Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1872-09-16
Adjustment OF the Accounts OF the
United States Against Great
Britain on Account OF
the Alabama.
Crant's S2,o0o, ,O00, 900 Whitfield Down
70 the Comparatively Miserable
Pittance Of sI5, 100000.
The Republic Disgraced in the Eyes Of
the Worid-The Bragad0cia and
BOmbast ofGrant Saubbed.

merchant
language OF ilie tel ms OF the Treaty Of Wash
ingtOn. lt rccircs the names, and tells the ar
biJralors and agents appointed by the arbi-
Lrstung government II theD sets forth the
facts of the asSemblage o. the court in Geneva,
and the exchange uud Veridcalion Of powers
Of its
MEMBERS AND REPRESENTATIVES,;
Of national English and American cases bv
The agents and counsel Having concluded
This legal and Judicial preface, The
Court decision continues and declares
s---- N --'tL =
fully taken into consideration the treaty cases.
counter cases documents, evidence, and ali
communication which have been made; and
having impartially and carefully examined
the same, has arrived at decision and pre-
sents as follows its award and basis OF award: /:
MAEkEAsr Having regard 70 the sixth and
seventh articles Of the treaty, the Washington
aroltrators are bound by the terms OF the
seventh article IN decigirs matters submitted
10 them 70 be governed by three rules therein
specified, and by such principles OF the
international law are not diligeut Herewith
rs the arbiirators shall deteraine applicable
10 the case. whereas due the United STATES
referred in the frst and third Of said rules
should be exercised by a neutral government
IN exact proportion 10 the risks TO which
either one OF the beligereuts may be exposed
by a failure % fulfil the obligations OF neu-
tIalllE ON lhtu part and, whereas, the cir
CuulStnuceS out of which facts and subject OF
matter ~ tue present controversy arose were
ul lill. 20 c;ili Tor the exercise, on the part
OF Ter Malesty's government, OF all possible
>uLcltuue Tor the Observance Of the rights and
buues luNoiFco IN Her Majesty \ pTOclama-
uoa Of neutrality. issued son the thirteenth
day OF Mag, in the year OF our Lord one thou
sand eight hundred and slxty-oue, he ef-
VIOLATION or NEUTRALITY
committed by means Of the construction and
armament OF vessels is not done away with by
stny commission which The government OF
ile beiligerenJ power. which benefited by
the violation OF neutrality, may afterward
grant 20 that vessel, and the ultimate step bv
when the o1enSe Is completed cannot be ad-
luif-ed Is grounds for the abSoluti0n OF the
cuenqer; nor can the consummatiOn Of his
hoe p
Innocence, aud
Whereas. The priviIegeof
INTERNATIONALLY
accorded to vessels OF war Is admitted into
the law of nations is not an absolute right l
but founded on principle and mutual defer |
cIce- and therefore can never De appealed 10 /
iQr lhe justification % acts done in violation
81 the neutrality laws and
v hereas, The absence OF the previous legis- 4
iatiNe rule cannot now be regarded as 4
laluGe IN the law oi nations in case III 1
which a vessel carries its own condemnation: i
whereas, In order 10 impart 10 supplies of 1
COAL aud the choTacter inconsistent with the !
second rule prohibiting the use Of neutral 4
ports, and waters as the basis Of operations, 4
it i- necessary that such supplies be con-
ugctet with special circumstances OF time
person and place; and
Whereas, With respect 10 the vessel called
the Alabama IL clearly results from al The 4
lacls relative 10 her construction in the port
or Liverpool Her eQuipment and armament
pm IIe vicinity OF Iereeira, through the
agency OF other vessels despatched from
GREAT BRITAIN
for thai purpose; that the British Government
la-led % use due diligence IN the PERFORM
ance o1 its neutral olHigad0ns; and
notwithstanding the official represen- I
'A,ion made by agents Of the United
states during The construction OF said ship
omitted 10 take effective measures for its
prevention. and fifai the order for her det4n- Z
Gl0n, which the British Government did final
A slFe. were issued so la e. that the executing
oI Salu orders were ngt practicable; and,
NJ Whereas, After the e-capeOf that vessel the
ni' 'a>ttee which were taken for her pursuit
'ald arrest were 80 imperfect rs 10 lead 10 no
g sufficient release for Oreat Britain from the
reSponsbilty which she incurred.
whereas, Despite the violations of .
the neutrality law which was thus COM
mltied The same vessel was, on
several occasions freely admitted To the ports
of the colonies Of Great Britain. instead OF
being proceeded against as She ought 90 have I
been ia any and every port under British
jurisdiction where she might have been
found; and
Whereas, Tile government OF England can
ipt Justify itself Tor its f:.lur In due diligence
or plea OF insufIcieucy OF legal means OF ac-
lion. IL possessed four of the arbiirators for
'lls 'a's-lea i,la iili, Lord Chiei usIlee
'9cAburn, lof reasons separately assigned
lliini are pl TIE opinion that Great Britain has
THIS CASE FAILED
by omission 10 fulHu she duties prescribed n
the nrsi ana third rules established by the .
treaty Of Washington; and,
Whereas, With respect 10 the Florida, il re-
suits, from an the facts that the English au-
-hOriiies failed 20 take measures adequate to :
prevent the violation OF the neutrality, not
Mliiisiandlug the approximations Of the
agentso OF The United states 10 the effect that s
her MUesfy's Government failed 10 use due
nlllgencc 20 iHLlu Us duties Of neutrality.
IL likewise results. from the facts which
have been presented relative 20 the
STAY or the Oleto az Nassa.l. New Providence:
20 her issue; thence her enlistment Of men,
getting heF supplies and her armament with
ihe cooperation OF tie British vessel Prince {
Eence on the part OF The British Colonial au- !
tioritiesr whereas, notwit thstanding the viola
ton ~ neutrality which Great Britain COM
hltle4 il ile ease OF lne tfet9 the same YES I
Sel al r. later date. called the Floridal was on
several occasions freely admitted to British
And whereas. Judicial acquittal OF the
preto az Nassau, New Providence, cannot
relieve Great Britain from the
RESPONSIBILITY
incurred under the principles OF International Z
law; nor can the fact Of the entry Of the Flor 7
tda into the Confederate port OF Mobile. and ;
lier stay there during period Of four months,
sNiingtish the responsibility incurred by I
Nreat britain. For these reasons the tribunal Z
OF arbitration. hy majority Of four voices 10 I
oile is OF the opinion that Great Britain has in I
duties prescribed In the lrst, second and third
rule, established in article six Of the Treaty OF
Whereas, with respect TO the case Of the 9
steamer Shenandoah. it results from facts =
placed before the court lhat in the deuarture
from the port Of London, ana her subsequent 5
transfer INTO a cruiser near Madeira, the En- I
Eilsh Government is.not chargeabie with any I =
Tulhh tire duties of neutrality; but :
" Whereas, As results from facts connected >
y Itu t-e Say OF llr 5nehitnupah AT Mel j
which England admits 10 have been clan r
destinely effected in her force Of men, 4
ny enlistment az uiat port, that there was d
negligence on the par OF ihe British authori- d
lies al inal place. For these reasons, the h
Tribunal OF Arbitration Is unanimously OF
opinion that England has not failed. by act of
10 iulnl the dulles prescribed by the n
hree rules OF the Treaty OF Washington, or in b
= fHH s|HnHHa fHaas.
national law, viii respect toF Tie Shen- q
andOah, during thc- period Of time anterior a
by a majority OF three 10 two votes the tribu- &
nal decides that Great Britain has failed in I
her duties prescTibed in the second and q
'hlIu rules OF ine treaty IA the case OF the a
-ame vessel the Shenandoah from and after O
her entry into Hob-ous Bay, and is therefore u
espOnslhle for the acts OF that vessel after her @
icpGrtgr. from Melbourne, on the eighth day 81
II February. 1868. As relates 20 the cases Of 81
le Ilscaloos;i, the Clarence and Tacouv, the a
lilers and tenders 20 the Alabama and f1ori- p
la- The couri . unanimous oi The opinion that o
ACCESSORIES
must follow the DOT OF their principles and
submit 10 some decision as FAR as relates 20
.ilc case ol the prlyafecf "kctrtbution." The
tribunal, by a majority of three 10 two voices, =,
Is OF the opinion that England has not failed
10 lulnli her duty under the three rules, 20 far
I, ii relates 10 The IrlNatecrs Georgia sumter,
,ourl ts unanimously Of the opinion that
treat Britain has not failed to luifill the du- +
fe9ty of ~ international law. The court IS n,
y te opinion hlaf the ~allle. ie lersGn Davis -
Neuses, BOSTON aiid JAY, are excluded from n
-ellsi lsineiatiol Tor want of evidence. and, ~
hereaS, 40 Gar as relates 20 particulars tn q ~
uueIunity claimed ly the Tinted states for "
ne costs incurred by the pursuit Of the cruis- ~ ~
-i- III ls Ae- lu ihe Judgment OF the tribunal -
property olstinguishabIe from the General ez- ~
.enses OF the war; therefore the court Is OF tl
he opinion by a majority OF tiis-e TO two I ~
hal ihere is no grounds Tor awarding any os
sum by way OF Ne
INDEMNITY II
Iuder this head, ana
Whereas, Prospective injuries cannot urop- ~
srly be rac subject FOR usaf len mas ~
much as they depend on nature. on future and IN
uncertain cont4ngoucles. the tribunal fs NJ
lnanAlaonslN oi the opinion that there are no W
rounds for award under this head: and -
MheIeilsi in order lo arrive az an equitable ! OF
compensation ior damages sustained IL Is me- / -
'essarN g. so aside ali DOUBT of Tie claims ~
or the same the losses wei as an ~
laims igi grosS freight 20 iaF as Il exceeds =,
lei freight and h'
Whereas, It 8, iust and reasonable 10 allow D;
"a Interest a reasonable rlte- ~
Whereas ~ accordance with the spirit and ~
eficr OF thelreaiA OF Washington, il is pre- -
crlbie % adopt form Of adjudication OF a / =
am ln gfos. rather than refer fhe subject OF -
Omp peHsaiiDn Tor further discussion. and de- y
.beraiion 20 bf heard of the assessors, pro Fl
idea ia arllcll Zen OF the Treaty OF Mashing-l
on. The Tribunal Of Arbitration using the IN
ufhonfy conferred on its members 1s article C.
even ~ the TREATY by majority of 81
fates of America the sum OF fifteen m
liilion i've hundred thousand dollars "
b geld the Indemnity % be paid by Great "a
r1taln uf the American Government, VI
pngifialaiipu ~ tire afilii rating tribunal fi
4pfurman.l 90 fl- pros tslons contained in ~
f IDLE -. "a OF fhe ilaaiy And in accordance al
fn fas iepas oi afiieie cleten 81 tlie ir-asT- 81