The New York herald., 1872-09-15

the facts relative to her construction in the
port of Liverpool. her equipment and arma-
ment in the vicinity of Terceira, through the
agency Of other vessels despatched from Great
Britain for that purpose, that the British gov
ernment failed to use due diligence in the per-
formance of its neutral obligations, and, not
withstanding official representations made by
agents of the United States during the construc-
ton of the said ship, omitted to take effective
measures for its prevention, and that orders
for her detention, which the British govern
ment did finally give, were issued so
late that the executing of the said
orders was not practicable and whereas,
after the escape of that vessel, the
measures which were taken for her pur-
suit and arrest were 80 imperfect as to lead to
no result and therefore cannot be con-
sidered as 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 of Great Britain instead of being
proceeded against, as she ought to have been,
in any and every port under British jurisdic-
ton where she might have been found.
VOTE ON ENoLANDs PLEA IN JUSTIFICATION.
And whereas the government of England
cannot justify itself for its failure in due dill
gence on the plea of the insuficiency of the
legal means Of action it possessed. Four of
the arbitrators, for the reasons 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 fulfil the duties pre-
scribed in the first and third rules established
by the Treaty of Washington.
THE CASE OF THE FLORIDA
And whereas, with respect to the Florida,
it results, from all the facts, that the English
authorities failed to take measures adequate
to prevent a violation of neutrality, notwith-
standing the representations of the agents of
the United States to the effect that Her
Majesty's government failed to use due dill
gence to fulfil it's duties of neutrality.
1t likewise results from the facts which have
been presented relative to the stay of the
Oreto at Nassau, New Providence, to her
supplies, and her armament, with the CO.
operation of the British vessel Prince Alfred,
in Green Bay, that there was negligence on
the part of the British Colonial authorities.
Whereas, Notwithstanding the violation of
neutrality which Great Britain committed in
the case of the Oreto, the same vessel at a
later date called the Florida was on several
occasions freely admitted to British ports
And, whereas the judicial acquittal of the
Oreto at Nassau, New Providence, cannot re-
Geve Great Britain from the responsibility in
CURED under the principles of international
law, nor can the fact of the entry of the
Florida into the Confederate port Of Mobile,
and her stay there during period of four
months, extinguish the responsibility pre-
viously incurred by Great Britain;
ENGLAND's FAILURE IN NEUTRAL DUTY.
For these reasons the Tribunal of Arbitra-
ton, by majority of four voices to one, is of
opinion that Great Britain has in this case
failed by her omission to fulfil the duties pre-
scribed in the first. second and third rules
established in Article Six of the Treaty of
Washington.
THE CASE OF THE SHENANDOAH.
Whereas, with respect to the case Of the
Shenandoah, it results from the facts placed
before the Court that in the departure from
the port Of London Of the Sea King, and
her subsequent transformation into q
cruiser near Madeira, the English gov
ernment is not chargeable with any failure,
down to that date, in due diligence to fnlAl
the duties of ofneutrality; but whereas it results
from the facts connected with the stay Of the
Shenandoah at Melbourne, and especially by
the augmentation which England admits to
have been clandestinely effected in her force
of men by enlistments at that port that there
was negligence on the part Of the British au-
thorities at that place;
For these reasons the Tribunal Of Arbi-
tration is unanimously of opinion that
England has not failed by the act Of
omission to fulfil the duties prescribed
by three rules of the Treaty Of Wash