Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Tribunal instituted in its name and for its maintenance. Justice,-universal, immutable Justice,-is wholly indestructible by the changing fortunes of States or by the influence of all-devouring time,

"Casibus haec nullis, nullo delebilis aevo."

In this spirit we humbly submit the whole subject to the enlightened judgment of the Tribunal.

C. CUSHING,

WM. M. EVARTS,

M. R. WAITE.

APPENDIX.

Note

A.

OBSERVATIONS ON CERTAIN

SPECIAL CRITICISMS

IN THE BRITISH COUNTER-CASE, ON THE CASE
OF THE UNITED STATES.

I. The British Foreign Enlistment Acts.

On the 8th page of the British Counter-Case, it is said: "The following sentence is given as a quotation from a dispatch signed by Earl Russell: That the Foreign Enlistment Act, which was intended in aid of the duties. . . . of a neutral nation,' etc. What were the words of Earl Russell? They were these: 'That the Foreign Enlistment Act, which was intended in aid of the duties and rights of a neutral nation can only be applied, etc.' The meaning of the sentence is altered by leaving out two of the most important words."

The Counsel of the United States are unable to discover how the insertion of the omitted words would increase or decrease, modify or affect, the proposition that the Foreign Enlistment Act was intended in aid of the duties of a neutral nation as represented by the United States.

On the same page of the British Counter-Case, it is further said:

"The report of a Commission appointed in 1867 to consider the

laws of Great Britain available for the enforcement of Neutrality, is thus referred to. The Tribunal of Arbitration will search the whole of that Report and of its various appendices in vain to find any indication that that distinguished body imagined or though! or believed that the measures which they recommended were not in full conformity with international obligations. On the contrary, the Commissioners say, that, so far as they can see, the adoption of the recommendations will bring the municipal law into full conformity with the international obligations." Viewing their acts in the light of their powers and their instructions, the United States feel themselves justified in asking the Tribunal to assume that that eminent body regarded the acts which they proposed to prevent by legislation, as forbidden by international law.' What is the passage which the Government of the United States have referred to, but have refrained from extracting? It is this: 'Is making the foregoing recommendations we have not felt ourselves bound to consider whether we were exceeding what could be actually required by International Law, but we are of opinion that if those recommendations should be adopted, the municipal law of this realm available for the enforcement of neutrality, will derive increased efficiency and will, so far as we can see, have been brought into conformity with your Majesty's international obligations. Thus by leaving out the words in which the Commissioners observe that their recommendations may exceed the requirements of International Law, and by using in one sense words which (as the context proves), they employed in another, they are represented as saying the very thing which they expressly guarded themselves from being supposed to say, namely, that all the acts which they proposed to prohibit, were, in their judgment, already forbidden by international law."

The United States accept without hesitation the issue thus raised by Her Majesty's Government, and they maintain that the language quoted in the British Counter-Case does not justify the statement that the Commissioners observe, that their recommendations my exceed the requirements of internation! law.” The Commissioners did not say this, nor any thing which in any sense" gathered from the "context," by any rule of interpretation, can be construed into the meaning which is attri buted to it in the British Counter-Case. They did use the exact language quoted in the American Case. They said, that if their recommendations should be adopted, the municipal law of Great Britain would, so far as they could see, have been brought into

66

conformity to international obligations. They also said that, in making those recommendations, they had not felt themselves bound to consider whether they were exceeding what could be actually required by international law. In other words, they said that although it seemed to them that, while the proposed recommendations were in harmony with existing international obligations, yet they did not found the recommendation on that fact, but on its own intrinsic merits. The Arbitrators wi judge whether this is not the fair and reasonable construction of the language.

[ocr errors]

II. American Neutrality in 1793-4.

It is said on page 10 of the British Counter-Case, that "it is pleaded that in 1793, during General Washington's Administration, the representative of Great Britain in the United States pointed out to Mr. Jefferson, who was then Secretary of State. acts which were deemed by Her Britannic Majesty's Government to be breaches of Neutrality done in contravention of the President's Proclamation of Neutrality,' and he invited the United States to take steps for the repression of such acts, and for the restoration of the captured prizes," and that "it appears that the United States complied with these requests. It will be seen that the representations then made on the part of this country to the United States were founded on the character of the acts themselves, which were deemed by the British Government to be breaches of neutrality, and not upon the fact that they were prohibited by the President's Proclamation."

The letter from Mr. Hammond to Mr. Jefferson, which will be found on pages 240-41 (No 6) of the 5th volume of the British Appendix is the best reply to this averment. The Minister of Her Britannic Majesty says to the American Secretary of State that he "does not deem it necessary to enter into any reasoning upon these facts, as he conceives them to be breaches of that neutrality which the United States profess to observe, and di ect contraventions of the Proclamation which the President issued on the 22nd of last month." The United States submit that this letter is a complete justification of this allegation in their case which is contested by Her Majesty's Government.

Again on page 29 of the British Counter-Case, referring to the’ commission appointed under the 7th article of " Jay's Treaty,'

« AnteriorContinuar »