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.

[Page 418][Page 419][Page 420]

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
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
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
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.

[Page 421]

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
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.

[Page 422][Page 423][Page 424]

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
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
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
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.]

[Page 426]

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
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.

[Page 428]

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
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]]

---