[163] *Part IX: Recapitulation of facts previously stated.
The statements of fact which have been placed before the arbitrators may be recapitulated as follows:
Part IX.—Recapitulation. Of the four vessels in respect of which alone the United States have, up to this time, made claims against Great Britain, two—the Georgia and Shenandoah—were never, in any manner or degree, within the dominions of Her Majesty, fitted out, armed, or equipped for war, or specially adapted to warlike use. They were constructed and fitted in a manner suitable to merchant-ships. One of them, the Shenandoah, was not only built for a merchant-ship, but had been owned and used as such before she was purchased by the government of the Confederate States; and her condition and equipment when she departed from Great Britain, and when she came into the possession of the government of the Confederate States, were, so far as appears, the same in all material respects as they had been when she was owned and employed as a trading-vessel. This vessel, according to the evidence which has been brought to the knowledge of Her Majesty’s government, was sold and transferred to the government of the Confederate States after she had departed from Her Majesty’s dominions.
No information whatever respecting these two vessels respectively was conveyed to Her Britannic Majesty’s government by the minister or consular officers of the United States, or came to the knowledge of that government, until they had respectively departed from Her Majesty’s dominions. Her Britannic Majesty’s government had no ground to believe or suspect that they or either of them were or was intended to be delivered to the government of the Confederate States or its officers, or employed in cruising or carrying on war against the United States. If the minister or consuls of the United States had any such grounds of belief or suspicion, they were not communicated to the government of Her Britannic Majesty.
The other two vessels, the Alabama and Florida, though suitable by their construction for vessels of war, were not armed for war when they respectively departed from the waters of the United Kingdom. They had then no armament whatever, and they did not receive any until after they had arrived at places very remote from Great Britain, and out of the control of Her Majesty’s government.
As to one of these two, the Florida, no information supported by evidence proving, or tending to prove, that she was intended to cruise or carry on war against the United States, was conveyed to or received by Her Britannic Majesty’s government previously to her departure from the United Kingdom. On her first arrival in a British colony this vessel was seized under the authority of the governor, but was released for want of proof, by the decree of a court of competent jurisdiction.
The Florida, before engaging in any operation of war, entered a port of the Confederate States. She remained there for more than four [Page 408] months; she there enlisted and shipped a crew, and was put in suitable condition for cruising, and she was from thence sent out to cruise.
In the case of one vessel only, the Alabama, admissible evidence tending to prove the existence of an unlawful intention was furnished to Her Britannic Majesty’s government before the departure of the ship. This evidence was supplied little by little, the last installment of it being delivered on the fourth day before her departure. She put to sea unregistered and without a clearance, under the pretense that she was about to make a trial trip and return to her moorings. The circumstances under which the evidence relating to this vessel was received, referred to the legal advisers of the government, and by them considered and reported on, are stated in Part VI of this case.
[164] All the information furnished by Mr. Adams to Her Majesty’s government, as well in relation to the Alabama as in relation to each of the three other vessels herein before specified, was referred by the secretary of state for foreign affairs, with the utmost expedition, to the proper departments of the government, for inquiry, and in order that measures might be immediately taken, should occasion so require, for the due enforcement of the law. Inquiry was accordingly made in every case. In cases of the Georgia and *the Shenandoah, nothing could be done, since each of these vessels had already departed from Her Majesty’s dominions. In that of the Florida no evidence of unlawful intention was or could be obtained while she was within the United Kingdom. In that of the Alabama, the persons having possession of the ship carried her to sea before the order for seizing her was given.
In estimating the reasonableness of the views acted upon by Her Majesty’s government as to the sufficiency of the information and evidence from time to time submitted to them respecting apprehended infractions of the law by the construction and equipment of warlike vessels for the service of the Confederate States, it is necessary throughout to bear in mind not only that the trade of ship-building is a great and important branch of industry, which Her Majesty’s government was not required by any international duty to place under restrictions unauthorized by law, and over which it was not justified in assuming any arbitrary control, but also that the principal firms of British shipbuilders had been for a long time in the habit of entering into contracts with foreign governments in all parts of the world for the construction, equipment, and sale of ships of war; such contracts being privately negotiated, in the ordinary course of business, without any power on the part of the government to inquire into or interfere with them. No presumption, therefore, as to the real destination of any such vessel would in any case arise from the mere fact of her having a warlike character, although she might be in course of building during a state of war between particular powers, while others were at peace.
In the papers relating to the iron-clad rams at Liverpool, ample illustration will be found of the difficulties which were liable to arise from this state of things whenever it became necessary to prove the actual purpose for which a ship of this character was being constructed, difficulties which, in the end, rendered it ultimately advisable for Her Majesty’s government to pay a very large sum of money for the purchase of the rams rather than risk the uncertain result of a trial.
The four vessels above specified were procured from British ports, or purchased from British owners, by the persons comprising the de facto government of the Confederate States through their agents, and passed into the possession and control of that government. After possession [Page 409] had been so acquired they were respectively armed for war, by the orders of that government, were commissioned as ships of war, and were commanded and officered by American citizens holding commissions in its naval service.
The crews of these vessels were enlisted on the high seas or elsewhere out of the jurisdiction of Her Majesty’s government, and, in the case of the Florida, chiefly in a port of the Confederate States. They were composed partly of British subjects, whom the American officers induced by persuasion and by promises of reward to take service when at a distance from England. The solicitations of the American officers were sometimes successful in inducing British seamen to serve; sometimes they were exerted in vain. But the vessels were also manned to a considerable extent with Americans and others drawn from the crews of American ships captured by them; though it is right to add that in the case of some of the latter class who left the Shenandoah at Melbourne, it was alleged that threats, and ill usage had been employed in order to induce them to join.
These vessels, after having been armed for war, were received as vessels of war in the ports of Great Britain as well as in those of the other neutral countries visited by them. In British ports they were received on the same footing as in those of other neutral nations, and were, allowed to repair and purchase supplies on the same conditions as armed vessels of the United States, without favor or partiality, careful precautions being employed to prevent any renewal or augmentation of their warlike force within British waters.
No serious endeavors to intercept or capture any of these vessels, during the times of their respective cruises, appear to have been made by the Government of the United States; and the losses inflicted by them would probably have been in great measure averted had reasonable activity and diligence been exerted by that Government and its officers for that purpose.
The general course of Her Britannic Majesty’s government throughout the war was governed by a strict regard for the obligations of neutrality and a sincere desire to fulfill them; and this is apparent as well from the facts which have been stated in relation to the four vessels above specified, as from the other facts stated in the earlier parts of this case.
Thus it has been seen—
That, besides the Florida and Alabama, many other ships were believed and asserted by Mr. Adams to be fitting out in British ports for, the purpose of carrying on war against the United States, and were made the subject of representations to Her Majesty’s government.
[165] That in every case, without exception, the allegations of Mr. Adams were promptly *and carefully investigated; that in the greater number of cases Mr. Adams proved to be mistaken, the suspected ships being merely merchant-ships, built and fitted out with a view to a special employment, and not for war; that in all cases as to which reasonable evidence could be obtained the suspected vessels were seized and proceedings instituted for the condemnation of them; that four were thus seized—the Alexandra, the two ironclads, and the Canton or Pampero— and were prevented from being used for belligerent purposes; and one of them, the Alexandra, having been seized in England and restored by the verdict of a jury, was afterward seized again in a British colony.
That during the whole period of the war, which lasted for four years, no vessel armed for war was sent out or procured from British ports for [Page 410] belligerent use; and that or vessels specially adapted by construction for warlike use, two only, the Florida and Alabama, were so procured in the manner and under the circumstances above described; while of these two one only, the Alabama, escaped and came into the possession of the confederate government without having undergone a seizure and trial.
Finally, it has been seen that the government of Her Britannic Majesty, not content with carefully performing, to the utmost of its power, its recognized international obligations, overstepped, on more than one occasion, the actual limit of those obligations, for the sake of preventing anything whatever which might compromise, or be reasonably thought to compromise, its neutrality; and, in particular, that, in order to prevent vessels which had been armed or built for war within Great Britain from passing into the hands of a belligerent, a large expenditure was twice voluntarily incurred, much of it without any equivalent, in addition to the costs and charges occasioned by unsuccessful proceedings in courts of law.