during which she succeeded in capturing or destroying fiftyeight merchant vessels, she was defeated and sunk in an engagement with the United States steamer Kearsarge, off the port of Havre, France, on June 19, 1864.

The Shenandoah, a steamer formerly engaged in the China trade, attracted the attention of the Confederate agents in London by her speed and superior sailing qualities, as well as by her adaptability to the purposes which they had in view. She was, therefore, purchased, and on October 8, 1864, cleared from the Thames, ostensibly for Bombay. Her real destination, however, was the island of Madeira, whither a tender had preceded her containing her armament and crew. The transfer was effected in neutral jurisdiction, as in the preceding cases, about October 21st of the same year. The evidence submitted in the case of this vessel satisfied the Geneva Board of Arbitration that no responsibility attached to the British Government for her conduct up to the date of her arrival at Melbourne, Australia. The circumstances attending her conduct there should have caused her detention, but did not, and for her acts, after the date of her departure from Melbourne, the British Government was held responsible. The career of this vessel is remarkable from the fact that she continued to make captures, in the North Pacific, after the termination of hostilities in the Civil War. Upon being notified of the peace in July, 1865, she was conveyed by her captain to Liverpool, and was there surrendered to the British Government.'

Result of their Operations. The result of the operations of these vessels and their tenders was, in effect, to destroy the merchant marine of the United States. Such of its ships as escaped capture or destruction were transferred to foreign flags, to secure an immunity from capture by acquiring the neutral character. The question continued an open one between the governments for a number of years, subjecting their relations to a constant strain, and at times taking such a turn

For Captain Waddell's letter to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs,

surrendering this vessel, see Bernard, pp. 434-439.

as to render war between them a not unlikely occurrence. Several attempts at settlement were made, but without success, owing to the excited state of feeling at the time. The question was finally put in the way of adjustment by the negotiation of the Treaty of Washington, in 1871.

Manner in which the Neutral Duty of Great Britain was Performed. It has been seen that, during the continuance of the Civil War, three war steamers were obtained by the Confederate States in England by purchase and construction. Over the acts of those persons within its jurisdiction who had to do with such purchase and construction the British Government had undisputed control. Its duty and responsibility in the premises should have been known to the individual members of the government; and the ease with which the American minister was able to obtain detailed information as to the purpose and ultimate destination of these vessels shows that no insuperable difficulties lay in the way of its obtaining similar knowledge, upon which to act in the performance of its neutral duty.

In the performance of its duty as a neutral, however, the British Government displayed not only a singular and unusual lack of energy and vigilance, but a more remarkable failure to discern the true point at issue. In a manner entirely in accordance with English tradition, it seems to have been taken for granted that a more or less vigorous enforcement of the existing neutrality laws would constitute a sufficient performance of its neutral duty, and a sufficient fulfilment of its neutral obligation. The action of the government, therefore, was not only confined to the enforcement of its neutrality law, but a peculiar construction was placed upon that law, by which it was deemed no violation of its provisions to construct a ship, even for an admitted warlike purpose, if no portion of its equipment and armament was contributed by its builders, or placed on board within British territorial jurisdiction.

Neutral Responsibility of Great Britain. From what mistaken view of international duty such an idea was deduced it is not

1

necessary to discuss here. Acts like those of which the United States complained were opposed to the usages of nations, because they constituted hostile attempts against a friendly power, and originated within neutral jurisdiction. A belligerent has no right, or color of right, to interfere in any manner with the internal administration of a sovereign state. He must judge of the attitude and intentions of that state by its acts, or by the acts of individuals which have originated within its territory. If an act of hostility originate in a neutral state, it matters not by whom it is committed, the neutral is entirely responsible for its effects and results, whatever they may be; and no other course is open to a belligerent than to hold such neutral to a strict accountability for events over which he has, and may exercise, a jurisdiction in every way adequate to his responsibility.

THE GENEVA ARBITRATION

History. The most striking and successful example of the settlement of an international difference of the gravest character, by a resort to the principle of arbitration, is furnished by the adjustment of the dispute between the United States and England growing out of the Alabama Claims. It was impossible that a difference of such serious importance could long exist without endangering the friendly relations of the two powers, and, at different times between the years 1863 and 1869, efforts were made with a view to its adjustment. None of them, however, were successful. The first attempt was made, in 1863, by Mr. Adams, the United States minister to England. He submitted a proposition which was held under advisement for a time by the British cabinet, but was finally declined in 1865. Another effort was made in 1866, and negotiations were continued until, in January, 1868, they were broken off, apparently without hope of renewal. In 1869 they were again renewed by Mr. Reverdy Johnson, who had succeeded Mr. Adams as the American representative in England. An agreement was entered into, between Mr. Johnson and the Earl of Clarendon, by which the claims were to be

referred to a commission selected by the interested powers. This agreement was not ratified by the United States Senate, a co-ordinate branch of the treaty-making power, and thus, for the third time, the efforts at adjustment were abandoned.

The Treaty of Washington. In 1870 a dispute arose between the United States and Canada, as to the right of American citizens to participate in the fisheries in certain British territorial waters of North America. As the agitation of the question seemed likely to introduce a new element of difficulty into the complications already existing between the two governments, a proposal was submitted, through the British minister, to the government in Washington for the appointment of a Joint Commission. The commission was to be composed, in equal numbers, of members selected by each government, and was to be charged with the adjustment, not only of the fishing dispute, but of all questions which might affect the relations of the United States with the British possessions in North America. To this proposition a reply was made, in behalf of the United States, that the project of the commission would not be favorably considered unless its powers were extended to include the settlement of the differences which had arisen, during the Civil War, out of the acts committed by Confederate cruisers, which had given rise to the demands known as the Alabama Claims.'

The proposition of the United States was accepted, and an agreement was entered into providing for the organization of a commission of ten members, selected in equal numbers by the governments of England and the United States. The commission was to sit in the city of Washington, and was to address itself to the task of providing a means of adjusting all causes of difference then existing between the two countries.

The commission thus provided for met in Washington on March 4, 1871. Its labors terminated on May 8th, with the completion and signature of the Treaty of Washington. That instrument provided for the reference of the Alabama Claims

1 Revue de Droit International, vol. iii. 1871, p. 113.

to a tribunal of arbitration to be composed of five members. Of these one was to be selected by each of the contracting parties, and one each by the King of Italy, the President of the Swiss Confederation, and the Emperor of Brazil. The tribunal was to meet in Geneva, on the earliest convenient day after the nomination of its members. A case was to be submitted, by each of the contracting parties; and within four months thereafter either party might, in its discretion, submit a counter case in reply to the evidence and correspondence adduced by the other in support of its claim.

The Three Rules for the Guidance of the Tribunal. The tribunal, in deciding the case, was to be guided by three rules. which were incorporated in the treaty and mutually agreed to by the litigant powers. The agreement on the part of Great Britain was qualified by the declaration that "her Majesty's Government cannot assent to the foregoing rules as a statement of principles of international law which were in force at the time when the claims mentioned arose, but that her Majesty's Government, in order to evince its desire of strengthening the friendly relations between the two countries, and of making satisfactory provision for the future, agrees that, in deciding the questions between the two countries arising out of these claims, the arbitrators should assume that her Majesty's Government had undertaken to act upon the principles set forth in the rules."'

The three rules are, "A neutral government is bound—

(a.) "To use due diligence to prevent the fitting-out, arming, equipping, within its jurisdiction, of any vessel which it has reasonable ground to believe is intended to cruise or 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."

(b.) "Not to permit or suffer either belligerent to make use

1 Treaties and Conventions of the United States, 1776-1887, p. 481.