« PreviousContinue »
colleagues,—that the British Government had been guilty of culpable want of the due diligence required, either by the law.of nations, the Rules of the Treaty, or Act of Parliament.
In fact, this vessel had been built and fitted out in Great Britain in violation of her laws, with intent tol carry on war against the United States; evidence of this fact had been submitted, sufficient, in the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, to justify her de. tention; notwithstanding which, by reason of absence of due vigilance, and not without suspicion of connird ance on the part of public officers, and with extraordinary delay in issuing necessary orders, she was suff fered to go unmolested out of the immediate jurisdiction of the British Government. Her armament, supplies, and crew were all procured from Great Britain. And, in like violation of law, she was received and treated as a legitimate man-of-war in the colonial ports of Great Britain.
Sir Alexander Cockburn was constrained to admit want of due diligence as to the case of the Alabama, in three distinct classes of facts, each one of which sufficed to establish the responsibility of the British Government.
If Sir Alexander had any good cause to accuse his colleagues, as he did, of precipitancy and want of knowledge or practice of law, because they came to provisional conclusions in the case of the Florida without waiting to hear Sir Roundell Palmer, surely the British Government had reason to attach the same censure to him in the case of the Alabama.
How could be presume to condemn Great Britain in this behalf, ignorantly, blindly, in the dark, and with. out assistance of the “reasoning and learning” of the eminent Counsel in attendance on the Tribunal ?
But even Sir Alexander Cockburn could no longer resist the force of conviction, nor help admitting the truth of the allegation of the United States, their Agent and Counsel, imputing culpable negligence to his Government. The United States had, not without cause, brought the British Government to the bar of public opinion and of the Tribunal of Arbitration; himself now confessing it, their Agent and Counsel had not been engaged, as he had charged, in preferring “false accusations, unworthy of them and of their Government." And if the proved and admitted truth of these accusations implies impeachment of the personal honor of any British Minister or Ministers, that is not the fault of the American Government, its Agent or Counsel, but of the British Gov: ernment, whose violation of neutrality is at length conceded even by Sir Alexander Cockburn.
In the ultimate judgment of all the Arbitrators, the condemnation of the Alabama and the Florida carried with it the condemnation of their respective tenders, namely, the Tuscaloosa, the Clarence, the Tacony, and the Archer.
CASE OF THE “SHENANDOAI” DECIDED. There remained but three vessels as to whose responsibility we had reason to have hopes, namely, the Georgia, the Retribution, and the Shenandoah
and with confident expectation only as to the Shen. andoah after she left Melbourne. Without pausing here to consider particularly the Retribution and the Georgia, suffice it to say that eventually they were rejected; but the Shenandoah, after special explanations in writing submitted by the Counsel of the two Governments, was held responsible by vote of three of the Arbitrators, Count Sclopis, Mr. Stæmpfli, and Mr. Adams. As the Shenandoah, after increasing her armament at Melbourne, had made many captures at the very close of the war, when her cruise could not be of any possible advantage to the Confederates, her exoneration by the Tribunal would have been justly regarded by us as an act of great injustice to the United States.
THE SPECIAL ARGUMENTS.
It remains next to speak of the successive Arguments of Counsel before the Tribunal, as well those heretofore indicated as others called for in the sequel.
On the 25th of July, as we have seen, the Tri. bunal voted to require from the Counsel of Great Britain a written or printed Argument touching certain points.
On the 29th, Lord Tenterden announced that he had delivered the required Argument of the British Counsel to the Secretary of the Tribunal.
The copy thus delivered was in manuscript. As subsequently printed, it consists of 43 folio pages.
The replies of the American Counsel, each of them addressing the Tribunal separately, were presented
on the 5th, 6th, and 8th of August, consisting altogether of 47 pages of the same folio impression.
It would not be convenient, and it does not come within my plan, to discuss the Arguments of Counsel on either side, except where some particular point of such Argument calls for notice. Hence, as in the case of the general Arguments of April and of June, so as to the special Arguments called for by the Tribunal, it will be sufficient to enumerate them, and to give to them their proper place in the history of the Arbitration.
The first Argument of Sir Roundell Palmer, however, calls for some observations.
Of his 43 pages, 31,-say three quarters,—are devoted nominally to the question of due diligence generally considered.
Now, in the previous regular Arguments, each Gov. ernment had fully discussed this question, and had, as if by common consent, concluded in express terms that it neither required nor admitted any further discussion. That conclusion was correct. Accordingly, most of these 31 pages are occupied with matters remotely, if at all, connected with the question, What constitutes due diligence ?—such as [copying, word for word, sundry marginal notes] rules and principles of international law; express or implied engagements of Great Britain ; effect of prohibitory municipal laws; the three Rules of the Treaty; the maxims cited by the United States from Sir Robert Phillimore on the question, Civitas ne deliquerit an cives; for what purpose Great Britain refers to her municipal laws; doc
trine of Tetens as to municipal laws in excess of ante. cedent international obligations; the arguments as to the prerogative powers belonging to the British Crown; the true doctrine as to the powers of the Crown under British law; the British Crown has power by common law to use the civil, military, and naval forces of the Realm to stop acts of war within British territory; the preventive powers of British law explained; examination of the preventive pow. ers of the American Government under the Acts of Congress for the preservation of neutrality:—and so of diverse other questions discussed by Sir Roundell Palmer under the head of due diligence generally considered. Very generally, it is clear. Nay, 13 of the 31 pages devoted to the question of "due diligence generally considered” are occupied with examination of the laws and political history of the United States, in continuance and iteration of the groundless and irrelevant accusations of the Ameri. can Government introduced into the British Case and Counter-Case.
Now Sir Roundell Palmer is, omnium consensu, at the head of the British Bar in learning, intelligence, and integrity; and we may be sure that arguments addressed by him to the Tribunal would be the best that such a lawyer, so high in mental and moral qualities, or that any living lawyer, be he who he may, could devise or conceive. The British Arbitrator had gone “clean daft” in the hope deferred of hearing him. He himself had been earnestly seeking to be heard by the Tribunal for more than a month; he had com