The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1872-09-19

bama, the Florida, the Shenandoah
and their Tenders-Tho Decision
Against the United States In the Gases
or the Other Vessels.
GENEVA, Saturday, September IL.
The Alabama Claims Arbitration Tribunal III
award of the settlement of the case between
Great Britain and the United States, delivered
today In the council room in this city, begins
with a recital, In formal. technical language,
of the terms of the Treaty OF Washington; re'
cites the N and titles Of the arbitrators
and agents appointed; sets forth the facts OF
the assembags ofthe court In Geneva, the ex-
change aud veridcation of the powers OF Its
members and the presentation Of the national
English and American cases by the agents and
counsel. Having concluded this legal and
judicial preface, the court decision continues
to declare, verbatim, as follows:
TEXT OF THE DECISION.
The tribunal, having fully taken into con-
sideration the treaty, the cases, the counter
cases, documents, evidence, arguments, and
all communications which have been made,
and having impartially and carefully examined
the same, has arrived at a decision, and pre-
sents, as follows, It's award and the bases OF
the award.
Whereas, 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 sub
mitted to them, to be governed by three rules
theS3in specified, and by such principles OF
init national law as are not inconsistent
Herewith, as the arbitrators shall determine
applicable to the case. :,
No. tho dina hlllinnnnQ r1farr60 10 I'LL
the frat and third of eaid rules should BE- ex-
ercised by neutral governments IN exact pro-
norton to the risks to which either one OF Inc
helligerents may be exposed by failure 10 iul.
al the obligations OF neutrality on their part
Whereas, The circumstances out OF Whlcn
the facts, the subject matter Of the present
controversy arose, were OF q nature 10 call 1or
the exercise, On the part of her Majesty'B Gov
ernmeDt, or all possible solicitude for the OBJ
eeryGnce OF the rights and dulles Involved IN
her Majesty's proclamation Of neutrality is-
sued on: the thirteenth day OF May, IN the year
of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and
eiXty.one.
whereas, the effects of q violation OF neu.
trality, committed by means Of the consLruc-
ton, equipment, and armament OF q vessel,
are not done away with by any commission
which the government OF the oelllgerent
power benefited by the violation OF neutrality,
may atterward grant that vessel, and the ultl;
mate step by which the offence Is completed
cannot be admitted as a ground for the aoso-
LUTON Of the offender, nor can the censumma-
lion Of his fraud become the means OF estab-
llshing his Innocence.
Whereas, the privilege of exterrltoriality
accorded to vessels OF war Is admitted into the
law of nations, not as an absolute right, but
as founded on q principle OF courtesy and mu-
tual Difference, and, therefore, can never be
appealed to tor justification of acts done In
violation OF neutrality; and whereas. the ab-
sence of previous legislative rule cannot be
regarded as a failure In the law of nations, In
a case In which the vessel carries its own con-
domination.
CASE OF THE ALABAMA.
Whereas, In order to impart to supplies of
coal q character Inconsistent with the second
rule, prohibiting the use OF neutral ports and
waters as bases of operations, 1t is necessary
that such supplies be connected with special
circumstances of time, person and place; and,
whereas, with respect to the vessel called the
Alabama, it clearly results from all the facts
relative TO, her construction in the port of
Liverpool, her equipment and armament 10
the vicinity of Terceira, through The agency
of other vessels dispatched from Great Britain
for that purpose, that the British Government
failed to use due diligence In the perform
ance of its neutral obligations, and, notWith-
standing official Representations made by
agents of the United States during the con-
sfruCtion Of the said ship. omitted to lake
effective measures for Its prevention, and that
orders for her detention, which the British
Government did finally give, were Issued 30
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 pursuit and arrest were 30 Imperfect
as to lead to no result. and therefore cannot
be considered as q sufficient release Tor Great
Britain from the responsibility she incurred.
Whereas, despite the violations OF neutrali-
I'm thuo n0nnnitfoh fhQ RamQ Va4S6l 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 1u'
rfsdictlon where she'mlght have been found;
and, whereas, the Government OF England
cannot Justify Itself for its failure In due dill
gencs on the plea Of the insuf1clency OF the
legal means OF action 1t possessed.
Four of the arbitrators. for the reasons
above assigned, AMI the fifth, Lord Chief
Justice Cockburn, TOR reasons separately as
signed BY MIN, are of oplhIon that Great Bril-
tain has In; this case failed by omission to full
At the duties prescribed lin The first and third
rules established by the Treaty Of Washington.
CASE OF TIE 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 q violation OF neutrality, notwlth-
standing the representations of the agents Of
the United states to the effect that her Majes-
tvs Government failed 10 use due diligence TO
fulfil It's duties OF neutrality. 1t likewise re-
suits from the facts which have been present.
ed relative to the stay OF the Oreto at Nassau,
New Providence, to her Issue thence, her en-
llstment of men, her supplies and her arma-
ment, with the cooperation 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 .
later date called the Florida, was on several
occasions freely admitted to British ports;
ana whereas, the judicial acqulttal OF the
Oreto. at Nassau, New Providence, cannot re-
Ileve Great Britain from the responsibility In
curred under the principles Of international
law, nor can the fact of the entry Of the Fiori,
da into the Confederate port Of Mobile, and
her stay there during q period OF four months,
extingnish tho responsibility previously In
Cured by Crest Britain.
For these reasons the Tribunal OF Arbltra-
- - C,x-x aln fn nnn Ia nf