Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

posed as an amendment to the constitution of the State, and that the Secretary of State cause the same to be published, and printed copies thereof to be distributed in the manner provided

in article XIII of the constitution:

Article.

Men and women, politically and legally, shall be entitled to equal rights and privileges, and shall be subject to equal duties and liabilities.

XVIII.

GENEVA AND SAN JUAN AWARDS.

The Geneva Award, September 14, | den, a peer of the United Kingdom, companion

1872.

Decision and award made by the tribunal of arbitration constituted by virtue of the first article of the treaty concluded at Washington, the 8th of May, 1871, between the United

States and Great Britain.

Whose

of the Most Honorable Order of the Bath, assistant under-secretary of state of foreign affairs. ticated, then delivered to each of the arbitrapowers were found likewise duly authentors the printed case prepared by each of the two parties, accompanied by the documents, the official correspondence, and other evidence on which each relied, in conformity with the terms of the third article of the said treaty.

In virtue of the decision made by the tribunal at its first session, the counter case and additional documents, correspondence, and evidence referred to in article IV of the said treaty were delivered by the respective agents of the two parties to the secretary of the tribunal on the 15th of April, 1872, at the chamber of conference, at the Hotel de Ville of Geneva.

The tribunal, in accordance with the vote of adjournment passed at their second session, held on the 16th of December, 1871, reassembled at Geneva, on the 15th of June, 1872; and the agent of each of the parties duly delivered to each of the arbitrators, and to the agent of the other party, the printed argument referred to in article V of the said treaty.

The United States of America and her Britannic Majesty having agreed by article I of the treaty concluded and signed at Washington, the 8th of May, 1871, to refer all the claims "generrically known as the Alabama claims," to a tribunal of arbitration, to be composed of five arbitrators, named; one by the President of the United States; one by Her Britannic Majesty; one by His Majesty the King of Italy; one by the President of the Swiss Confederation; one by His Majesty the Emperor of Brazil. And the President of the United States, Her Britannic Majesty, His Majesty the King of Italy, the President of the Swiss Confederation, and his Majesty the Emperor of Brazil having respectively named their arbitrators, to wit: The President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, Esq.; Her Britannic Majesty, Sir Alexander James Edmund Cockburn, baronet, a member of Her The tribunal having since fully taken into Majesty's privy council, lord chief justice of their consideration the treaty, and also the cases, England; His Majesty the King of Italy, His counter cases, documents, evidence, and arguExcellency Count Frederick Sclopis, of Salerano, ments, and likewise all other communications a knight of the Order of the Annunciata, minis- made to them by the two parties during the ter of State, senator of the Kingdom of Italy: progress of their sittings, and having impartially the President of the Swiss Confederation, M. and carefully examined the same, has arrived at James Stämpfli; His Majesty the Emperor of the decision embodied in the present award: Brazil, his Excellency Marcos Antonio d'Araujo, Whereas having regard to the VIth and VIIth Viscount d'Itajubá, a grandee of the Empire of articles of the said treaty, the arbitrators are Brazil, member of the council of H. M. the Em-bound, under the terms of the said VIth article, peror of Brazil, and his envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary in France. And the five arbitrators above named having assembled at Geneva (in Switzerland) in one of the chambers of the Hotel de Ville, on the 15th of December, 1871, in conformity with the terms of the second article of the Treaty of Washington, of the 8th of May of that year, and having proceeded to the inspection and verification of their respective powers, which were found duly authenticated, the tribunal of arbitration was declared duly organized.

The agents named by each of the high contracting parties, by virtue of the same article II, to wit: For the United States of America, John C. Bancroft Davis, Esq.; and for Her Britannic Majesty, Charles Stuart Aubrey, Lord Tenter

"in deciding the matters submitted to them, to be governed by the three rules therein specified, and by such principles of international law, not inconsistent therewith, as the arbitrators shall determine to have been applicable to the case;

[ocr errors]

And whereas the "due diligence" referred to in the first and third of the said rules ought to be exercised by neutral governments in exact proportion to the risks to which either of the belligerents may be exposed, from a failure to fulfill the obligations of neutrality on their part;

And whereas the circumstances out of which the facts constituting the subject-matter of the present controversy arose were of a nature to call for the exercise on the part of her Britannic Majesty's Government of all possible solicitude for the observance of the rights and the duties

involved in the proclamation of neutrality issued by Her Majesty on the 13th day of May, 1861; And whereas the effects of a violation of neutrality committed by means of the construction, equipment, and armament of a vessel are not done away with by any commission which the Government of the belligerent power, benefited by the violation of neutrality, may afterwards have granted to that vessel; and the ultimate step, by which the offense is completed, cannot be admissible as a ground for the absolution of the offender, nor can the consummation of his fraud become the means of establishing his inno

cence;

And whereas the privilege of exterritoriality accorded to vessels of war has been admitted into the law of nations, not as an absolute right, but solely as a proceeding founded on the principle of courtesy and mutual deference between different nations, and therefore can never be appealed to for the protection of acts done in violation of neutrality;

And whereas the absence of a previous notice cannot be regarded as a failure in any consideration required by the law of nations, in those cases in which a vessel carries with it its own condemnation;

| Majesty cannot justify itself for a failure in due diligence on the plea of insufficiency of the legal means of action which it possessed:

Four of the arbitrators, for the reasons above assigned, and the fifth for reasons separately assigned by him, are of opinion that Great Britain has in this case failed, by omission, to fulfill the duties prescribed in the first and the third of the rules established by the VIth article of the treaty of Washington.

And whereas, with respect to the vessel called the "Florida," it results from all the facts relative to the construction of the "Oreto" in the port of Liverpool, and to its issue therefrom, which facts failed to induce the authorities in Great Britain to resort to measures adequate to prevent the violation of the neutrality of that nation, notwithstanding the warnings and repeated representations of the agents of the United States, that Her Majesty's Government has failed to use due diligence to fulfill the duties of neutrality;

And whereas it likewise results from all the facts relative to the stay of the "Oreto” at Nassau, to her issue from that port, to her enlistment of men, to her supplies, and to her armament, with the co-operation of the British And whereas in order to impart to any sup-vessel "Prince Alfred," at Green Cay, that there plies of coal a character inconsistent with the was negligence on the part of the British colosecond rule, prohibiting the use of neutral ports nial authorities; or waters, as a base of naval operations for a belligerent, it is necessary that the said supplies should be connected with special circumstances of time, of persons, or of place, which may combine to give them such character;

And whereas, notwithstanding the violation of the neutrality of Great Britain committed by the Oreto, this same vessel, later known as the Confederate cruiser Florida, was nevertheless on several occasions freely admitted into the ports of British colonies;

four months, extinguish the responsibility previously to that time incurred by Great Britain:

And whereas, with respect to the vessel called the Alabama, it clearly results from all the facts And whereas the judicial acquittal of the relative to the construction of the ship at first Oreto at Nassau cannot relieve Great Britain designated by the number "290" in the port of from the responsibility incurred by her under Liverpool, and its equipment and armament in the principles of international law; nor can the the vicinity of Terceira, through the agency of fact of the entry of the Florida into the Confedthe vessels called the "Agrippina" and the "Ba-erate port of Mobile, and of its stay there during hama." dispatched from Great Britain to that end, that the British Government failed to use due diligence in the performance of its neutral obligations; and especially that it omitted, not withstanding the warnings and official representations made by the diplomatic agents of the United States during the construction of the said number "290," to take in due time any effective measures of prevention, and that those orders which it did give at last, for the detention of the vessel, were issued so late that their execution was not practicable;

And whereas, after the escape of that vessel, the measures taken for its pursuit and arrest were so imperfect as to lead to no result, and therefore cannot be considered sufficient to release Great Britain from the responsibility already incurred;

And whereas, in despite of the violations of the neutrality of Great Britain committed by the "290," this same vessel, later known as the Confederate cruiser Alabama, was on several occasions freely admitted into the ports of colonies of Great Britain, instead of being proceeded against as it ought to have been in any and every port within British jurisdiction in which it might have been found;

And whereas the Government of Her Britannic

[ocr errors]

For these reasons, the tribunal, by a majority of four voices to one, is of opinion, that Great Britain has in this case failed, by omission, to fulfill the duties prescribed in the first, in the second, and in the third of the rules established by article VI of the treaty of Washington.

And whereas, with respect to the vessel called the "Shenandoah," it results from all the facts relative to the departure from London of the merchant vessel the "Sea King," and to the transformation of that ship into a Confederate cruiser under the name of the Shenandoah, near the island of Madeira, that the Government of Her Britannic Majesty is not chargeable with any failure, down to that date, in the use of due diligence to fulfill the duties of neutrality;

But whereas it results from all the facts connected with the stay of the Shenandoah at Melbourne, and especially with the augmentation which the British Government itself admits to have been clandestinely effected of her force, by the enlistment of men within that port, that there was negligence on the part of the authorities at that place:

For these reasons, the tribunal is unanimously of opinion, that Great Britain has not failed, by

any act or omission, "to fulfill any of the duties prescribed by the three rules of article VI in the treaty of Washington, or by the principles of international law not inconsistent therewith," in respect to the vessel called the Shenandoah, during the period of time anterior to her entry into the port of Melbourne;

for "gross freights," so far as they exceed "net freights;'

And whereas it is just and reasonable to allow interest at a reasonable rate;

And whereas, in accordance with the spirit and letter of the treaty of Washington, it is preferable to adopt the form of adjudication of a sum in gross, rather than to refer the subject of compensation for further discussion and deliberation to a board of assessors, as provided by article X of the said treaty:

And, by a majority of three to two voices, the tribunal decides that Great Britain has failed, by omission, to fulfill the duties prescribed by the second and third of the rules aforesaid, in the case of this same vessel, from and after her entry into Hobson's bay, and is therefore re-ferred upon it by article VII of the said treaty, by sponsible for all acts committed by that vessel after her departure from Melbourne, on the 18th day of February, 1865.

And so far as relates to the vessels called the Tuscaloosa, (tender to the Alabama,) the Clarence, the Tacony, and the Archer, (tenders to the Florida,) the tribunal is unanimously of opinion, that such tenders or auxiliary vessels, being properly regarded as accessories, must necessarily follow the lot of their principals, and be submitted to the same decision which applies to them respectively.

And so far as relates to the vessel called "Retribution," the tribunal, by a majoity of three to two voices, is of opinion, that Great Britain has not failed, by any act or omission, to fulfill any of the duties prescribed by the three rules of article VI in the treaty of Washington, or by the principles of international law not inconsistent therewith.

And so far as relates to the vessels called the Georgia, the Sumter, the Nashville, the Tallahassee, and the Chickamauga, respectively, the tribunal is unanimously of opinion that Great Britain has not failed, by any act or omission, to fulfill any of the duties prescribed by the three rules of article VI in the Treaty of Washington, or by the principles of international law not inconsistent therewith.

And so far as relates to the vessels called the Sallie, the Jefferson Davis, the Music, the Boston, and the V. H. Joy, respectively, the tribunal is unanimously of opinion that they ought to be excluded from consideration for want of evidence.

And whereas, so far as relates to the particulars of the indemnity claimed by the United States, the costs of pursuit of the Confederate cruisers, are not, in the judgment of the tribunal, properly distinguishable from the general expenses of the war carried on by the United States. The tribunal is, therefore, of opinion, by a majority of three to two voices, that there is no ground for awarding to the United States any sum by way of indemnity under this head.

And whereas prospective earnings cannot properly be made the subject of compensation, inasmuch as they depend in their nature upon future and uncertain contingencies, the tribunal is unanimously of opinion that there is no ground for awarding to the United States any sum by way of indemnity under this head.

And whereas, in order to arrive at an equitable compensation for the damages which have been sustained, it is necessary to set aside all double claims for the same losses, and all claims

The tribunal, making use of the authority con

a majority of four voices to one, awards to the United States a sum of $15,500,000 in gold, as the indemnity to be paid by Great Britain to the United States, for the satisfaction of all the claims referred to the consideration of the tribunal, conformably to the provisions contained in article VII of the aforesaid treaty.

66

And, in accordance with the terms of article XI of the said treaty, the tribunal declares that all the claims referred to in the treaty as submitted to the tribunal are hereby fully, perfectly, and finally settled."

Furthermore it declares, that "each and every one of the said claims, whether the same may or may not have been presented to the notice of, or made, preferred, or laid before the tribunal, shall henceforth be considered and treated as finally settled, barred, and inadmissible."

In testimony whereof this present decision and award has been made in duplicate, and signed by the arbitrators who have given their assent thereto, the whole being in exact conformity with the provisions of article VII of the said treaty of Washington.

Made and concluded at the Hotel de Ville of Geneva, in Switzerland, the 14th day of the month of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-two.

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS.
FREDERICK SCLOPIS.
STAMPFLI.

VICOMTE D'ITAJUBA.

Under the act approved June 23, 1874, creating a "Court of Commissioners of Alabama Claims," for the distribution of the award, its jurisdiction is thus defined in sections 11 and 12:

SEC. 11. That it shall be the duty of said court to receive and examine all claims admissible under this act that may be presented to it, directly resulting from damage caused by the so-called insurgent cruisers Alabama, Florida, and their tenders, and also all claims admissible under this act directly resulting from damage caused by the so-called insurgent cruiser Shenandoah after her departure from Melbourne on the eighteenth day of February, eighteen hundred and sixty-five, and to decide upon the amount and validity of such claims, in conformity with the provisions hereinafter contained, and according to the principles of law and the merits of the several cases. All claims shall be verified by oath of the claimant, and filed in said court within six months next after the organization thereof, as provided in section eight of this act; and no claim shall be received, docketed, or considered that shall have not been so filed within the time aforesaid;

but every such unrepresented claim shall be deemed and held to be finally and conclusively waived and barred.

SEC. 12. That no claim shall be admissible or allowed by said court for any loss or damage for or in respect to which the party injured, his assignees or legal representatives, shall have received compensation or indemnity from any insurance company, insurer, or otherwise; but if such compensation or indemnity so received shall not have been equal to the loss or damage so actually suffered, allowance may be made for the difference. And in no case shall any claim be admitted or allowed for or in respect to unearned freights, gross freights, prospective profits, freights, gains, or advantages, or for wages of officers or seamen for a longer time than one year next after the breaking up of a voyage by the acts aforesaid. And no claim shall be admissible or allowed by said court by or in behalf of any insurance company or insurer, either in its or his own right, or as assignee, or otherwise, in the right of a person or party insured as aforesaid, unless such claimant shall show, to the satisfac tion of said court, that during the late rebellion the sum of its or his losses, in respect to its or his war risks, exceeded the sum of its or his premiums or other gains upon or in respect to such war risks; and in case of any such allowance, the same shall not be greater than such excess of loss. And no claim shall be admissible or allowed by said court arising in favor of any insurance company not lawfully existing at the time of the loss under the laws of some one of the United States. And no claim shall be admissible or allowed by said court arising in favor of any person not entitled at the time of his loss to the protection of the United States in the premises, nor arising in favor of any person who did not at all times during the late rebellion bear true allegiance to the United States.

Provision is made for retaining in the Treasury, as a special fund, subject to future action, the amount which may be undisposed of under this act. And if the sum of all the judgments rendered by the court, together with interest, should exceed the amount of the award, provi

sion is made for ratable reductions of the judgment claims.

The San Juan Boundary Award.

We, William, by the grace of God, German Emperor, King of Prussia, &c., &c., &c. After examination of the treaty concluded at Washington on the *6th of May, 1871, between the governments of Her Britannic Majesty and of the United States of America, according to which the said governments have submitted to them, whether the boundary line which, accordour arbitrament the question at issue between ing to the treaty of Washington of June 15, 1846, after being carried westward along the middle of the channel which separates the contiforty-ninth parallel of northern latitude to the nent from Vancouver's Island is thence to be drawn southerly through the middle of the said channel and of the Fuca straits to the Pacific ocean, should be drawn through the Rosario channel as the government of her Britannic Majesty claims, or through the Haro channel as the Government of the United States claims; to the end that we may finally and without appeal decide which of these claims is most in accordance with the true interpretation of the treaty of June 15, 1846.

After hearing the report made to us by the experts and jurists upon the contents of the interchanged memorials and their appendices— Have decreed the following award:

Most in accordance with the true interpretations of the treaty concluded on the 15th of June, 1846, between the governments of Her Britannic Majesty and of the United States of America, is the claim of the Government of the United States that the boundary line between the territories of Her Britannic Majesty and the United States should be drawn through the

Haro channel.

Authenticated by our autographic signature and the impression of the imperial green seal. Given at Berlin, October the 21st, 1872. [L. S.]

*Sic in original May 8th.

WILLIAM.

XIX. MISCELLANEOUS.

Universal Amnesty and Test-Oath. FORTY-THIRD CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION. 1873, Dec. 8-Mr. MAYNARD moved that the rules be suspended, so as to enable him to report from the Committee on Rules, and the House to pass the following bill:

Be it enacted, &c. (two-thirds of each House concurring therein,) That all disabilites imposed and remaining upon any person by virtue of section three of article fourteen of the amend

ments to the Constitution of the United States be, and the same are hereby, removed.

SEC. 2. That the act of July second, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, entitled "An act to prescribe an oath of office, and for other purposes,' be, and it is hereby, repealed. And hereafter every person elected or appointed to any office of honor or profit under the Government of the United States, either in the civil, military, or naval departments of the public service, shall, before entering upon the duties of such office,

and being entitled to any of the salary or other | emoluments thereof take and subscribe the oath prescribed by the act of July eleventh, eighteen hundred and sixty-eight, entitled "An act prescribing an oath of office to be taken by persons from whom legal disabilities shall have been removed."

The motion was agreed to, two-thirds voting in favor thereof, (yeas 141, nays 29,) on a division, and so the bill was passed.

IN SENATE.

1873, Dec. 10-The bill, (H. R. 472) granting general amnesty and prescribing an oath of office was read, and passed to a second reading. No

further action was taken.

A large number of bills were passed, relieving the persons named in them of their disabilities.

Proposed Amendment of the Constitution.

This report was made after chapter V was stereotyped :

1874, June 22-Mr. H. BOARDMAN SMITH, from the Committee on Elections, reported a joint resolution, which was recommitted to the committee, proposing a new article:

ARTICLE

SECTION 1. The President and Vice President shall be elected by the direct vote of the people, in the manner following: Each State shall be divided into districts, equal in number to the number of Representatives to which the State may be entitled in Congress, to be composed of contiguous territory, and to be as nearly equal in population as may be; and the person having the highest number of votes in each district for President shall receive the vote of that district, which shall count one presidential vote; but no voter in any State shall vote for candidates for President and Vice President who are both citizens in the same State with himself.

SEC. 2. The person having the highest number of votes for President in a State, shall receive two presidential votes from the State at large.

SEC. 3. The person having the highest number of presidential votes in the United States shall be President.

SEC. 4. If two persons have the same number of votes in any State, it being the highest number, they shall receive each one presidential vote from the State at large; and if more than two persons shall have each the same number of votes in any State, it being the highest number, no presidential vote shall be counted from the State at large. If more persons than one shall have the same number of votes, it being the highest number in any district, no presidential vote shall be counted from that district.

SEC. 5. The foregoing provisions shall apply to the election of Vice President.

SEC. 6. The Congress shall have power to provide for holding and conducting the elections of President and Vice President. The returns of such elections shall be made to the Supreme Court of the United States within thirty days after the election. Said court shall, under such

rules as may be prescribed by law, or by the court in the absence of law, determine any contest in respect of such returns, canvass the same, and declare, within ninety days after such election, by public proclamation, who is elected President and who is elected Vice President.

SEC. 7. The States shall be divided into districts by the Legislatures thereof, but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter the

same.

SEC. 8. No person who has been a justice of the Supreme Court shall be eligible to the office of President or Vice President.

Interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Forty-First Congress, Second Session.

1870, May 20-Mr. EDMUNDS, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following report:

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the petition of citizens of Rhode Island, setting forth, by reference, the 14th and 15th articles of amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and stating that "the State of Rhode Island, notwithstanding the provisions of the above named amendments, persists in and by the first section of article 2 of the constitution of said State, in denying and abridging the right of about ten thousand citizens of the United States to vote at any and all elections holden in said State," and praying that Congress will "pass such appropriate legislation as may be found necessary to obtain for, and secure to, the citizens of the United States resident in Rhode Island all the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States," respectfully report:

That the constitution of Rhode Island, adopted in 1842, prescribes two alternative classes of qualifications for voting. The first gives to all male citizens of the United States of a certain age, &c., the right to vote, if they own real estate of the value of one hundred and thirty-four dollars, or which shall rent for seven dollars per annum. The second gives to every male native citizen of the United States of a certain age, &c., the right to vote, if he pays a tax of one dollar a year, &c., although he may not own real estate. No man or party has ever questioned the right of the people of Rhode Island, and of every other State, to establish such a constitution of government as may be agreeable to their views of the public welfare in that State, although its provisions as to suffrage may not conform to the opinions of citizens of other States. At the time when this constitution of Rhode Island was adopted the right to regulate the qualifications of voters belonged exclusively to the respective States. The petition under consideration fully recognizes this, but it raises the question (although studiously framed in such a manner as not to declare or insist upon such a conclusion) whether, by the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments to the Constitution of the United States, natives of foreign countries who have become citizens of the United States are not entitled to vote in Rhode Island, without regard to the qualifications imposed by her constitution?

« AnteriorContinuar »