Fish to Mr. Pierrepont Dec. 8, 1869 799 752
Mr. Pierrepont to Mr. Fish Dec. 10, 1869 800 753
Mr. Hoar to Mr. Fish Dec. 16, 1869 801 753

PART II.

cuban correspondence. 1866–1871.

From whom and to whom. Date. Geneva edition. Present edition.
Page. Page.
Mr. Dickinson to Mr. Hunter, (telegram) Jan. 24, 1866 1 759
Mr. Hunter to Mr. Dickinson, (telegram) Jan. 25, 1866 759
Mr. Dickinson to Mr. Seward Feb. 17, 1866 2 759
Mr. Seward to Mr. Dickinson Mar. 31, 1866 3 760
Mr. Seward to Mr. McCulloch Apr. 10, 1866 3 760
Mr. McCulloch to Mr. Seward Apr. 11, 1866 4 761
Mr. Seward to Mr. Dickinson Apr. 11, 1866 5 761
Mr. Seward to Mr. Tassara Apr. 11, 1866 6 761
Mr. Seward to Mr. Welles Apr. 16, 1866 7 762
Mr. McCulloch to Mr. Seward Apr. 20, 1866 7 762
Mr. Turnbull to Mr. McCulloch Apr. 16, 1866 8 762
Mr. Speed to Mr. Kelby Apr. 21, 1866 8 763
Mr. Seward to Mr. McCulloch Apr. 21, 1866 9 763
Mr. Goodloe to Mr. Ashton May 5, 1866 10 763
Mr. Ash ton to Mr. Seward May 9, 1866 11 764
Mr. Seward to Mr. McCulloch May 9, 1866 11 764
Mr. Chandler to Mr. Seward Jan. 29, 1867 12 765
Mr. McCulloch to Mr. Seward Feb. 2, 1867 13 765
Mr. Smythe to Mr. McCulloch Jan. 30, 1867 13 765
Mr. Courtney to Mr. Seward Feb. 5, 1867 14 766
Mr. Smythe to Mr. Courtney Feb. 5, 1867 15 766
Mr. Herron to Mr. Browning July 13, 1868 17 767
[Page 422]Mr. Herring to Mr. Browning July 20, 1868 17 767
Mr. Seward to Mr. Evarts Nov. 11, 1868 21 769
Mr. Evarts to Mr. Courtney Nov. 14, 1868 22 769
Mr. Murray to Mr. Evarts Nov. 19, 1868 23 769
Spanish minister, (memorandum) Mar. 19, 1869 25 770
Mr. Fish to Mr. Boutwell Mar. 20, 1869 26 770
Mr. Fish to Mr. Hoar Mar. 20, 1869 27 771
Vice-Admiral Porter to Mr. Fish Mar. 22, 1869 27 771
Mr. Hoar to Mr. Bisbee Mar. 23, 1869 28 772
Mr. Hoar to district attorneys Mar. 23, 1869 29 772
Mr. Hoar to Mr. Fish Mar. 23, 1869 30 772
Mr. Fish to Mr. Buchanan Mar. 30, 1869 31 773
Mr. Boutwell to Mr. Fish Apr. 6, 1869 33 774
Mr. Mondy to Mr. Boutwell Mar. 26, 1869 33 774
Mr. Roux to Mr. Boutwell Mar. 29, 1869 34 774
Vice-Admiral Porter to Mr. Fish Apr. 6, 1869 35 775
Mr. Fish to Mr. Roberts Apr. 7, 1869 35 775
Mr. Porter to the President Apr. 21, 1869 36 775
Bear-Admiral Hoff to Mr. Borie Apr. 13, 1869 36 776
Commodore de Krafft to Bear-Admiral Hoff Apr. 11, 1869 37 776
Mr. Fish to Mr. Barlow May 7, 1869 39 777
Mr. Barlow to Mr. Fish, (telegram) May 7, 1869 777
Mr. Fish to Mr. Hoar May 8, 1869 39 777
Mr. Fish to Mr. Boutwell May 8, 1869 41 778
Mr. Barlow to Mr. Fish May 8, 1869 41 778
Mr. Fish to Mr. Barlow May 8, 1869 42 779
Mr. Barlow to Mr. Fish May 9, 1869 43 779
Mr. Hoar to Mr. Barlow May 10, 1869 44 779
Mr. Boutwell to Mr. Fish May 10, 1869 47 780
Mr. Hoar to Mr. Pierrepont May 11, 1869 47 781
Mr. Barlow to Mr. Fish May 11, 1869 47 781
Mr. Boutwell to Mr. Fish May 11, 1869 48 781
Mr. Grinnell to Mr. Boutwell May 10, 1869 49 782
Mr. Boutwell to Mr. Fish May 12, 1869 50 782
Mr. Grinnell to Mr. Boutwell May 11, 1869 51 783
Mr. Pierrepont to Mr. Hoar May 12, 1869 52 783
Mr. Fish to Mr. Hoar May 13, 1869 52 783
Mr. Davis to Mr. Barlow May —, 1869 53 784
Mr. Hoar to Mr. Pierrepont May 14, 1869 54 784
Mr. Boutwell to Mr. Fish May 14, 1869 54 784
Same to Mr. Grinnell May 14, 1869 55 785
Same to Mr. Moore May 14, 1869 56 785
Same to Mr. Fish May 18, 1869 56 786
Mr. Grinnell to Mr. Boutwell May 15, 1869 57 786
Mr. Hoar to Mr. Fish May 18, 1869 58 786
Mr. Pierrepont to Mr. Hoar May 17, 1869 59 787
Mr. Fish to Mr. Roberts May 20, 1869 59 787
Same to same May 21, 1869 60 787
Mr. Fish to Mr. Boutwell May 21, 1869 61 788
Mr. Boutwell to Mr. Grinnell May 21, 1869 61 788
Mr. Fish to Mr. Boutwell May 25, 1869 62 788
Mr. Hoar to Mr. Pierrepont June 17, 1869, 62 789
Mr. Pierrepont to Mr. Hoar June 18, 1869 63 789
Mr. Fish to Mr. Roberts June 18, 1869 63 789
Mr. Fish to Mr. Hoar June 19, 1869 64 789
Mr. Fish to Mr. Roberts June 19, 1869 64 790
Mr. Hoar to Mr. Barlow June 19, 1869 65 790
Mr. Boutwell to Mr. Fish June 24, 1869 65 790
Mr. Fish to Mr. Boutwell June 24, 1869 66 791
Mr. Boutwell to Mr. Moore June 24, 1869 67 791
Mr. Huckel to Mr. Boutwell June 24, 1869 67 791
Mr. Fish to Mr. Pierrepont June 26, 1869 68 792
Same to same June 26, 1869 69 792
Mr. Barlow to Mr. Hoar June 28, 1869 70 793
Same to same, (telegram) June 28, 1869 71 793
Same to same, (telegram) June 29, 1869 71 793
Mr. Pierrepont to Mr. Fish, (telegram) June 29, 1869 71 793
Mr. Fish to the President June 29, 1869 72 794
Mr. Fish to Mr. Pierrepont, (telegram) June 29, 1869 73 794
Mr. Pierrepont to Mr. Fish, (telegram) June 30, 1869 73 795
Same to same June 30, 1869 74 795
Mr. Field to Mr. Fish June 30, 1869 75 795
Mr. Barlow to Mr. Hoar June 29, 1869 75 796
Same to same, (telegram) June 29, 1869 76 796
Same to same June 30, 1869 77 796
Mr. Boutwell to Mr. Hoar June 30, 1869 77 797
Mr. Boutwell to Mr. Barlow June 30, 1869 78 797
Mr. Boutwell to Mr. Grinnell June 31, 1869 79 797
[Page 423]Mr. Boutwell to Mr. Thomas, (telegram) June 30, 1869 79 798
Mr. Boutwell to Mr. Marshall, (telegram) June 30, 1869 80 798
Mr. Boutwell to Mr. Nolan, (telegram) June 30, 1869 80 798
Mr. Boutwell to Mr. Grmnell, (telegram) June 30, 1869. 81 799
Mr. Boutwell to Mr. Moore, (telegram) June 30, 1869 81 799
Mr. Boutwell to Mr. Barlow, (telegram) June 30, 1869 82 799
Mr. Boutwell to Mr. Macey, (telegram) June 30, 1869 82 800
Mr. Barlow to Mr. Hoar, (telegram) July, 1, 1869 83 800
Mr. Field to Mr. P. Marshall, New Haven, (telegram) July 1, 1869 83 800
Mr. Field to Mr. Willey, (telegram) July 1, 1869 83 800
Mr. Field to Mr. Barlow, (telegram) July 1, 1869 84 801
Mr. Willey to Mr. Field, (telegram) July 1, 1869 84 801
Mr. Carll to Mr. Field, (telegram) July 2, 1869 85 801
Mr. Field to Mr. Willey, (telegram) July 2, 1869 86 802
Mr. Barlow to Mr. Hoar, (telegram) July 2, 1869 86 802
Mr. Field to Mr. Barlow, (telegram) July 2, 1869 87 802
Mr. Barlow to Mr. Hoar, (telegram) July 2, 1869 87 803
Same to same July 2, 1869 88 803
Mr. Davis to Mr. Pierrepont July 2, 1869 89 803
Mr. Field to Mr. Carll July 3, 1869 89 804
Mr. Barlow to Mr. Hoar, (telegram) July 3, 1869 91 804
Mr. Field to Mr. Barlow July 3, 1869 92 805
Mr. Hoar to Mr. Pierrepont July 6, 1869 92 805
Mr. M. de Harn to Mr. Thomas July 8, 1869 94 806
Mr. Bowman to Mr. de Harn July 10, 1869 95 806
Mr. Hoar to Mr. Barlow July 13, 1869 96 807
Same to Mr. Pierrepont July 12, 1869 97 807
Mr. Fish to Messrs. Pierrepont and Barlow July 13, 1869 98 808
Mr. Pierrepont to Mr. Fish, (telegram) July 15, 1869. 102 809
Mr. Barlow to Mr. Fish, (telegram) July 15, 1869 102 810
Same to same, (telegram) July 15, 1869 102 810
Mr. Fish to Mr. Pierrepont July 15, 1869 103 810
Mr. Fish to Mr. Roberts July 15, 1869 104 811
Mr. Fish to Mr. Hoar July 16, 1869 105 811
Mr. Hoar to Mr. Fish July 16, 1869 105 811
Mr. Fish to Mr. Barlow July. 30, 1869 106 812
Mr. Field to Mr. Talbot Aug. 16, 1869 106 812
Mr. Potestad to Mr. Davis Aug. 21, 1869 107 813
(Memorandum inclosed) Aug. 21, 1869 107 813
Mr. Davis to Mr. Potestad Aug. 24, 1869 108 813
Mr. Morrill to Mr. Hoar, (telegram) Aug. 31, 1869 109 814
Mr. Field to Mr. Milledge, (telegram) Sept. 1, 1869 109 814
Mr. Milledge to Mr. Hoar, (telegram) Sept. 2, 1869 109 814
Same to same, (telegram) Sept. 3, 1869 110 815
Mr. Field to Mr. Milledge, (telegram) 110 815
Mr. Milledge to Mr. Hoar, (telegram) Sept. 3, 1869 110 815
Same to same, (telegram) Sept. 3, 1869 111 815
Mr. Richardson to Mr. Robb, (telegram) Sept. 3, 1869 111 816
Mr. Field to Mr. Rawlins Sept. 3, 1869 112 816
General Townsend to General Terry Sept. 4, 1869 113 817
Mr. Riehardson to Mr. Casey, (telegram) Sept. 4, 1869 114 817
Mr. Richardson to collector of Mobile, (telegram) Sept. 4, 1869 114 817
Mr. Field to Mr. Milledge, (telegram) Sept. 4, 1869 114 818
Same to same, (telegram) Sept. 4, 1869 115 818
Mr. Milledge to Mr. Hoar, (telegram) Sept. 6, 1869 115 818
Mr. Milledge to Mr. Hoar, (telegram) Sept. 6, 1869 116 818
Mr. Milledge to Mr. Weems Sept. 6, 1869 117 819
Mr. Field to Mr. Baldwin Sept. 13, 1869 118 819
Mr. Davis to Mr. Boutwell Sept. 28, 1869 118 820
Mr. Harlow to Mr. Fish Nov. 8, 1869 119 820
Mr. Fish to Mr. Harlow Nov. 12, 1869 120 820
Mr. Harlow to Mr. Fish Nov. 10, 1869 120 821
Mr. Boutwell to Mr. Fish Nov. 10, 1869 121 821
Mr. Moore to Mr. Boutwell Nov. 9, 1869 122 821
Mr. Goodrich to Mr. Moore Nov. 9, 1869 123 822
Mr. Fish to Mr. Boutwell Nov. 12, 1869 123 822
Mr. Fish to Mr. Robeson Nov. 11, 1869 124 823
Mr. Robeson to Mr. Fish Nov. 13, 1869 125 823
Same to same Nov. 15, 1869 125 823
Mr. Richardson to Mr. Fish Nov. 16, 1869 ‘ 126 823
Mr. Hoar to Mr. Fish Nov. 15, 1869 127 824
Mr. Smith to Mr. Hoar Nov. 13, 1869 127 824
Mr. Young to Mr. Gregory Nov. 10, 1869 128 825
Mr. Harlow to Mr. Fish Nov. 20, 1869 129 825
Same to same Dec. 7, 1869 130 826
Same to same Apr. 27, 1870 131 826
Mr. Fish to Mr. Pierrepont July 7, 1870 132 827
[Page 424]Mr. Field to Mr. Davis Aug. 16, 1869 135 827
Mr. Barlow to Mr. Hoar Aug. 14, 1869 135 828
Mr. Field to Mr. Smith Aug. 13, 1869 136 828
Mr. Valentine to Mr. Field Aug. 16, 1869 136 828
Same to same Aug. 16, 1869 137 828
Mr. Gregory to Mr. Valentine Aug. 16, 1869 138 829
Captain Jones to Mr. Valentine Aug. 16, 1869 139 829
Mr. Field to Mr. Davis Aug. 18, 1869 140 830
Mr. Valentine to Mr. Field Aug. 17, 1869 140 830
Mr. Gregory to Mr. Smith Aug. 17, 1869 142 831
Mr. Young to Mr. Gregory Aug. 16, 1869 143 831
Mr. Field to Mr. Barlow Aug. 18, 1869 146 832
Mr. Davis to Mr. Boutwell July 18, 1869 146 833
Mr. Davis to Mr. Barlow Aug. 18, 1869 147 833
Mr. Harlow to Mr. Fish Aug. 19, 1869 147 833
Mr. Davis to Mr. Barlow Aug. 19, 1869 148 834
Mr. Harlow to Mr. Fish Aug. 19, 1869 153 835
Mr. Davies to Mr. Barlow Aug. 19, 1869 153 835
Mr. Barlow to Mr. Hoar Aug. 19, 1869 155 836
Mr. Field to Mr. Davis Aug. 19, 1869 156 837
Mr. Valentine to Mr. Field Aug. 20, 1869 156 837
Mr. Harlow to Mr. Gregory Aug. 19, 1869 157 837
Mr. Hunter to Mr. Field Aug. 20, 1869 157 837
Mr. Field to Mr. Smith Aug. 21, 1869 158 838
Mr. Davis to Mr. Barlow Sept. 29, 1869 158 838
Mr. Hoar to Mr. Barlow Sept. 29, 1869 159 838
Mr. Barlow to Mr. Hoar Oct. 1, 1869 160 839
Warrant for arrest of Hornet 163 840
Mr. Hartley to General Sherman Oct. 4, 1869 164 841
Mr. Rumley to Mr. Boutwell Oct. 3, 1869 164 841
Mr. Hartley to General Sherman Oct. 4, 1869 165 841
Mr. Rumley to Mr. Boutwell Oct. 4, 1869 166 842
Mr. Boutwell to General Sherman Oct. 4, 1869 166 842
General Sherman to commanding officer, Fort Johnson Oct. 4, 1869 167 842
General Sherman to Mr. Rumley Oct. 4, 1869 167 843
General Kelton to General Terry, (telegram) Oct. 5, 1869 168 843
Mr. Boutwell to Mr. Rumley Oct. 5, 1869 168 843
Same to same Oct. 5, 1869 169 843
Mr. Barlow to Mr. Fish (telegram) Oct. 7, 1869 170 844
Mr. Hoar to Mr. Starbuck Oct. 6, 1869 170 844
Vice-Admiral Porter to Mr. Fish Oct. 7, 1869 171 844
Mr. Rumley to Mr. Boutwell, (telegram) Oct. 7, 1869 171 845
Mr. Boutwell to Mr. Robb, (telegram) Oct. 7, 1869 172 845
Mr. Boutwell to Mr. Rumley, (telegram) Oct, 7, 1869 172 845
Mr. Boutwell to Mr. Rumley, (telegram) Oct. 7, 1869 173 846
Vice-Admiral Porter to the President Oct. 7, 1869 173 646
Vice-Admiral Porter to Rear-Admiral Stringham Oct. 7, 1869 174 846
Vice-Admiral Porter to commanding officer, Key West Oct. 7, 1869 175 847
Vice-Admiral Porter to Bear-Admiral Godon, (telegram) Oct. 7, 1869 175 847
Vice-Admiral Porter to the President Oct. 8, 1869 176 847
Rear-Admiral Godon to Vice-Admiral Porter, (telegram) Oct. 7, 1869 176 848
Commander Queen to Mr. Robeson Oct. 7, 1869 176 848
Vice-Admiral Porter to the President Oct. 8, 1869 177 848
Rear-Admiral Godon to Mr. Robeson Oct. 8, 18,69 177 848
Messrs. Parson and French to Mr. Hoar Oct. 11, 1869 178 849
Mr. Starbuck to Mr. Hoar Oct. 11, 1869 178 849
Messrs. Parson and French to Mr. Hoar Oct. 9, 1869 179 849
Same to same Oct. 12, 1869 179 850
Mr. Fish to Mr. Hoar Oct. 12, 1869 180 850
Mr. Phelps to Mr. Hoar Oct. 20, 1869 181 850
Mr. Hoar to Mr. Phelps Oct. 30, 1869 182 851
Mr. Carron to Mr. Hoar Nov. 5, 1869 184 851
Mr. Phelps to Mr. Hoar Nov. 22, 1869 186 852
Mr. Field to Mr. Phelps Nov. 23, 1869 187 853
Mr. Phelps to Mr. Hoar Nov. 29, 1869 188 853
Mr. Starbuck to Mr. Hoar Dec. 30, 1869 189 854
Mr. Macias, to the President June 1, 1870 190 854
Mr. Hoar to Mr. Fish June 11, 1870 192 855
Mr. Hoar to Mr. Starbuck June 11, 1870 192 855
Mr. Fish to Mr. Davis, (telegram) Oct. 6, 1870 194 856
Memoranda 195 856
[Page 425]

supplemental memoranda and diplomatic correspondence touching neutral laws, and the execution thereof, in countries other than the united states and great britain.

[Papers to which this index refers will be found in Volume II.]

From whom and to whom. Date. Geneva edition. Present edition.
I.—FRANCE.
No. 1—The Code Penal et Commentaries. Page. Page.
The Code Pénal et Commentaries 199 1
Dalloz, Jurisprudence generale, tome xiv, p. 531 200 1
Dalloz, General Jurisprudence, (translation,) tome xiv, p. 531 209 4
Theorie du Code Penal d’A. Chauveau et F. Helie, tome ii, p. 58 et seq 217 7
Theory of the Penal Code, (translation,) tome ii, p. 58 et seq 226 10
Dalloz, Jurisprudence generale, tome xxxiv, reporter p. 1680 234 13
Dalloz, General Jurisprudence, (translation,) vol. xxxiv, p. 1680 et seq 236 14
No. 2.—The Arman Contract.
Consultation de M. Berryer, Nov. 12, 1865 238 15
Opinion de M. Berryer, (translation) 262 23
Correspondence relative to Arman Rama: Mr. Dayton to Mr. Seward Sept. 18, 1863 285 31
Mr. Dayton to Mr. Seward Oct. 8, 1863 286 31
Mr. de Lhuys to Mr. Dayton, (translation) Oct. 15, 1863 288 32
In closure of the minister of the marine to the minister of foreign affairs, (translation.) Oct. 12, 1863 290 33
Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys to Mr. Dayton, (translation) Oct. 22, 1863 292 34
Mr. Dayton to Mr. Seward Nov. 27, 1863 294 34
Same to same Dec. 31, 1863 294 34
Same to same Feb. 5, 1864 295 35
Same to same Feb. 19, 1864 296 35
Same to same Mar. 11, 1864 297 35
Discours de M. Rouher, ministre d’etat May 12, 1864 298 36
Speech of Mr. Rouher, minister of state, (translation) May 12, 1864 301 37
Mr. Dayton to Mr. Seward May 16, 1864 303 38
Mr. Seward to Mr. Dayton June 28, 1864 304 38
Mr. Dayton to Mr. Seward Sept. 30, 1864 305 39
No. 3.—Case of the Rappahannock.
Mr. Dayton to Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys Dec. 4, 1863 307 39
Mr. Dayton to Mr. Seward Dec. 25, 1863 40
Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys to Mr. Dayton, (translation) Dec. 23, 1863 310 40
Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys to Mr. Dayton, (translation) Jan. 13, 1864 311 41
Mr. Dayton to Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys Feb. 2, 1864 312 41
Rules in regard to belligerent vessels in French ports, (translation) Feb. 5, 1864 313 42
Mr. Day ton to Mr. Seward Feb. 19, 1864 316 43
Mr. Gosselin au Lieutenant Campbell Feb. 4, 1864 318 44
Mr. Gosselin to Lieutenant Campbell Feb. 10, 1864 320 45
Mr. Gosselin to Lieutenant Campbell, (translation) Feb. 4, 1864 321 45
Same to same, (translation) Feb. 10, 1864 322 46
Mr. Dayton to Mr. Seward Mar. 25, 1864 323 47
Mr. Seward to Mr. Dayton May 20, 1864 324 47
Mr. Dayton to Mr. Seward June 10, 1864 325 47
The minister of marine to the vice-admiral at Cherbourg, (translation) June 15, 1864 326 48
Mr. Bieelow to Mr. Seward Mar. 3, 1865 327 48
Mr. Slidell to M. Drouyn de Lhuys June 9, 1864 328 49
Mr. Benjaminto Mr. Slidell June 23, 1864 330 50
Mr. Slidell to Mr. Benjamin June 30, 1864 332 50
Same to the Duke de Persigny June 17, 1864 333 51
Same to Mr. Benjamin Aug. 8, 1864 336 52
ii.—italy.
Codice penale del Regno d’ltalia 52
Penal statute of the Kingdom of Italy, (translation) 339 53
Codici degli ex stati Estensi 341 53
Statute of the ancient states of Este, (translation) 343 54
iii.—portugal.
No. 1.—Code and Commentary.
Code and commentary 348 55
Code and commentary, (translation) 375 63
No. 2.—Efforts to preserve the neutrality of the Azores and Madeira.
Mr. Harvey to Mr. Seward Oct. 3, 1862 403 73
Mr. Harvey to Mr. Seward Jan. 20, 1864 405 74
[Page 426]Inclosure: Duke de Louie to Mr. Harvey, (translation) Jan. 16, 1864 405 74
Duke de Louie to Mr. Harvey, (translation) Jan. 23, 1864 406 74
Inclosure: Instructions to the governors of the Azores and Madeira, (translation.) Jan. 23, 1864 408 75
The Duke de Louie to Mr. Harvey, (translation) Jan. 23, 1864 409 76
Mr. Harvey to the Duke de Louie Jan. 25, 1864 410 76
Mr. Harvey to Mr. Seward Jan. 30, 1864 411 76
The Duke’de Louie to Mr. Harvey, (translation) Jan. 29, 1864 412 77
Mr. Harvey to Mr. Seward Feb. 2, 1864 413 77
Inclosure: The Duke de Louie to Mr. Harvey, (translation) Jan. 29, 1864 413 78
No. 3.—Limitation of asylum to the Florida at Funchal.
Mr. Harvey to Mr. Seward May 24, 1864 414 78
Inclosures: Governor Perdigao to captain of the port of Funchal, (translation) Feb. 28, 1864 415 78
Captain of the port of Funchal to Governor Perdigao, (translation) Feb. 28, 1864 416 79
Lieutenant Morris to the captain of the port Feb. 28, 1864 417 79
Captain of the port to Governor Perdigao, (translation) Feb. 29, 1864 417 80
Lieutenant Morris to the captain of the port Feb. 29, 1864 418 80
Governor Perdigao to same, (translation) Feb. 29, 1864 419 81
Same to the director of customs, (translation) Feb. 29, 1864 421 81
Same to the United States Consul, (translation) Feb. 29, 1864 422 82
Captain of the port to Governor Perdigao, (translation) Mar. 1, 1864 424 83
No. 4.—Case of the Stonewall at Lisbon.
Mr. Harvey to Mr. Seward Mar. 28, 1865 424 83
Duke de Louie to Mr. Harvey Mar. 28, 1865 426 84
iv.—brazil.
Codigo criminal 431 84
Criminal code, (translation) 435 86
v.—spain.
No. 1.—Penal Code.
Penal code 441 87
Penal code, (translation) 451 91
No. 2.—Case of the Stonewall.
Mr. Perry to Mr. Seward Feb 4, 1865 462 95
Mr. Benavides to Mr. Perry, (translation) Feb. 12, 1865 464 96
Mr. Perry to Mr. Seward Feb. 20, 1865 466 96
Same to same Feb. 25, 1865 467 97
Inclosures: Mr. Benavides to Mr. Perry, (translation) Feb. 21, 1865 467 97
Mr. Perry to Mr. Benavides Mar. 7, 1865 470 98
The military governor of Ferrol to the consular agent of the United States, (translation.) Mar. 10, 1865 471 98
Mr. Benavides to Mr. Perry, (translation) Mar. 21, 1865 472 99
Same to same, (translation) Mar. 22, 1865 472 99
Mr. Perry to Mr. Benavides Mar. 23, 1865 473 99
Mr. Benavides to Mr. Perry, (translation) Mar. 24, 1865 475 100
Same to same, (translation) Apr. 1, 1865 476 101
vi.—switzerland.
No. 1. Code pénal fédêral. (Extrait) 482 101
No. 2. Notification du conseil féderal concernant la neutralité de la Suisse Mar. 14, 1859 483 102
No 3 Ordonhance concernant le maintiené de la neutralité de la Suisse Mai 20, 1859 487 103
No. 4. Rapport du conseil fédéral à l’asseniblée federale sur les mesures prises dans l’intéret de la neutralité. Juil. 1, 1859 490 104
No. 5. Loi fédérale concernant les enrolements pour un service militaire étranger. Juil. 30, 1859 495 106
No. 6. Message du conseil fédéral à la haute assernblée fédérale concernant le maintien de la neutralité pendant la guerre entre la France et l’Allemagne. Juin 28, 1871 498 107
No. 7. Ordonnance concernant le maintien de la neutralité de la Suisse Juil. 16, 1870 501 108
No. 8. Message du conseil fédéral à la haute assemblée fédérale concernant le maintien de la neutralité Suisse pendant la guerre entre la France et l’Allemagne. Déc. 8, 1870 504 109
[Page 427]

additional memoranda touching neutrality laws and the execution thereof in countries other than the united states and great britain.

From whom and to whom. Date. Geneva edition. Present edition.
denmark. Mai 4, 1803 Page. Page.
Ordonnance du roi 519 117
Chancery circular Mai 20, 1823 532 121
Lettre patente concernant la rentrée en vigueur de l’ordonnance royale du 4 mai, 1803. Avr. 20, 1854 533 122
Extrait de la note circulaire contenant la déclaration de neutralité du roi 537 123
Translation Notice of the decree of the 4th of May, 1803 July 25, 1870 539 124
General instruction for commanders of ships in Danish waters during the state of neutrality of Denmark, (translation.) 541 124
Traduction française du § 76 du code pénal du 10 février, 1866 548 126
English translation of paragraph 76 of the Danish penal code of February 10, 1866. 549 127
10, 1866. Law relating to the registration of Danish ships, (translation) Mar. 13, 1867 550 127
prussia.
Memorandum Mar. 14, 1872 569 133
russia.
Code of laws of the Russian empire, (extracts) 570 134
the netherlands.
Extract from the penal code, (translation) 572 135
Circular, (translation) Apr. 14, 1854 573 135
Circular, (translation) Apr. 15, 1854 574 135
Circular, (translation) Apr. 16, 1854 575 136
Circular, (translation) June 17, 1861 576 136
sweden.
Ordonnance du roi Avr. 8, 1854 578 137
Communication officielle Juin 21, 1856 584 139
Ordonnance du roi Juil. 29, 1870 585 139
brazil.
Divers neutrality circulars.
No. 1 May 18, 1854 587 140
No 2 June 30, 1859 589 141
No. 3 Oct. 12, 1859 591 142
No. 4 Aug. 1, 1861 592 142
No. 5 June 23, 1863 594 143
No. 6 Dec. 17, 1864 601 146
No. 7 Aug. 27, 1870 602 146
No. 8 Oct. 14, 1870 605 147
No. 9 Oct. 29, 1870 606 148
No. 10, memorandum of questions between Brazil, Germany, and France 609 149
French passports to persons recruited in Rio for the French military service not vised by the police here to prevent departure of such persons. 624 154
Memoranda as to the Miranda expedition 625 154
Admiral Cochrane to General Miranda June 9, 1806 631 156
General Miranda to Admiral Cochrane June 9, 1806 634 157
Extracts from the history of Don F’co de Miranda’s attempt to effect a revolution in South America. Boston. 1808 635 157
Case of the Meteor and Oriental.
Mr. Dickinson to Mr. Hunter, (telegram) Jan. 24, 1866 641 160
Mr. Hunter to Mr. Dickinson, (telegram) Jan. 25, 1866 642 161
Mr. Dickinson to Mr. Seward Feb. 17, 1866 642 161
Mr. Seward to Mr. Dickinson Mar. 31, 1866 643 161
Mr. Seward to Mr. McCulloch Apr. 10, 1866 643 162
Mr. McCulloch to Mr. Seward Apr. 11, 1866 644 162
Mr. Seward to Mr. Dickinson Apr. 11, 1866 645 162
Mr. Seward to Mr. Cassara Apr. 11, 1866 646 163
The merchants’ shipping act Aug. 10, 1854 651 163
The customs consolidation act Aug. 20, 1853 681 174
The supplemental consolidation act Aug. 14, 1855 693 178
Additional evidence from Melbourne and Cape Town submitted to the arbitrators on the 15th of December, 1871, but not included in the evidence then printed. 697 179
Mr. Adamson to Mr. Davis Sept. 25, 1871 698 179
[Page 428]Inclosures:
Affidavit of G. W. Bobbins Sept. 21, 1871 707 182
Affidavit of S. P. Lord Sept. 25, 1871 710 183
Further affidavit of S. P. Lord Sept. 25, 1871 719 185
Affidavit of J. A. Monteath Sept. 25, 1871 720 186
Invoice of stores shipped on the Shenandoah at Melbourne —, 1871 723 188
Mr. Edgecomb to Mr. Fish Nov. 4, 1871 730 191
Inclosures:
Mr. Mills to Mr. Edgecomb Oct. 31, 1871 733 192
Affidavit of A. N. Blurk Oct. 7, 1871 732 191
Affidavit of Gordon Rennick Oct. 20, 1871 734 192
Verified copy of manifest of steamer Kadie — —, 1863 735 193
Verified statement of arrival and cargo of the Kadie — —, 1863 736 194
Verified statement of stores shipped on the Kadie — —, 1863 737 194
Verified statement of stores shipped on the Kadie — —, 1863 737 194
Mr. Edgecomb to Governor Barkley Oct. —, 1871 738 195
Mr. Mills to Mr. Edgecomb Oct. 17, 1871 739 195
Mr. Edgecomb to Governor Barkley Oct. 21, 1871 740 195
Mr. Grahame to Governor Wodehduse Aug. 4, 1863 741 196
[Page [429]]

THE COUNTER CASE OF THE UNITED STATES,

presented to

THE TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION,

AT GENEVA,

UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON,

APRIL 15, 1872.

*The IVth article of the treaty of Washington permits each party, within four months after the delivery of the case, to deliver in duplicate to the arbitrators, and to the agent of the other party, a counter case and additional documents, correspondence, and evidence, in reply to the case, documents, correspondence, and evidence presented by the other party. [1]

Availing themselves of this right, the United States present this as their counter case, together with additional documents, correspondence, and evidence, in reply to the case, documents, correspondence, and evidence submitted by Her Majesty’s government.

In laying this counter case before the tribunal of arbitration, they deem it proper to premise that they do not consider it within the province of this paper to discuss all the propositions within the British case which they regard as justly disputable or requiring argumentative discussion. So far as the positions taken by Her Majesty’s government in its case vary from those which the United States had the honor to lay before *the tribunal in their case, they respectfully refer to that document for an expression of the views which they regard as supported by sound principles of reason and by the acquiescence of other powers, and by the writings of publicists of authority. [2]

So far, too, as contestations of questions of fact are raised between the parties, on their respective cases, and the supporting evidence on either side, a mere renewal of the contestation in the counter case would be superfluous. The United States therefore refer to their original case for their views and estimates of the contested matters of fact.

It has seemed to them to be more in accordance with the spirit of the treaty, and with the convenience of the tribunal, thus to reserve for their counsel the general analysis and discussion of these matters, so far as they shall prove important in their bearing upon the substantial controversy between the parties in the argument which will be prepared by them for submission under the Vth article of the treaty, and in such oral arguments, if any, as the tribunal may express a wish to hear.

Reserving, therefore, their rights and the freedom of their counsel in these respects, they ask the attention of the tribunal to the following observations upon some of the main points of difference between the case and other matter submitted on the part of* Her Majesty’s government, and those submitted on the part of the United States. [3]

[Page 430]

I.

Certain errors of sense, which run through the case of Her Majesty’s government, first claim attention.

1.
It is assumed in that case that the rebels of the United States were, by Her Majesty’s proclamation of May 3, 1861, invested with some undefined political attributes. But the United States have hitherto understood that Her Majesty’s government merely assumed to regard the persons who resisted the power of the United States as a body of insurrectionists who might be recognized as clothed with belligerent rights at the discretion of neutral powers. They therefore think it right to conclude that the frequent use in the British Case of language implying recognized political attributes in the insurrection is an inadvertence.
2.
Her Majesty’s government assume that the reclamations of the United States are to be confined to claims growing out of the acts of the Florida, the Alabama, the Georgia, and the Shenandoah. The claims growing out of the acts of the other vessels named in the American case are regarded by the *United States as also embraced within the terms of the Treaty. They form part of the claims generally known as the “Alabama claims.” They are enumerated in the fourth of a series of five volumes printed by order of the Senate of the United States, which are part of the “documents, correspondence, and evidence” submitted with the case of the United States. These volumes, when thus collected and printed, were entitled: “Claims of the United States against Great Britain.” It is believed that under that title they were in the library of the foreign office at London before Her Majesty’s high commissioners received their instructions. It may also be said, without impropriety, that under the same title they were on the table of the joint high commission during the negotiations which preceded the conclusion of the treaty. The United States, therefore, while re-asserting their construction of the language of the treaty in this respect, feel that they have the right to ask the arbitrators to assume that Her Majesty’s high commissioners had notice of, and acquiesced in, that construction.[4]
3.
The United States are at a loss to understand why several observations are introduced into the British Case which apparently aim to limit the operation of the three rules of the treaty. If, by the principles of construction which are suggested, Her Majesty’s Government intend to ask for a modification *or change in those rules, the United States cannot too strongly protest against it. [5]
4.
It is averred in several places that some of the acts of which the United States complain were committed by American citizens. If these statements are introduced for the purpose of urging this fact as an excuse for the negligence of Her Majesty’s officials, or for any other supposed relevant purpose, the United States will ask the tribunal to take note that the “American citizens” referred to were criminals in the eye of American law, at the time when they were elevated to the rank of recognized belligerents against the United States by the act of Her Majesty’s government, an act in which the United States did not participate, and against which they have never ceased to protest. It would seem, therefore, to be impossible to impute to the United States any consequences of responsibility for the conduct of the persons thus described as “American citizens.”
[Page 431]

II.

Her Majesty’s government has also stated, in terms, many propositions, some of law, some of fact, some of mixed law and fact.

For the convenience of the arbitrators the United States call attention to some of the leading points of difference between the two cases, with the reservations *heretofore made as to the points not noticed, and as to the rights of counsel. [6]

1.
The British Case seems to concede that a belligerent who has wronged a neutral by violating its sovereignty and by forcing it to take part, indirectly, in a war, may, nevertheless, by some subsequent act, (such as commissioning without the jurisdiction of the neutral a vessel of war improperly constructed within its jurisdiction,) deprive the neutral of the right of taking cognizance of the original offense.
The United States suggest that such a right cannot be lost by the mere act of the offending belligerent.
2.
It appears to claim for vessels of rebels recognized as belligerents an exemption from national jurisdiction, which should be accorded, if at all, only to vessels of recognized sovereign powers, to which powers political representations can be made in case of violations of neutral sovereignty; and it ignores undoubted prerogatives of the Crown to exclude armed vessels from the national ports.
3.
It attempts to limit the operation of the words “due diligence” in a manner inconsistent with principles of law well established on the continent of Europe, in the United Kingdom, and in the United States. It sets up as the measure of care a standard which fluctuates with each succeeding government in the circuit of the globe, viz, “such care as governments *ordinarily employ in their domestic concerns.” [7]
4.
If the United States have correctly interpreted its somewhat vague language, on page 167, it asserts that, in a case like the present, a belligerent should be required to show on the part of a neutral, as a foundation for a claim for compensation, an absence of care nearly equivalent to willful negligence. The United States had notice that this point would be pressed by Her Majesty’s government. It had announced that its case would be prepared partly under the direction of an eminent and learned publicist-who had vigorously insisted upon it in his public writings on the neutrality of Great Britain in the American struggle. They therefore presented for the consideration of the arbitrators certain facts exhibiting an unfriendly feeling toward them on the part of individual members of Her Majesty’s government during the contest, which might naturally lead to, and would account for, a want of diligence bordering upon willful negligence. But, while thus anticipating this position of Her Majesty’s government’s case, they did not, and do not, assent to its correctness. They do not conceive that the law of nations tolerates the proposition that belligerents are required to submit, without redress, to the injuries of neutral negligence, till it reaches the extremity suggested.
5.
The British Case attempts to narrow the *international duties of a government to the exercise of the restraining powers conferred upon it by municipal law. [8]
6.
It overlooks the obligation of the neutral to amend its municipal laws, when the powers conferred by such law prove inadequate for the performance of international duties. In this view the many statements in the British Case as to the actual internal distribution of powers in Her Majesty’s government, though interesting, are irrelevant in measuring its external obligations.
7.
The British Case proposes that the liability of Great Britain to make indemnity to the United States should be limited to the cases which the United States cannot show, by affirmative proof, that they actively and diligently exerted their naval power to prevent. The United States contend that such a proposed limitation has no just foundation in sound principles of international or other law.

III.

Part II of the British case assumes to give an introductory statement of, (1.) “The events which attended and followed the commencement of the civil war in America;” (2.) “The course pursued by Great Britain in relation to the war;” (3.) The course pursued by “the other maritime powers” in relation thereto. *Part III assumes to give a “statement on international rights and duties on the powers which were possessed by Her Britannic Majesty’s government of preventing ‘unlawful equipments,’ and the manner and circumstances in and under which these powers were exercised during the war.” [9]

The United States, with the reservation heretofore made, now call attention only to some of the principal points of difference in this respect between the cases of the two governments.

1.
The United States insists that Her Majesty’s government is politically and historically in error in the assertion, on page 6, that the contest terminated in 1865 in the complete reconquest of the eleven Confederated States.
2.
If it be intended by the statement in page 7, that “in and soon after the month of May, 1861, a number of armed ships were fitted out and sent to sea from ports in the Confederate States,” to lead the arbitrators to suppose that there was any insurgent vessel preying on the commerce of the United States when the Florida or when the Alabama escaped from Liverpool, the United States cannot too strongly protest that Her Majesty government is in error in this respect.
3.
The United States have, in their case, called the attention of the tribunal to the acts of Belgium, *Portugal, Russia, and Prussia, which seem to have been overlooked by the authors of the British Case in their enumeration of the acts of the maritime powers. In regard to all the maritime powers the tribunal will doubtless observe that those which recognized the insurgents as lawful belligerents did so only after Great Britain, the principal maritime power, had elevated them under the name of the “Confederate States” to this rank, and had thus conferred upon them all the substantial advantages which they could gain from a general recognition by the maritime powers. They will also observe that the other governments did not recognize the title which the insurgents had taken for themselves. Thus, for example, the proclamation of the Emperor of the French spoke of them as “States which pretend to form a confederation; the circulars of the Dutch government spoke of “the doubtful complications in the United States of North America,” “the existing disturbances in the United States of America;” and the Brazilian circular expressly states that “the Confederate States have no legal existence.” [10]
4.
It is stated, on page 22, that “by the United States cruisers the ports and waters of Her Majesty’s dominions were resorted to for coaling and other purposes more frequently than by vessels of the Confederate States.” If by this it is intended to imply that, having regard to the great disparity of numbers between the vessels *of the United States and those of the insurgents, the United States [Page 433]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. [11]
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 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 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.” [13]
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 [Page 434]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 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 contest 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 unnecessary. [14]
*8.
[15] 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, allegation, or proof, furnish 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 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. [16]
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 [Page 435]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 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 against vessels under the statute. They have, on the spot where the preparations are being made, the district attorney, a legal officer responsible to the Government, to whom the duty of investigation is committed. The libel is in the nature of a proceeding in admiralty in rem. It is decided by a judge conversant *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.) [17] [18]
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 government would not thereby be relieved from *the duty of an independent, diligent, and vigilant watchfulness, in order to prevent [Page 436]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 representations, 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. [19]
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, (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. [20]
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 customs 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.

[21] *IV.

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 arbitrators 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,”

[Page 437]

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 municipal 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. [22]

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 vessel. 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 appendix, evidence which sustains the allegations in the American case that the Florida was, in outward appearance, a British man-of-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.” [23]
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 approved at the foreign office. *Until now, the United States have been unable to establish, without the help of presumptions,* all the links in the chain of evidence. [24]
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 regarding [Page 438]British municipal law. Their officials sought, during the rebellion, to induce Her Majesty’s government to stop the vessels constructed in Great Britain to cruise against the United States. They did not ask for their forfeiture, they did not object to a restoration to their owners, provided they were not to leave British waters to carry on war against the United States. It is necessary to bring the tribunal back to this simple proposition, which has been obscured by the irrelevant considations put forth by Her Majesty’s government.
7.
It is scarcely necessary to say that the United States deny the allegations regarding the supposed negligence of their Navy.

VI.

[25] The statements made regarding the Alabama *in the VIth part of the British case conflict but little with those made in the American case. In many respects they strengthen the American statement.

1.
There is no discrepancy as to what took place in Liverpool prior to the escape of the vessel. Some new facts are introduced. For example: (a) That in reply to Mr. Adam’s first representations, the law-officers of the Crown advised that he should be informed that Her Majesty’s government was investigating the case, and that their course would depend upon the nature and the sufficiency of any evidence of a breach of the law which they might obtain; (b) that the official legal advisers of the customs gave opinions on the evidence contained in Mr. Adams’s representations which were in conflict with the opinions of the law-officers of the Crown; (c) that these opinions were given upon the questions after they had been submitted to the law-officers of the Crown, and before the latter had rendered their opinions; (d) that the customs department of Her Majesty’s government (to which Mr. Adams was referred by Earl Russell as charged with the management of the affair) acted on the opinions of their own advisers, at a time when they must have known that the law-officers of the Crown had the subject under consideration.
2.
The opinion of the law-officers of the Crown, now first made public, confirms the views of the United States presented in their case.
*3.
[26] It appears that the commissioners of customs knew on Tuesday, the 29th of July, that the Alabama had escaped that day, and that it was not until Friday, the 1st of August, that the collectors at Holyhead and Beaumaris received instructions to detain her. On the 2d of August the collector at Beaumaris reported that he had attended to his instructions, and had found that the Alabama had left Point Lymas on the morning of Thursday, the 31st. If, therefore, the instructions given on the 1st of August had been given on the 29th of July, the Alabama might have been detained at Point Lynas.
4.
Her Majesty’s government introduce a dispatch to Mr. Adams regarding his correspondence with Captain Craven, apparently with a purpose of assuming hereafter that Captain Craven was guilty of some negligence. It appears that Captain Craven was at Southampton with his vessel (the Tuscarora) on the 29th of July; that he left there for Queenstown, arriving at the latter place on the 30th; that, on the 31st, he received a telegram informing him that the Alabama was off Point Lynas; and that on the 1st of August he set sail up Saint George’s Channel toward that point. Mr. Adams objected to the course he took, as bringing him within British waters. Facts, revealed subsequently to Mr. Adams’s dispatch, show that the Alabama had left Point Lynas [Page 439]before Captain Craven *knew that she had been there. Without regard, therefore, to principles which might well be disputed, this fact relieves the arbitrators from considering any supposed responsibility of the United States for the acts of the Tuscarora at that time. [27]
5.
The British consul’s report of the visit of the Alabama to Martinique shows that she was in the habit of sailing under the British flag. This was known to Her Majesty’s government on the 17th of December, 1862.
6.
In January, 1863, the Alabama entered Port Royal, Jamaica, for repairs and to land prisoners. The course of the governor in allowing such hospitalities to be granted was approved by Earl Russell, February 14, 1863. This approval appears to have been given without regard to the advice of the law-officers of the Crown. (Appendix, page 212.)
7.
Great stress is apparently laid on the reception and acts of the Alabama in Brazilian waters. The United States invite attention to the striking contrast between the course of Her Majesty’s government in the acts complained of before the tribunal, and the course of the Emperor’s government, as shown in inclosure No. 4, on page 276 of the appendix; as shown in the Brazilian circular on page 284, stating that “the Confederate States have no legal existence;” that they have been recognized as belligerents only “with the necessary restrictions,” and that the exportation of warlike articles from the ports of the Emperor to the insurgents, whether under the Brazilian or a foreign flag, was forbidden; but that, a similar trade to the ports of the United States was forbidden only to the Brazilian flag; as shown in the rule as to coal; and as shown in the carefully drawn distinction between hospitalities like those permitted in the British West Indian ports for the purpose of aiding a vessel in a hostile cruise, and hospitalities given to enable a vessel to reach a home port. [28]
8.
Her Majesty’s government aver that the original crew of the Alabama was not enlisted for the service of the insurgents. The United States contend that the evidence shows that a large portion of the crew knew quite well whither they were going.
9.
The United States contend that it is immaterial whether they did or did not make any efforts to capture the Alabama. The fact is, however, that they made great efforts, and incurred great expense for that purpose.

The United States also respectfully refer the tribunal of arbitration to the correspondence with the Portuguese government and authorities concerning this vessel, which is contained in the documents submitted with this counter case.

[29]*VII

The evidence offered by Great Britain regarding the Georgia is in the main identical with that offered by the United States. In some respects the new documents strengthen the case of the United States.

1.
It appears that Her Majesty’s government was officially informed, by its own officials, of the suspicious character of the Alar, two days in advance of Mr. Adams’s information, and that it took no steps in consequence.
2.
It is intimated that Mr. Adams was in possession of information, before the sailing of the Georgia, which he should have communicated to Her Majesty’s government, but it is conceded that the information would not have justified conviction under the foreign-enlistment act, [Page 440]and that Mr. Adams had, before then, been informed that Her Majesty’s government could not act on less complete representations.
3.
It appears that orders were given to a British vessel of war to proceed to Alderney, but it does not appear whether those orders were or were not obeyed.
4.
The report made in 1871 of the arming of the Georgia differs from the contemporaneous accounts made by eye-witnesses.
5.
When Her Majesty’s government made the statement that no serious endeavor to intercept or capture the Georgia appears to have been made on *the part of the United States, it was mistaken. This correction is, however, made under protest that the United States were under no obligation toward Great Britain to relieve her from the consequences of her original wrong-doing. [30]

VIII.

As with the other vessels, so with the Shenandoah, the evidence in the two cases is largely the same, and the evidence exclusively presented by her Majesty’s government strengthens the views and theories of the United States.

1.
It appears in the opinion of the law-officers of the Crown, (pages 141, 142,) the Sea King was regarded as a British vessel until after its arrival at the Azores; that acts took place there on its deck which were esteemed to be violations of the foreign-enlistment act; and that the question whether her deck was not at that time a place belonging or subject to Her Majesty was thought to be a serious one. The acts which are referred to as having taken place there within British jurisdiction were some of the acts of which the United States now complain.
2.
The United States do not admit that the persons who went out in the Laurel are to be regarded as ordinary passengers. They were persons who, *in violation of the duties of Great Britain as a neutral, were recruited in England to serve on the Shenandoah. [31]
3.
The official report of the governor of what took place at Melbourne confirms the account given by the United States in their case. By inclosure 19, on page 499, (appendix,) and by inclosure No. 22, on page 500, it appears that immediately after her arrival at Melbourne she was known as the Sea King. By paragraph 9, pages 505–6, it appears that the commander was not pressed to go to sea until he was quite ready to go; by paragraph 20, on page 507, it appears that the governor was consenting to the condonation of the offenses of the Shenandoah against British neutrality; by the police report, on page 523, it appears that the government was officially informed by its own officers that the commander intended to ship forty men at Melbourne; and by inclosure 90, page 529, it appears that, although the stay of the Shenandoah at Melbourne was nominally for the repair of the screw and its bearings, that part of the machinery was not touched until the vessel had been fourteen days in port. The United States cannot admit that there was any vigilance exercised by the officers of the colonial government.
4.
The United States, for reasons stated in their case, cannot agree with Her Majesty’s government in the statements made in the first paragraph of page *160 of the British case, regarding the crew of the Shenandoah and Temple’s affidavit; nor can they accept as true the statement of the commander of the Shenandoah, cited by Her Majesty’s government on page 167, that on receiving intelligence [Page 441]of the overthrow of the Insurrection, he “desisted instantly from further acts of war.” [32]
5.
The United States, as to the Shenandoah, make the same statement which they have already made in reply to the statements of Her Majesty’s government touching attempts to intercept or to capture the Georgia.

IX.

On page 167 of the case of Her Majesty’s government, it is said: “If the tribunal should come to the conclusion that Great Britain has incurred any liability to the United States, the question will then arise what should be deemed the just measure and extent of that liability. Her Britannic Majesty’s government abstain at present from entering into that question, and will reserve such observations as may be fitly offered in relation to it to a later stage of the proceedings. Here it is sufficient to remark that a claim on the part of a belligerent to be indemnified at the expense of a neutral for losses inflicted or occasioned by any of the *ordinary operations of war, on the plea that those operations were assisted or facilitated by negligence on the part of the neutral government, is one which involves grave considerations, and requires to be weighed with the utmost care. Losses of which such negligence is the direct and proximate cause, (and it is in respect of such only that compensation could justly be awarded,) are commonly not easy to separate from those springing from other causes.” [33]

The United States concur with Her Majesty’s government in the opinion that “a claim on the part of a belligerent to be indemnified at the expense of a neutral for losses inflicted or occasioned by any of the ordinary operations of war” “is one which involves grave considerations, and requires to be weighed with the utmost care.” Without the explanatory observations which Her Majesty’s Government reserves the right to make in a later stage of the proceedings, they cannot say how far they do or do not concur in the further statement that compensation can only justly be awarded by the tribunal in respect to losses of which’ the negligence of the neutral is the direct and proximate cause,a

*It appears to them, however, that certain general considerations may reasonably be assumed by the arbitrators. 1. Both parties contemplate that the United States will endeavor to establish in these proceedings some tangible connection of cause and effect between the injuries for which they ask compensation and the “acts committed by the several vessels,” which the treaty contemplates are to be shown to be the fount of those injuries. 2. The tribunal of arbitration being a judicial body, invested by the parties with the functions necessary for determining the issues between them, and being now seized of the substance of the matters in dispute, will hold itself bound by such reasonable and established rules of law regarding the relations of cause and effect as it may assume that the parties had in view *when they entered into their engagement to make this reference. 3. Neither party contemplates that the tribunal will [Page 442]establish, or be governed by rules in this respect which will either on the one hand tend to release neutrals from their duty to observe a strict neutrality, or, on the other hand, will make a course of honest neutrality unduly burdensome. [34] [35]

Leaving now the issues raised by the cases and counter cases of £he two governments to the arguments of counsel and to the decision of the tribunal, the United States repeat with a strengthened conviction the language with which they closed their case: “It is in the highest interest of the two great powers which appear at this bar that the causes of difference which have arisen between them should be speedily and forever set at rest. The United States entertain a confident expectation that Her Majesty’s government will concur with them in this opinion.”

[Page [443]]
  1. On the 469th page of the American official case, in the English language, after enumerating the several classes of claims for injuries, the United States say: “So far as these various losses and expenditures grew out of the acts committed by the several cruisers, the United States are entitled to ask compensation and remuneration before this tribunal.” In the unofficial French translation, made for the convenience of the arbitrators, there is no equivalent for the important words in italics above cited, (French version, page 377.) The agent of the United States received the book just as the conferences at Geneva in December were about to begin, and did not discover the error in time to correct it at that conference. He now takes the first opportunity to call attention to it.