Lamoille newsdealer. [volume] (Hyde Park, Vt.) 1860-1877, 1872-09-18

= y @it'-s1 lNiA7iiNtieu hnefc rne migat D
4 found snd
4 Whereas. TIE government Of Raglant
n eauno' justify itself for is failure in du,
diligence on a plea Of insafkcioncy Of L.
D gal means Of action It possessed. four Of
= the arbiiniors for the reasons above As.
! signed and the Glib, Lord Coekburn for
the reasons separately assigned BY him,
arr OF the opinion that Great Britain IA.
: IN this case failed BY omission to fulfil
the duties prescribed in the first aud third
rules established by the Treaty Of Wash.
ington; aud
4 Whereas, In respect to the Florida re.
suits from all the facts that the English
authorities failed to take measures ade.
qua'e to prevent violation of the neutral.
ity law. notwithstanding the representa-.
iions Of the agent Of the United States TO
her Majesty's government. it failed to use
diligence to fulfill the duties Of neutrality;
1t likewise results from the stay of the
Oveto at Nassau to her issue thence 10
the enlistment of men aud her supplies
packed armament with the corporation of
British vessel, the Prince Alfred. in
Green Bay, that there was negligence on
the part of the British colonial authorities;
aud
Whereas notwithstanding the viola.
tons OF the neutrality law by Great Brit.
am committed by the Orveto, the same
vessel later called the Florida. was on sew.
eral occasions freely admitted INTO British
ports and
Whereas, The judicial aequittal of the
Oveto at Nassau cannot relieve Great
Britain from the responsibility incurred
lnder the principles of international law
Nor can the fact of the entry of the Flor. !
da into the Confederate port of Mobile
ND her stay there during Tour months ex-
lnguish the responsibility previously in. ?
urred oy Great Britain; fer these rea. p
ons the tribunal by a majority of four c
olceS to one is of the opinion that Great 1t
'rl'aln has in this case failed by an omis. o.
ION to fulfill the duties prescribed in the u
'st, second and third rules established in g
rtlcIe fifth of the treaty of Washington &C
nd III
Whereas, With respect to the Shenan. IN
bah 1t results from the facts of the de. Sc
arturo from London of the seeking and III
'r transformation into cruiser near Ma. Ut
ma that the English government is not ga
argable with any failure down to that w
tie in due diligence to fulfill the dutis of ST,
utrality; but rr,
Whereas, 1t results fon the fact that TAI
stay Of the Shenandoah at Melbourne :
ID especially the augmentation which rus
lgIand admits to have been clandestipe. "a, "a,
ELECTED IN her force. BY enIistnepts 81
that port, that there was negligence on is
part OF the authorities at that place TOW
these reasons the tribunal is mani. Tag
usIy oil the opinion that England has
tailed by any act or omission TO fulfill II;
duties prescribed by three rules of the . +
a'y' or by the principles of information. 7.
Jaw III respect to the Shenandoah dnr. L.,
that period of time anterior to his on. -:
into the port of Melbourne, and by a To-,
ority Of three to two votes, the trim
decides that Great Britain has failed or |,
Ter duties as presented by the second ,ou
third rules in the case of the Same vos
from and after her departure from Mel. -,
rne, February 18th, 1865. As re. No,
70 the Iucalassa, the Clarence, Ia An,
~ and Archer, tenders to the Ala.
IA and Florida, the tribunal is mani q
sly OF the opinion that those accessor. 49,.
must follow the lot of the principals. nloo
be submitted to the same decision
'eIates to the Retribut;on, the trim. .,..
by majority of three to two voices is M.
lie opinion that England has no, failed y, a
lIhlll her duties in the three rules so % :,
as relates to the Georgia. Sumter
,v;lo T.I.L- s''' SUMTER requ
nVllie' tallahassee and Checkamanga t;os
tribunal is unanimously of the opinion NOV,
Great Britain has not failed to ful. onoo
Ter duties prescribed in the three rules
Internationally it is of the opinion 10.
Sallie, jeff Davis, Music, Boston and dna.
are excluded from consideration for -.
of evidence; and ~.
- 0'''o' 10 'he partic- had
matter OF indemnity claimed bv the -
ed States, the costs of the pursuit of lars
ers are not in judgment before the ter Il
nal and properly distinguishabIe liable
the general exnsn,o 81 ,ua. -. Mrs.
therefore is Of the opinion, three to nab ~
''"' '"ofe - no grond for awarding selfr
sum by way of indemnity under this porte
about
hereas The nrosnoot;vo place
T~f~N.'S i"JuiiOo cdu- Horo.
ropcrly be made subject of compen- nnmb
,, inasmuch as they depend in a ma. ing b,
n future and uncertain oont;noona; The :.