"needs to be sustained on strong and solid grounds.

66

66

66

Every sovereign Government claims the right to be independent of external scrutiny or interference in "the exercise of these powers; and the general assumption that they are exercised with good faith and "reasonable care, and that laws are fairly and properly "administered, an assumption without which peace and friendly intercourse could not exist among nations, ought to subsist until it has been displaced by proof to the contrary." 1

66

66

The Counsel of the United States will therefore go into the discussion of the questions of fact as to the several vessels with the fact uncontroverted, that Her Majesty's Government and the individual members of it freely, repeatedly and publicly gave it to be understood that it was neither expected nor desired in the Cabinet at London, that the United States should succeed in averting the destruction of their nationality; and that these expectations and desires were known to all the subordinates of Her Majesty's Government.

The United States also presented with their Case evidence to show that, at the commencement of the insurrection, the insurgents established on British soil administrative bureaus for the purpose of making British soil and waters bases of hostile operations against the United States; and that from these bureaus and through persons acting under their directions, or in co-operation with them, the several vessels of whose acts they complain were either dispatched from Great Britain, or were supplied in British ports with the means of carrying on war against the United States. They further showed that the

1 British Case, p. 166.

existence of these bureaus was brought to the knowledge of Her Majesty's Government and was justified by it.

Of a portion of this evidence, which Her Majesty's Government sees fit to style "a mass of Confederate papers, the British Counter-Case says: "of the authenticity of "them, and of the manner in which they came into the

66

66

66

possession of the United States, Her Britannic Majesty's "Government has no knowledge whatever beyond what "it derives from the above mentioned statement which it willingly accepts as true. Of the person by whom and the "circumstances under which the letters were written, and "the character and credibility of the writers, it [Her Majes'ty's Government] knows nothing whatever. They are per"sons with whom this Government had nothing to do, and "whose very existence was unknown to it; and it does not “admit as evidence against Great Britain any statement 'which they may have made to those who employed them 66 or to one another.' "It is not, indeed it could not be "pretended, that the correspondence extracted from these 66 papers was in any way known to the British Govern"ment. Nor has. the Government of the United States "furnished the Arbitrators with any means of judging "whether the letters are authentic, or the facts stated "in them true or the persons whose names purport to be attached to them (persons unknown to the British Government) worthy of credit. Her Majesty's Govern"ment thinks it right to say that it attaches very little "credit to them.

66

66

The Arbitrators may therefore assume, notwithstanding the averment on page 56, that Her Majesty's Government

1 British Counter-Case, p. 3.

2 Ibid., p. 56.

admit that the evidence referred to came into the possession of the United States by capture at Richmond, and that there is no serious question of the authenticity of the letters. They may also assume that there will be no serious question made as to the truth of the facts stated in those letters. It is true that Her Majesty's Government says that it attaches little credit to them. It is equally true that the United States attaches tull faith to them.

The Arbitrators will judge whether it is probable or improbable that these free and confidential letters do give correct accounts of the contemporaneous events which they describe. They will also judge whether those events are or are not relevant to the issue between the two Governments. The United States think that they are. If they are relevant, the United States are justified in bringing them before the Tribunal, especially as it appears that Her Majesty's Government was several times informed of the illegal operations which the writers of these identical letters were carrying on from British soil at the time when the letters were written.

We therefore contend that we go into the discussion of the questions of fact with the further general facts proved, that the insurgents established and maintained unmolested throughout the insurrection administrative bureaus on British soil by means of which the several cruisers were dispatched from British ports, or were enabled to make them the bases of hostile operations against the United States, and that Her Majesty's Government was cognizant of it.

VI.

THE FLORIDA.

We now proceed to refer the Arbitrators to the evidence upon which the Government of the United States relies, as applicable to the case of each vessel separately. We begin with the Florida.

This vessel, under the name of the Oreto, was built at Liverpool, England, and sailed from that place on the 22nd of March, 1862, without any attempt at her detention by Great Britain. She was in construction and outfit evidently adapted to warlike use.

On the 18th of February, Mr. Adams, in behalf of the United States, submitted to Earl Russell, for his consideration," the copy of an extract of a letter" addressed to him by the Consul of his Government at Liverpool, 'going to show," as he said, "the preparation, at that "port, of an armed steamer evidently intended for hostile operations on the ocean.'

66

66

1

This communication from Mr. Adams was, on the next

1 Brit. Case, p. 53.

day, referred by Earl Russell to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, that being the appropriate department of Her Majesty's Government for such reference. 1 This department at once called upon the Collector of Customs at Liverpool for information, and, by his direction, the vessel was inspected by a government inspector, who, on the 21st of February, reported that she was "a splen"did steamer, suitable for a despatch boat, pierced for guns, but has not any on board, nor are there any gun-carriages." The builders were W. C. Miller and Sons, one of the firm being a government officer, "the "Chief Surveyor of Tonnage" at that port.

66

This firm, on being applied to by the Collector for information, said, "We have built the despatch vessel "Oreto... She is pierced for four guns... She is in no "way fitted for the reception of guns as yet; nor do we "know that she is to have guns whilst in England."

4

On the same day, these reports of the Surveyor and builders were transmitted by the Collector to the Commissioners of Customs, with the statement that "the vessel "is correctly described " in the note of the builders."

On the 22nd of February, the Commissioners of Customs reported to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, that the Oreto is pierced for four guns; but she has as "yet taken nothing on board but coals and ballast. She "is not, at present, fitted for the reception of guns, nor "are the builders aware that she is to be supplied with 'guns whilst she remains in this country."

66

1 Brit. Case, p. 54.

2 Ibid., p. 55.

3 Ibid, p. 54

• Ibid.

s Ibid.

6 Ibid.