[iii] *TABLE OF CONTENTS. PART I. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT. Vessels to which the claims of the United States relate. PART II. ARGUMENT OF THE UNITED STATES ON NEUTRAL DUTIES. Propositions affirmed by the United States... Effect ascribed to British laws and regulations as interpretations of international law. Alleged duty of a government to enforce its own laws and regulations. Extent of nentral obligations as deduced from the three rules of the treaty of Washington, and from general principles of international law. (A.) Original equipment, &c., of belligerent vessels in neutral ports (B.) Admission of belligerent vessels into neutral ports.. First limitation suggested by the United States. Further limitation suggested by the United States.. What is "due diligence". PART III. PRECEDENTS APPEALED TO BY THE UNITED STATES. 1. Case of the Swedish ships, 1825. 2. Violations of American neutrality in 1793-'94.. Case of the Cassius 3. Violations of American neutrality during the war carried on by 4. Later violations of the American neutrality laws. Expeditions of Lopez against Cuba, 1850-51.. Walker's expeditions against Mexico and Central America, 1853, 1855, 1857, 1858, 1859, and 1860....... Fenian raids against Canada.. Raid of 1866... Raid of 1871... Second raid on Canada, 1870. Military expeditions in aid of the Cuban insurrection. Recapitulation VARIOUS COMPLAINTS OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST GREAT BRITAIN.-TRAFFIC IN MUNITIONS OF WAR, (PAGE 48.) Arms and military supplies purchased by the United States . False importance ascribed to the proclamation of neutrality. PART VII. THE GEORGIA AND SHENANDOAH. PART VIII. THE CLARENCE, TACONY, ARCHER, TUSCALOOSA, TALLAHASSEE, CHICKAMAUGA, AND The Florida at Barbados... Execution of the rules of January 31, 1862, in other colonies. Recapitulation The Alabama, Georgia, and Tuscaloosa at the Cape of Good Hope. Course pursued by other countries. 1. Holland Compensation claimed by the United States. General principle.. Claims for private losses.... Claims for national losses by the destruction of public property in the Claims for expenditure alleged to have been incurred in the pursuit of confederate cruisers... Claim of the United States for interest 140 391 Recapitulation of preceding remarks on the measure of compensation. ANNEX (A.) Note on the question referred to at page 12, (equipment of belligerent vessels in neutral ports) The British and American foreign-enlistment acts...... ANNEX (B.) ANNEX (C.) Position and duties of the law-officers of the Crown in England................ [1] *PART I. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT. PART I-Introduc The government of Her Britannic Majesty now presents to the tribunal of arbitration its counter case, or reply to the case submitted on the part of the United States, so far as a reply tory statement. appears to be necessary or admissible. To the second chapter of the American Case, which imputes to the British Government hostile motives, and even insincere neutrality, no reply whatever will be offered in this counter case. The British government distinctly refuses to enter upon the discussion of these charges. First, because it would be inconsistent with the self-respect which every government is bound to feel; secondly, because the matter in dispute is action, and not motive, and therefore the discussion is irrelevant; thirdly, because to reply, and to enter upon a retaliatory exposition, must tend to inflame the controversy which, in the whole tone and tenor of its case, the British government has shown its desire to appease; and lastly, with respect to the charges themselves, if they were of any weight or value, the British government would still contend that the proper reply to them was to be found in the proof which it has supplied that its proceedings have throughout, and in all points, been governed by a desire, not only to fulfill all clear international duties toward the Government of the United States, but likewise, when an opportunity was offered, even to go beyond what could have been demanded of it as of right, in order to obviate all possibility of cavil against its conduct. Neither will this counter case contain any reference whatever to the subject of indirect losses. Her Majesty's government is engaged in a correspondence with the Government of the United States on this subject, pending which this counter case is presented, without prejudice to the position assumed by Her Majesty in that correspondence, and under the reservations more particularly stated in a note accompanying it, which will be, at the same time, delivered to the arbitrators. VESSELS TO WHICH THE CLAIMS OF THE UNITED STATES RELATE. Vessels to which ted States relate. Her Britannic Majesty's government believed itself to be, and was in fact, justly entitled to assume that the claims which it had to meet would be found to relate exclusively to the the claims of the Unifour vessels known as the Florida, Alabama, Georgia, and Shenandoah, or some or one of them; these being the only ships in respect of which claims had been made by the Government of the United States against Great Britain. It appears that, besides claiming on account of all of these four vessels, the United States now claim on account of nine other vessels, none of which are alleged to have been in any manner armed, fitted out, or equipped for war within British |