Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1872-09-27
Decision of the Geneva Board of
Arbitration.

GENEVA, September IA.
The decision of the Alabama Claims
Arbitration Tribunal in the award of set.
tlement in the case between Great Britain
and the United States, was delivered to-
day in the Council Room in this city 1t
begins with the recital, in the formal tech
nical language, of the terms of the Treaty
of Washington; recites the names and
titles Of the Arbitrators and agents ap-
pointed by the arbitrating Governments;
sets forth the facts of the assembage of
the Court in the Geneva Exchange, and
the verification of the powers of its mem
bers, and the presentation of the National
English and American cases by agents
and counsel.
Having concluded this legal and judi
cial preface of the Court, the decision
continues to declare DsrbdtiH1 as follows:
The Tribunal having fully taken into consider
alton the treaty, cas- 5, countercases, documents,
evidence, arguments, and all the communications
which have been MAZE. aud having impartially
and carefully examined the same, has arrived at "a
decision, and presents as follows its award and
bases Fl award:
WHEREAS, Having regard to the sixth and sew
enth articles Of the Treaty of Washington, the Ar
bitrators are hound by the terms of the seventh
article. in deciding matters submitted to them. TO
be governed by the three rules therein specified,
and bv such principles of International law as are
not Inconsistent herewith the arbitrators shall
WHEREAS, The due diligence referred to in the
first and third Of said rules should be exercised by
neutral governments in exact proportion to the
risks to which either one of the belgerents NAV
he exposed by failure to fulfill the obligations OF
neutrality on their part; and
WHEREAS, The circumstances ont OF which facts
of the subject matter of the present controversy
arose. were Of nature to call for the exercise on
the part of Her Mnicsty's Government of all posi-.
BILE solictude for the observance of the rights and
duties involved in Her Maiesty's proclamation
of neutrality, issued on the 18th day Of May, in
the wear Of our ord one thousand eight hundred
and siXty-une. the effects of violation of neu.
trality committed by means OF the construction
equipment, and armament of a vessel are not done
away with by anv Commission which the Govern
ment of begerent power. benefited by the VIC
iation OF neutrality, may afterwaId grant that
vessel and the ultimate step by which the OfTense
Is completed cannot he admitted as a ground fol
absoutinn of the offender, nor can the consumma
tion of his fraud become the means of establish
inc his innocence; and
WHEREAS The privilege of exterritoriality &c
corded TO vessels Of war is admitted into the law
OF nations, not as an absolute right, but as found
ed on The principle Of courtesy and mutual defer
ence, and therefore can never be appealed to fo
Justification of acts done in violation ef neutrality
and
WHEREAS, The absence of previous legisla
tive rule cannot be regarded failure in the law
of nations, in case in which vessel carries it:
own condemnation; and
WHEREAS In order to impart to supplies of coal
acharacter inconsistent with the second rule, pro,
hlhiiihg the use OF neutral ports md waters as a
basis of operations 1t is necessary that such sup
plies he connected with special circumstances oil
time, person, and place; and
WHEREAS, With respect to the vessel called the
Alabama, il clearly results from all the facts rela
tive to her construction in the port of Liverpool
her equipment and armament in the vicinity OF
Terceira, through the agency OF other vessels dis
patched from Great Britain for that purpose, that
the British Government failed to Nse due diligence
In the performance Of its neutral obligations, and
notwithstanding the official representations made
by the agents of the United States during the con
struction OF said ship. omitted to take effective
for her detention, which the British Govern
ment did finally give, were issued so late thai
the execution Of said orders was not practicable
WHEREAS. After the escape OF that vessel the
measures which were taken for her pursuit and
arrest were so imperfect as TO lead to no result
and therefore cannot be considered as a sufficient
release for Great Britain from the responsibility
she incurred; and
thus committed, the same vessel was on several oo
cOsiOrs freely admitted 10 ports OF the Colonies OF
Great Britain, instead Of being proceeded against
as she ought to have been in any and every por
under British jurisdiction, where she might have
been found; and
WHEREAS. The Government OF England cannot
Justify itself for its failure in due diligence tht
plea Of insutticency Of the legal means of action Il
possessed, four of the ArbitratOrs for reason,
above assigned and the fifth, Lord Chief Justice
Cockburn. for reasons separately assigned by him
are Of opinion that Great Britain has In this case
failed by omission to fulil the duties prescribed
IN the first and third rules established by the Treaty
WHEREAS, With respect to the Florida 1t result.
from all the facts that the English authorities failed
TO take measures adequate to prevent violation Of
neutrality. notwithstanding the representations o.
the agents OF the United States to the effect tha
Her Maiestv's Government failed TO use due dill
gence to fulfill its duties Of neutrality It tlikews6
results from facts which have been presented rela
tive to the stay of the Oreto at assau New Provi
dence; 10 her issue thence, her enlistment Of men
her supplies and her armament, with the cOsOpera
ton Of the British vessel Prince Alfred, in Greer
Bay, that there was negligence on the part of the
British Colonial authorities; and
WHEREAS, Notwithstanding the violation OF neu
trality which Great Britain committed In the case OF
the Oreto. the same vessel at later date called the
Florida was ON several occasions freely admitted tc
WHEREAS, The judicial acquittal OF the Oreto
az Nassau, New Providence cannot relieve Greai
Britain from the responsibility incurred under the
principles ofnterratonal law, nor can the fact Of
the entry OF the Florida into the Confederate por
OF Mobile and her stay there during a period ol
ously incurred by Great Britain. For these
reasons the Tribunal Of Arbitration, by majority
Of four voices 10 one, Ia Of the opinion that Grea
Britain has In this case failed by her omission tC
iulhll the duties prescribed in the hrst second
and third rules established in Article OF the
Treaty Of Washington; and
WHEREAS, With respect to the case of thu
shenandoah, Il results from facts placed befOr'
the Court that in the departure from the port o
London Of the Sea King, and her suhsequent trans
formation into cruiser near MADEIRA the fnGnsl
Government is not chargeahle with any tailur'
down 70 that date in due diligence TO fulhll lis du
ties Of neutrality; but.
WHEREAS, 1t results from facts connected with
the stay OF the Shenandoah at Melbourne, and es
pecially by the augmentation which England ad
mits TO have heen candesunely effected IN he
force OF men by enstments at this port that ther,
WAS negligence on the part OF the British authOrl
ties az that place. For these reasons the Tribuna
Of ArlitratiOn Is uuanimonsy of opinion tina
England has not failed by act OF omission 10 fulfil
the dulles nrescnbed by the three rules OF th'
Treaty OF Washington, or IN the Observance of th'
principles OF lnter0atOn law, with respect 10 IN,
Shenandoah, during he period OF time anterior L
majOrlty OF three 10 two votes the Tribunal de
cides that Great Britain has failed in her duties a
prescribed W the second sRg third rRlep OF thl