Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 01.djvu/315

ALABAMA.  Brown, School History of Alabama (1900); Phillips, Iron Making in Alabama (Montgomery, Ala., 1896; second edition. 1898); Owen, Bibliography of Alabama, in 1898 Annual Report of American Historical Association (Washington, 1897); Clark, History of Education in Alabama, 1702-1899 (Washington, 1889); Hillyard, The New South (Baltimore, 1887); Brewer, Alabama (Montgomery, 1872).  ALABAMA CLAIMS. A series of claims for indemnity made upon Great Britain by the United States, based upon the alleged omission of Great Britain to observe the obligations imposed by international law upon neutral nations with reference to their dealings with, and duties to, belligerents. The claims, in most particulars, arose from damages inflicted by vessels in the Confederate service which had been fitted out or built in English waters and allowed to sail thence. The (q.v.), adopted in 1856 by most of the nations of Christendom, had abolished privateering, and, though the United States was not a party to the convention, this decree had become a recognized principle of international law. Moreover, both the United States and England had passed acts early in the century prohibiting the equipment of land or sea forces for the purpose of operating against the territory or commerce of a friendly nation, and making it the duty of the Government to prevent such filibustering (Act of Congress of April 20, 1818, 3 Stats. at Large, 448; Foreign Enlistment Act, 59 George III., cap. 69). It was upon these acts and principles affecting international relations, that the claims of the United States were founded.

The facts of the case were these: Following President Lincoln's call for volunteers, President Davis of the Confederate States offered (q.v.) to private vessels to prey upon the commerce of the United States. Prompt advantage was taken of this offer, and numerous privateers issued from southern ports to harry the New York and New England merchant marine. Meanwhile, Queen Victoria had issued her proclamation of neutrality, forbidding her subjects to take part with either side, and directing her official servants to accord belligerent rights to both parties to the struggle. Equipment was forbidden the vessels of both belligerents. Nothwithstanding this proclamation, and the repeated and urgent protests of the American minister, Charles Francis Adams, the sympathy of British officials, especially in the colonial ports, with the Southern cause was notorious, and harbors like Nassau in the West Indies became the refuge of Confederate cruisers.

The history of the Alabama is typical of the more flagrant cases submitted to the tribunal of arbitration. She was built at Birkenhead, England, under circumstances of great suspicion. The attention of the British Government was repeatedly called to the case, and finally some steps were taken by the authorities to detain the vessel; but “No. 290,” as she was called, left port without register or clearance papers, July 29, 1862, and, taking on her equipment in the Azores from two English vessels, assumed the name Alabama, under which she became famous, and set out on her career of destruction. In much the same manner the Florida, Georgia, Shenandoah, and various other cruisers eluded the watchfulness of British officials. Before her destruction by the Kearsarge, June 19, 1864, the Alabama is said alone to have captured and destroyed seventy vessels of the United States. The first phase of the controversy appeared in 1862, in the negotiations between the American minister, Mr. Charles Francis Adams, and Lord John Russell, with reference to the alleged violation of England's Foreign Enlistment Act by the Alabama, and the obligation of the English Government to detain her; and though the English Government manifested a different policy subsequent to the sailing of the Alabama, and prevented the sailing of ships which were equipped in violation of law, several ships which had come from English ports were nevertheless on the seas, and the total damage inflicted by them upon American shipping was enormous. The whole matter constituted the most important problem of diplomacy left as a result of the Civil War. As early as 1865, steps were taken to determine a method of adjustment; but it was not till 1871 that a basis for adjudication was agreed upon, in the important Treaty of Washington, May 8. By this treaty, it was stipulated that all claims known generically as the “Alabama claims” should be submitted to the decision of five arbitrators, one named by England, one by the United States, and one each by the King of Italy, the Emperor of Brazil, and the President of the Swiss Confederation. For the guidance of this court of arbitration, the Treaty of Washington laid down the important “three rules” defining the obligation of a neutral power to use “due diligence” to prevent the hostile use of its ports against a friendly nation. In accordance with this arrangement, the court met at Geneva, December 15, 1871. The chairman of the court was Count Federigo Sclopis, the arbitrator named by the King of Italy; and the other members were Baron d'Itajuba, Brazilian minister at Paris, Jacob Stæmpfli, for three terms president of the Swiss Confederation, Sir Alexander Cockburn, and Mr. Charles Francis Adams. The chief counsel for England was Sir Roundell Palmer, and the American counsel were William M. Evarts, Caleb Cushing, and Morrison R. Waite. The American case, however, was prepared by Mr. J. C. Bancroft Davis. Both the case and the counter-case were prepared and maintained with great ability and acumen, and the arguments were followed with marked interest. More than once, however, a premature termination of the proceedings was threatened by the insistence of the American counsel upon the fact that in estimating the indemnity not only direct damages should be considered, but also such indirect losses as had befallen citizens of the United States through the decrease of trade, the increase of insurance rates, the prolongation of the war, and the additional cost of the prosecution of the war caused by these cruisers. Finally, the claims of the United States for indirect damages were unanimously rejected, on the ground that the principles of international law did not sanction an award of compensation between nations upon claims of that indefinite character. On September 14, 1872, the final award was signed, by which it was decreed that England had incurred no liability arising from the action of the Sumter, the Nashville, the Georgia, the Tallahassee, and the Chickamauga, or of their tenders, and by a vote of three to two that England had incurred no liability for the work of the Retribution. It was, however, determined, by a vote