Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1872-09-19
The Award of the Geneva Tribu-
nal 10 the United States.
GENEVA, Sept. IA.

the terms of the treaty OF Washington,
the names and titles of the arbitntors
and agents of the assembly at Geneva,
the exchange of powers, the presentation
of the cases, and contains oer6atina as
follows:
The tribunal having fully taken into
/ consideration the treaty, cases, counter
| cases. documentary evidence, has impair
/ tally and carefully examined the same,
and has arrived at the decision embodied
in the present award.
Whereas. having regard for the sixth
and seventh articles of the treaty, the
thp arbitrator are bound by the terms Of
the seventh article in deciding the mat
ter subject to be governed by three
rules therein sustained, and by such
principles of international law not in
/ consistent Herewith, as the arbitrators
/ shall determine. applicable to the case
and whereas. the due diligence referred
TO in the first and third of the said rules
! should be exercised by the neutral GOV
/ crnments in exact proportion to the risks
to which either belligerent may be eX-
posed by failure to fulfill the obligations
OF neutrality on their part.
Whereas. the circumstances out of
which the facts Of6the subject matter of
the present controversy arise were of a
nature to call for the exercise on the
part of Her Maicsty's government Of all
possible solicitude for the observance Of
the rights and duties involved in the pro-
clamation issued May 18th, 1861.
Whereas, the effects of a violation of
neutrality. committed by means of the
construction, equipment and armament
of vessels. ar" not done away with by
any commission, which the governments
OF the belligcrcnt powers, benefited by
the violation Of neutrality, may after
wards grant that vessel and the ultimate
step, by which the offence is completed,
cannot be admitted as q ground for alb
solution of the offender, nor the consul
nation Of his fraud become the means
of establishing his innocence.
Whereas the privilege Of CNtCrritOri-
ality, accorded to vessels Of war is adj
mittc0 by the law Of nations, not as an
absolute right, but as founded on the
principle Of courtesy and mutual defer
cncc, and therefore can never be appeal
eel sofOr justification Of acts dOuc in
violation Of neutrality
Whereas, the absence OF previous
knowledge, cannot he regarded, as a
failure, in law of nations, in case in
which Il vessel carries its own condemn.
uation.
Whereas, in order to impart to the
supplies of coal a character. inconsistent
with the second rule prohibiting the
Use Of neutral ports and waters as a
base of operations. the necessary sup
.i,1
circumstances Of time, person and place.
Whereas, in respect to the vessel call
ed the Alabama. it clearly results. from
all the facts relative to her construction.
in the port of Liverpool. and her equip
mcnt and armament in the vicinity of
TWcpira. through the agency of other
vessels, despatched from Great Britain
for that purpose, that the British GOV
ernmrnt failed to use due diligence in
The performance of neutral OBLIGATIONS.
and notwithstanding the official repre-
sensations OF the agents of the United
States during the construction Of the
said ship. omitted to take effective mca-
surcS Of prevention and that the orders
Of detention which the government did
finally give. WcreiSSued 50 late that the
execution OF them was not practicable.
Whereas. After the escape of the vessel
the measures taken for her pursuit and
arrest, were so imperfect that they led
to no result. and therefore cannot be
considered a sufficient release of Great
Britain. of the responsibility incurred.
Whereas, Despite the violation of ncu-
trality committed. the same vessel was.
on several occasions freely admitted to
the ports of the colonies Of Great Brit
ain, instead Of being proceeded against
as She ought to have been. in any and
every port of British jurisdiction where
she might have been found.
Whereas, The government of England
cannot Justify itself for its failure and
due diligence, on a plea of insufiicicncy
of legal means Of action it possessed.
-Four of the arbitratorS, for the reasons
above assigned. and the fifth, Lord
C0ckburn. for the reasons separately as
signed by him, are Of the opinion that
Great Britain has. in this case. failed by
omission 10 fulfill the duties prescribed
in the first and third rules established by
the treaty of Washington.
Whereas, In respect to the Florida
results from all the facts that English
authorities failed to take measures, ade-
uUatc to prevent violation of the ncu-
trality act Notwithstanding the repre-
sensations of the agent of the United
States. at Her Majcsty's government. it
failed to use due diligence to fulfill the
duties of neutrality. 1t likewise results
from the stay of the Orcta at Nassau, to
her issue thence. to her enlistment of
men and her supplies of armament, with |
the cooperation of a British vessel, the |
Prince Alfred, in Green Bay. that there |
was neglect on the part of the British /
colonial authorities
Whereas. Notwithstanding the viola /
lions of the neutrality law by Great |.
Britain, committed by the OrctO, the |
same vessel later called the Florida,
was. on several occasions, freely admit |
ted into British ports.
Whereas The judicial acquittal Of /
the OretO, at Nassau, cannot relieve |
Great Britain from the responsibility in
CURED under the principles Of intcrna-
tiOnal law. nor can the fact of the en-
try of the Florida into the Confederate
port at Mobile and her stay there, during |
four months. eXtinguish the responsible
ity, previously incurred by Great Brit
ain.
For these reasons the Tribunal, by a
or TOUR VOICES 10 one, IL OF llic
opinion that Great Britain has in this
case failed by an omission to fulfill the
duties prescribed in the first, second and
third rules established in article sixth Of
the Treaty of Washington. And
Whereas with respect to the Shenan-
loah, it results from the facts of the de-
Darture from London of the Sea King,
and her transformation into a cruiser
near Madeira, and the English Govern
ment is not chargeable with any failure
down to that date in due diligence to
fulfill the duties of neutrality; but
Whereas, it results from the facts that
the stay of the Shenandoah at Melbourne,
and especially the augmentation which
England admits to have been cl2ndes-
timely effected in her force by enlist
nents at that port, that there was neg
igence on the part of the authorities at