The neutral duties which it is alleged by the United States that Great Britain failed to discharge are of two classes, which should be kept distinct from each other. They relate to

(A.) The original fitting out, arming, or equipping in neutral ports, of vessels intended for the naval service of a belligerent, and the original departure from the jurisdiction of the neutral of vessels intended for such service, and adapted for war wholly or in part within such jurisdiction.

(B.) The admission into the ports or waters of a neutral of vessels in the naval service of a belligerent, whether such vessels were or were not originally adapted for war within the jurisdiction of the neutral; and acts done by or in respect of vessels so admitted.

The question what measure of diligence or care may justly be demanded of a neutral government in the prevention of acts on the part of its subjects or citizens which are inconsistent with neutrality, and the question in what cases and on what accounts reparation may justly be awarded, are again distinct from the foregoing, and have to be considered separately.

(A.) ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT, ETC., OF BELLIGERENT VESSELS IN NEU

(A.) Original

erent vessels in neu

tral ports.

TRAL PORTS.

As to neutral duties falling under the first of these heads, Her Britannic Majesty's government adheres to what is laid equipment of bellig down in the three rules embodied in the sixth article of the treaty, and more particularly in the first of those rules. The British government is well convinced that these rules go beyond any definition of neutral duty, which, up to that time, had been estab lished by the law or general practice of nations; but it refrains from arguing that question, holding that the discussion of it is precluded, except so far as may be necessary for the purpose of dealing with argu ments founded on an assumed state of international law, as distinct from an undertaking by Her Majesty to act upon the rules. By common

consent the rules are, for the purposes of this arbitration, to be [12] *taken as applicable to the case; it is to be assumed, without

dispute on either side, for the purpose of this arbitration, that the obligations which they purport to express were such as Great Britain had undertaken to perform.

Since, however, the Government of the United States has thought proper to enter into the question at some length, Her Majesty's government deems it not improper to repeat here a statement already made in its case presented to the tribunal.

"The case," it was there said, "of a vessel which is dispatched from a neutral port to or for the use of a belligerent, after having been prepared within the neutral territory for warlike use, is one which may be regarded from different points of view, and may fall within the operation of different principles. The ship herself may be regarded merely as an implement or engine of war, sold or manufactured to order within neutral territory, and afterward transported therefrom, and the whole transaction as falling within the scope of the principles applicable to the sale, manufacture, shipment, and transportation of articles contraband of war; or, on the other hand, the preparation and dispatch of the ship may be viewed as being really and in effect the preparation and commencement of a hostile expedition. The circumstances of each case can alone determine from which of these two points of view it may most fitly be regarded, and to which class the transaction ought to be

assigned. But the difficulty of drawing a clear, precise, and intelligible line between these two classes of transactions has always been considerable in theory, and still greater in practice; and it was enhanced to the utmost during the civil war by the ingenuity and audacity of American citizens, who were engaged in carrying on hostilities against the Government of the United States, and were desirous of availing themselves for this purpose of the ship-building and manufacturing resources of Great Britain. This will sufficiently appear from the narrative which follows; and it will be seen also how serious and incessant were the trouble and embarrassment which these enterprises occasioned to Her Majesty's government. It is by the many difficulties encountered and by the experience acquired during the war that Her Majesty's government was finally led to the conclusion that it was expedient not only to enlarge the scope of its municipal law in relation to this subject beyond what has hitherto been deemed necessary in any other country, but, further, to accept for itself, and propose to other powers, rules of international obligation somewhat more stringent and comprehensive than are to be found in earlier expositions of the law of nations."

The British government believes that the arbitrators would search in vain in text-books of acknowledged authority anterior to the civil war, and in the general practice of maritime nations, for any proof or ac knowledgment of a duty incumbent on neutral governments to prevent their citizens or subjects from supplying belligerents with ships adapted for warlike use. They would find it, indeed, asserted, on the one hand, that among the duties of a neutral government is that of preventing hostile expeditions in aid of either belligerent from being organized within and dispatched from its territory. They would not, on the other hand, find the sale or delivery to a belligerent by a citizen or.subject of the neutral of a vessel adapted for war classed among the acts which the neutral government is bound to prevent, nor would they find any distinction drawn in this respect between the sale and delivery of a vessel built to order and that of a vessel not built to order.1

It is true beyond controversy that, at the time when the events occurred out of which the claims of the United States have arisen, the mere sale and delivery of a vessel adapted for war in a neutral port to a belligerent, and the mere construction of such a vessel to the order and for the use of a belligerent, had not been declared by any authority to be acts which the neutral government was under an obligation to prevent, or which violated any neutral duty. And it must never be forgotten that the obligations of international law are such as have been received and acknowledged by the general consent of nations. No private opinions, or theoretical developments of the principles on which they are supposed to rest, can ever constitute new international obligations or enlarge the old, till they have been themselves generally acknowledged and received. It would seem, indeed, to be inconsistent with neutrality for a neutral power to introduce or admit, during war, innovations on these subjects to the prejudice of either belligerent.

It is true, also, that it was a question at the least of reasonable and serious doubt, whether either of these classes of acts was a contravention of the municipal law of England, or would have been a contravention of that of the United States. Simple justice demands that this

should be steadily kept in view in determining whether, in any [13] of the cases brought before the arbitrators, there was, on the

Some citations bearing on this question are collected in an annex (A) at the end of this counter case.

part of the British government or any of its subordinate officers, such a defect of promptitude or decision as to amount to culpable negligence. It is material to be borne in mind, in considering what facts were known to the government, what those facts proved or did not prove, and what, upon the facts which were known to it and on wh h alone it could act, it was the duty of the government to do.

It has been already stated to the arbitrators, in the case presented to them on the part of Great Britain, that, in the judgment of Her Majesty's government and its official advisers, the special adaptation of a ves sel to warlike use was among the acts prohibited by the foreign-enlistment act, provided there were sufficient proof that she was intended for the service of a belligerent, although the vessel might not be actually armed so as to be capable of immediate employment for war. The provisions of the act are not, as has been already observed, to be regarded as declaratory of the law of nations. But Her Majesty's government agrees that by the second clause of the first rule it was the intention of the high contracting parties to preclude any question on this point from being raised before the arbitrators, with reference to the words "fitting out, arming, or equipping" in the first clause.

Great Britain does not, on this or on any other point, desire to raise or dispute before the arbitrators any doubtful or obscure questions of public law. She desires, on the contrary, that they should be relieved, as far as possible, from the necessity of considering such questions, and she expects from them a fair and just decision on ascertained facts, tried by the application of admitted principles, or of plain and legitimate inferences from admitted principles. She accepts as applicable to the case, and as substantially sufficient for an equitable adjudication on it, the proposition that a neutral government, which has assented to the rules laid down in the sixth article of the treaty, is bound—

First. To use due diligence to prevent the fitting out, arming, or equipping, within its jurisdiction, of any vessel which it has reasonable grounds to believe is intended to cruise or to carry on war against a power with which it is at peace; and also to use like diligence to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of any vessel intended to cruise or carry on war as above, such vessel having been specially adapted, in whole or in part, within such jurisdiction, to warlike use.

Secondly. Not to permit or suffer either belligerent to make use of its ports or waters as the base of naval operations against the other, or for the purpose of the renewal or augmentation of military supplies or arms, or the recruitment of men.

Thirdly. To exercise due diligence in its own ports or waters, and, as to all persons within its jurisdiction, to prevent any violation of the foregoing obligations and duties.

She accepts these rules, not with the refinements of meaning and the overstrained rigor of construction which are applied to them in the case of the United States, but according to their obvious purport, and as they would naturally be understood by persons conversant with the law and practice of nations; and she maintains that the British government did not at any time during the war, in respect of any of the vessels to which the claims of the United States relate, or of any other vessels, fail to use the due diligence which the rules require.

(B.) ADMISSION OF BELLIGERENT VESSELS INTO NEUTRAL PORTS.

(B.) Admission of

With respect to the admission of belligerent ships of war into neutral ports, the principles of the law of nations are clearly setbelligerent vessels tled, not only by the general consent of publicists, but by into neutral ports. a long and nearly uniform practice.

It is the right of a neutral government, at its absolute discretion, either to refuse admission or to grant it, and extend to the vessels

so admitted all the ordinary hospitalities of a friendly port, on such conditions, and subject to such regulations, if any, as the neutral government may think fit to make; provided only that the same facilities be offered to both belligerents indifferently, and that such vessels be r' permitted to augment their military force, or increase or renew their supplies of arms or munitions of war, within the neutral territory. A neutral government is not required by the law or practice of nations to place any restrictions whatever upon the liberty which it accords of purchasing provisions, coal, and other supplies, (not being supplies of arms or munitions of war.) It is not a principle or rule of the law of nations that the supplies purchased should be limited to the quantity necessary for enabling the vessel to gain the nearest port of her own country or of an ally. No such principle was ever, so far as Her Majesty's government is aware, admitted or contended for by any maritime power. On the contrary, it has been the constant [14] practice to allow belligerent vessels to repair, refit, and supply

themselves with stores and fuel, with the avowed intention of continuing to cruise. So also belligerent ships may be either permitted or forbidden, at the pleasure of the neutral, to bring in prizes, to retain possession of them, or even to sell them, although there can be no condemnation of them as prize by any authority locally situate within the neutral territory. Special restrictions may undoubtedly be imposed by the neutral government if it think fit, but they may be revoked at any time, and do not confer any right on either belligerent. All that a belligerent has a right to demand is, that restrictions imposed on him shall be imposed on his enemy likewise.1

These propositions are so familiar that they do not need to be supported by the citation of authorities. The subjoined extracts from some of the most recent writers of note may, however, serve to illustrate them:

"Les règles relatives à l'accès et au séjour momentané des bâtiments dans les ports et dans les rades étrangers restent les mêmes en temps de paix qu'en temps de guerre. Sauf les limitations consenties par traité, les ports, les rades, et les mers territoriales neutres sont un asile ouvert aux bâtiments de guerre des belligérants, surtout lorsqu'ils s'y présentent en nombre limité; ils y sont admis à s'y procurer les vivres nécessaires et à y faire les réparations indispensables pour reprendre la mer et se livrer de nouveau aux opérations de guerre, sans que l'état neutre viole par là les devoirs de la neutralité comme ils les violerait, au contraire, s'il accordait un traitement semblable à des troupes de terre belligérantes qui viendraient chercher un refuge sur son territoire; en pareil cas celles-ci doivent être désarmées et éloignées du théâtre de la guerre. Cette différence de traitement est attribuée, communément, par les publicistes, ainsi que l'énonce encore un auteur allemand moderne, aux conséquences de l'immunité du pavillon et au principe que les navires de guerre sont une portion du territoire de la nation à laquelle ils appartiennent. Nous aimons mieux en chercher les véritables motifs dans les conditions si différentes de l'existence maritime et dans les nécessités indispensables de la navigation et de la vie des hommes sur un élément aussi terrible parfois que la mer."-Ortolan: Règles internationales et diplomatie de la mer, (4th edition,) vol. ii, page 286.

"Sous la réserve de ces diverses circonstances, l'asile que les navires et les corsaires réguliers des puissance belligérantes sont admis à recevoir dans les ports neutres s'applique aussi à ceux de ces navires qui arrivent avec des prises. Un état neutre n'ayant pas le droit de s'ingérs dans les resultats des actes exercés par un belligérant en conformité de lois de la guerre, du moment que le capteur a hissé le pavillon de l'état auquel il appartient à bord de la prise qu'il a faite, cette prise doit être considérée, provisoirement du moins, comme propriété de cet état ou des sujets; et à ce titre on est fonde à réclamer pour elle l'hospitalité dans les ports amis.

"Cependant il ne faut pas perdre de vue que chaque état, ayant la propriété et la police des ces ports, est libre, en principe, d'en ouvrir et d'en fermer l'entrée, selon qu'il le juge convenable aux intérêts ou à la tranquilité du pays, et que les belligérants ne peuvent, par conséquent, en réclamer l'entrée, pour leurs navires ni pour les prises qu'ils ont faites, comme un droit qui leur appartiendrait.”—Ibid., vol. ii, page 303.

"Le droit d'asile maritime diffère essentiellement de celui que les neutres peuvent exercer en faveur des belligérants sur le territoire continental. Dans les guerres ter

[15] FIRST LIMITATION SUGGESTED BY THE UNITED STATES.

It has been necessary for Her Britannic Majesty's government to recall the attention of the tribunal to these well-known and elementary maxims, because the Government of the United States has not only endeavored to fix upon the regulations and instructions which the British government deemed it expedient to issue during the war, to its own officers, a character which they did not possess, that of acknowledg

restres, lorsq'une armée, fuyant devant son ennemi, vient se refugier sur un territoire neutre elle y est reçue, il est vrai; elle y trouve tous les secours d'humanité. Mais l'armée est dissoute, les hommes qui la composent sont désarmés et éloignés du théâtre de la guerre; en un mot, on remplit les devoirs d'humanité à l'égard des individus, mais on n'accorde pas l'asile à l'armée pris comme corps. Le neutre qui, au lieu d'agir ainsi que je viens de le dire, accueillerait les troupes ennemies, leur fournirait des vivres, leur donnerait le temps de se remettre de leurs fatigues, de soigner loirs malades et leurs blessés, et leur permettrait ensuite de retourner sur le théâtre des opérations militaires ne serait pas considéré comme neutre; il manquerait à tous les devoirs de son état. L'asile maritime, au contraire, consiste à recevoir dans les rades fermées, même dans les ports, les bâtiments des belligérants; que leur entrée soit volontaire ou nécessitée par la tempête, par le manque de vivres ou par toute autre cause, même par la poursuite de l'ennemi. Les vaisseaux admis peuvent acheter les vivres qui leur sont nécessaires, réparer les avaries faites, soit par les accidents de mer, soit par le combat, soigner leurs malades ou leurs blessés, puis sortir librement pour aller livrer de nouveaux combats. Ils ne sont pas, par conséquent, soumis au désarmement comme les troupes de terre.

"Galiani et Azuni attribuent cette différence à celle qui existe entre la terre et la mer, entre les dangers qui menacent le marin et ceux auxquels est exposé le soldat. Ce dernier ne peut craindre que la défaite, et d'être pris par son ennemi, tandis que le premier peut souvent être exposé à périr sur les mers par la famine, à être englouti sous les flots, &c. Cette cause de différence peut être vraie, mais elle ne suffit pas pour motiver celle qui existe. En effet, si elle était unique, elle ne justifierait nullement l'absence de désarmement, surtout lorsqu'un bâtiment vient se jeter dans le port neutre pour échapper à la poursuite de l'ennemi, lorsqu'il vient y chercher un refuge contre une défaite, contre une prise inévitable. Il est vrai que Galiani propose de soumettre les vaisseaux qui profitent de l'asile au désarmement. Mais il reconnait que cette règle n'est pas admise par les nations, qu'elle est complètement nouvelle, et que le petit nombre d'exemples, que l'on pourrait citer, de bâtiments contraints à désarmer pour pouvoir être adinis à jouir de l'asile du port neutre, s'applique à des armateurs dont la conduite seule motivait cette exigence extraordinaire.

"Azuni va beaucoup plus loin: il vent que tout bâtiment qui entre dans un port neutre, pour se soustraire à la poursuite de l'ennemi, soit tenu non-seulement de désarmer immédiatement, s'il est armé en guerre, mais encore de ne plus naviguer pendant tout le temps de la guerre. Et, d'après la manière absolue dont il s'exprime, il est evident qu'il applique cette règle même aux navires du commerce.

"Il y a donc à cette différence immense une autre cause qu'il est utile de rechercher. Je crois qu'elle est tout entière dans la qualité reconnue du bâtiment. Il est une partie du territoire de son pays; pour tout ce qui concerne son gouvernement intérieur, il est exclusivement placé sous la juridiction de son souverain. Or, il est évident qu'ordonner le désarmement, c'est s'immiscer dans de gouvernement intérieur du vaisseau, c'est faire un acte de juridiction sur le vaisseau; le prince neutre n'a pas le droit de le faire. Il peut refuser l'asile; il peut l'accorder seulement sous certaines conditions, avec des restrictions. S'il vent remplir les devoirs d'humanité, arracher le bâtiment aux périls qui peuvent le menacer, il le reçoit dans ses ports, il lui accorde les secours nécessaires pour le mettre en état de reprendre la mer. Tel est, à mon avis, le seul motif de la différence dont je viens de parler."-Hautefeuille: Droits et devoirs des nations neutres, vol. i, page 347.

"Tambien es costumbre permitir en ellos (puertos neutrales) á los buques armados, públicos y particulares, proveerse de viveres y otros articulos innocentes. Es licito á los beligerantes llevar sus presas á puerto neutral y venderlas en él, si no se lo prohibe el soberano del territorio, á quien es libre conceder este permiso ó rehursarle, observando con ambos beligerantes una conducta igual."-Pando: Elementos del Derecho Internacional, § 192.

Even the prohibition of the purchase of arms and munitions of war by a belligerent vessel in a neutral port has been questioned by Heffter. "Es wäre indessen hart," he says, "einen Krieger wehrlos seinen Feinden Preis zu geben, auch ist Verkauff im eigenen Lande den Neutralen überhaupt nicht verboten."-Das europäische Völkerrecht, p. 2st, note 2 (5th edition.)