New national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1870-1874, 1872-09-26
Tfe 4l:,oaEii:: S.uiniN,
Adjournment and Separation OF the Geneva
Tribunal.

language 81 lie terms OF tie Treaty 81 Wash
ingtGn, the names and titles Of the arhi!ra-
tors and agents of the Assembly mt Geneva,
the exchange al powers, The pre- senlation Of
the cases, and continues re6 ati1 IS follows /:
The Tribunal, having fully taken ii to con-
SHERATON the treaty cases, couutcr cases
documents, evidence, arguments, and All
! communications made, and invariably and
carefully examined the same, has arrived mt
the decision embodied in the present award ::
/ Nhcrcas, Having regard for the siNth and
seventh articles Of the treaty, the arIitra-
tors are bound by the terms OF the seventh
! article in deciding the matters submitted. to
/ be governed by three rules therein specified
and by such principles of International law.
not inconsistent Herewith, as the arbitrator
shall determine applicable TO the case an.
Whereas, The due difference referred to
in the first and third Of said rules should bc
exercised by neutral Governments in exact
proportions to the risks to which either
bellgerents may be exposed by failure to
inllill the Obligations of neutrality on their
part; and.
whereas, The circumstances ont of which
the facts oi the subject matter of the present
c@nir"tcfSJ arose, were Of n nature 10 call
Tor the exercise ON the part of Her Maicstv's
Government of all possible solicitr,le for
The observance Of the rights and duties in-
volved III the proclamation issued MAY T..
1861 and,
hereas, The effects of violation of ncu-
trahty committed by means of the construc-
HOE, equipment, and armament of vessels
are not done away with by any commission
which the Government of belhrcrcnt Pow
ers, benefited by the violation of neutrality
may afterward grant, that vessel and the ul-
tlmate step BY which the Ollense is completed
cannot be admitted as ground for the abso-
luton OF the offender, nor the cOnSummati5n
OF his fraud become the means OF establish
ing his innocence; and,
Whereas, The privilege of eXterritoriality
accorded to vessels of war is admitted into
the law OF nations, not as an absolute right.
as founded on the principles of courtesy and
mutual Difference, and, therefore, can never
be appealed for Justification of acts done in
violation OF neutrality; and,
Whereas, The absence of previous LnovyI.
edge cannot be regarded as failure in the
law of nations in a case in which vessel
carries its own condemnation; and
hereas, In order to impart to supplies of
coal a character inconsistent with the second
rule, prohibiting the use Of neutral ports and
waters IS base of operations, the necessary
supplies must be connected with The special
circumstances oftime, person, and place and.
Whereas, In respect to the vessel called
the Alabama, it clearly results from all the
facts relative to her construction in the port
Of Liverpool, and her equipment and arma-
ment IN the vicinity of Terceira, through the
agency OF other vessels, dispatched from
Great Britain for that purpose, that the Brit
ish Government failed to use due DILIGENCE
in the performance of neutral obligations;
and, notwithstanding the official representa-
tons of the agents of the United States dur
ing the construction of the said ship, omitted
TO take effective measures of prevention
and that the orders Of detention which the
Government did finally give, were issued so
late that the executing OF them was not prac-
ticable; and,
Whereas, After the escape Of that vessel
the measures taken for her pursuit and arrest
were so imperfect that they led to no result.
and therefore cannot be considered a sutli-
Gent release Of Great Britain from the re-
sponsiblity incurred; and,
Whereas, Despite the violation of neu-
tral.ty committed, the same vessel was on
several occasions freely admitted to ports OF
the colonies OF Great Britain, instead of
being proceeded against as she ought to have
been i'll any and every port of British i,Iris-
dicticn where she might have been found;
and.
Whereas, The Government of England
cannot justify itself for its failure il due dill
genco. ON plea of nsufciency of legal
means OF action it possessed, four Of the Ar
bitrator8 for the reasons above assigned, and
the 9th, Lord CCckhurp for the reasons sep
arately assigned by him, are of the opinion
that Great britain has in this case failed BY
omission to fulfill the duties prescribed in the
first and third rules established By The Treaty
Of Washington; and,
Whereas, In respect to the Florida, il re-
suits from all the facts that the English au-
thoritjes failed TO take measures adequate 10
prevent violation of The Neutrality law
Notwithstanding the representations of die
agents Of the United States 70 Her Maicsty's
Government, il failed to use due diligence 20
luiiiil the duties Of neutrality. IL likewise
results from the facts relating to the stay Of
the Arcto at Nassau, to her issue thence, to
her enlistment of men, and receipts of her
supplies and armament, with the Corpora
ton of a British vessel, the Prince Alfred.
n Green Bay, that there was negligence on
the part Of the British Colonial authorities
and,
Whereas, Notwithstanding the violation
of the Neutrality law BY Great Britain. COM
mitted by the Oreto, the same vessel later
called the Florida, was on several occasions
admitted into British ports; and,
Whereas, The judicial acquittal ofthe Oreto
at Nassau cannot release Great Britain from
Ii!C NllIef the bflilCl-
pies OF international law, nor can the fact of
the entry OF the Florida into the Confederate
port OF Mobile, and her stay there during
four months, eXtinguish the responsibility
previously incurred by Great Britain, For
these reasons the Tribunal, by Il majority of
four votes To one, is Of the opinion that Great
Britain has in this failed, by an omission to
fulfill the duties prescribed in The first, second
and third rules established in article six of
the Treaty Of Washington and,
Whereas, With respect to the Shenan-
doah, it results from the facts OF the depart
ure from London Of the Sea King, and her
transformation into q cruiser near Madeira,
that the English Government is not Charge
able with any failure down to that date in
due diligence to fulfill the duties of neu-
tralily; but whereas, it results from the facts
that the stay Of the Shenandoah at Mel
bourne, and especially the augmentation
which England admits to have been clan
lestinely effected in BIER force b. enlstncuts
at that port, that there was negligence on
the part OF tie authorities at that place.
For these reasons the Tribunal is unani-
nlousiy OF the opinion that England has not
failed, by any act Of omission to fulfill the
duties prescribed by the three rules Of the
treaty, OF by the principles Of International
law, in respect TO the shenandoah during
that period of time anterior to her entry into
Nr h,-n Of