Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1872-09-25
The Geneva Arbitration.
The Arbi,rasor.' Formal Decision.

OF the Alabama claims arbitration
tribunal in the award and settlement
of the case between Great Britain and
the United States, delivered to-day
i'll the council room in this CITY.
begins with a recital, in formal tech.
nical language, Of the terms of the
Treaty of Washington: rccitcs the
names and cells the arbitrators and
agents appointed by the arbitrating
governments sets forth the facts of
the assemblage Of the court in Geneva.
the exchange and vcritication of the
power of its members, and the pre-
sentation of the national English and
American cases by the agents and
counsel. Having concluded this legal
and judicial preface, the courts decis-
ion continues aud declares verbatim,
as follows: "The tribunal having
fully taken into consideration the
treaty, cases. cOunter-cascs, docu-
ments. evidence, and all communica-
tions which have been made, and
having impartially and carefully ex-
amincd the same, has arrived at a
decision, and presents rs follows its
award and its basis ofaward: Where
as, having regard to the sixth and
seventh articles of the treaty of
Washington, the arbitratorS are
bound by the terms of the seventh
article, in deciding the matters SUBJ
mittcd to them, to be governed bv
three rules therein specified, and bv
such principles of international law
as are tconflicting1 Herewith, and as
the arbitrat0rs shall determine appli-
cable to the case. Whereas, due
ldiliScnce] referred to in the first and
third ofsaid rules should be exercised
by neutral government in exact
proportion to the risks to which
either Que of the bclligcrcnts may be
exposed by n failure to fulfill the
obligations of the neutrality on their
part. Whereas, the circumstances
out of which the facts subject matter
of the present controversy arise were
| of a nature to call for the exercise ON
the part of her majcsty's government
of all possible solicitudc for the oh.
servancc of the rights and duties in.
volved in her majeSty's proclamation
ofncutrality. issued on the 18th day
of May. in the year of our Lord one
thousand eight hundred and sixty.
one. The effects of the violation of
neutrality committed by means OF
the construction and armament OF
vessels are not done away with bv
any commission which the govern
mcnt of Il belligrrcnt power benefited
by the violation of neutrality NAV
afterwards grant that vessel, and tho
ultimate step by which offence is
completed cannot be admitted rs
ground for the absolution of the of
fender: nor can the consummatiO,
of his fraud become the means of es.
tablishing his innocence. Whereas
the privilege of cNterritorialitv ac.
corded to vessels of var j. admitted
into the law of nations, not as an ab.
solute right. but as founded on the
principle of courtesy and mutual
Difference, and therefore can never be
appealed to in justification of acts
done in violation of neutrality; and
whereas, the absence of previous
legislative rule cannot be regarded as
II failure in the law of nations in a
case in which a vessel carries its own
condemnation. Whereas, in order TO
ilnpart to supplies of coal a character
inconsistent with the second rule
prohibiting the use of neutral ports
and waters as basis of operations,
it is necessary that such supplies be
connected with special circumstances
of time person and place: and where
as, with respect to the vessel called
the Alabama, il clearly results from
all the facts relative to her construc-
ton in the port of Liverpool, her
equipment in the vicinity of Terccira
through the agency of the other
vessels dispatched from Great Britain
for that purpose, that the British
government failed to use due dill
"cncc i'm the performance of its ncu-
trail obligations, and Notwithstanding
the official representation made by
the agents of the United States du-
ring the construction of said ship,
omitted to take effective measures
for its prevention, and the orders for
her ii tcntion which the British gov.
ernment did finally give were issued
so late that the execution of said
! orders was not practicable: and
whereas, after the escape of that
vessel, the measures which wcrc taken
for her pursuit and arrest were SO
imperfect rs TO lead to no result, and
therefore cannot be considered rs 4
sufficient release for Great Britain
from the responsibility she incurred
! Whereas, despite the violations OF
neutrality thus committed, the same
vessel was on several occasions freely
admitted to the ports of colonies ot
Great Britain, instead of being pro
cceded against, as she ought to have
been, in any and every port under
British juri>liction, where she might
have been found. And whereas. the
government of England cannot justi
fy itself for its failure in due dill
gence or plea of insutficiency of til,
legal means of action it possessed
Four of the arbitrators, for the rea
sons above assigned, and the fifth
Lord Chief Justice Cock burn, fol
reasons separately assigned by him
are of the opinion that Great Britain
has in this cause failed, by omission
to fulfill the duties prescribed in thu
first and third rules established by
the treaty of Washington.
And whereas. with respect to the
Florida, it results from all the facts
that the English authorities failed t.
take measures adequate to prevent
the violation of neutrality, notwith
standing the representations of thu
agents of the United States to the ef
Al ,Stf