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.

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, [20] (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.

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 cus toms 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.

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 ease 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."

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.

V.

[22]

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 [23] appendix, evidence which sustains the allegations in the American case that the Florida was, in outward appearance, a British manof-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."

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 ap proved 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 regard

ing 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.

[25]

VI.

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 lawofficers 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.

[26] *3. It appears that the commissioners of customs knew on Tues

day, 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 Lynas 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 Lyras

[27]

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.

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 re- [28] strictions," 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.

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.

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,

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 pro⚫ceed 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 [30] 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.

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 Shenan

[31]

doah.

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 [32] 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 intelli