The Tiffin tribune. (Tiffin, Ohio) 1868-1887, 1872-09-26
FHE DECISION OF tbs B0IRD GF
ARBITRATION.

eisiOn Of the Alabama Claims Arbi
tration Tribunal, in the award i'm set
tlement Of the case between Grea
Britain aud the United States, deliv
cred to-day in the council room OI
/ the city, begins with a recital in for
NAL, technical language, OF the terms
Of the Treaty Of Washington, recite.
the names and titles Of the arbitra
tors and agents appointed by the ar.
bitrating governments, sets forth the
fae.s OF the assemblage Of the eOurl
in Geneva, the exchange and verifi-
cation 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 fol-
lows:
The Tribunal having fully taken
into consideration the treaty, cases,
counter-eases, documents, evidence,
arguments, and all the eOmmunica-
tiOns which have been made, and
having impartially and carefully ex-
amined the same, has arrived at de-
cisiOn, and presents as follows its
award and the basis Ofthe award:
WHEREAS, Having regard to the
sixth and seventh articles Of the Trea-
ty OF Washington, the arbitratOrs are
bORnd by the terms of the seventh ar
tiele in deciding the matter submit
ted to them, to be governed by the
three rules therein specified, and by
such principles Of international law
as are not inconsistent Herewith, as
the arbitrators shall determine appli-
cable to the case;
WHEREAS, The due diligence refer
red TO in the first and third Of said
rules should have been observed by
neutral governments in exact prOpOr-
ton to the risks to which either one
of the belligerents would be exposed
by failure to fulfill the obligations Of
neutrality on their part;
WHEREAS, The circumstances out
Of which the facts of the subject mat
ter of the present controversy arose,
were of a nature to call for the eXer-
else on the part of Her Majesty's gov
ernment of all possible sOlieitude for
the observance Of the rights and du-
ties involved in Her Maiesty's prOe-
lamatiOn of neutrality, issued on the
thirteenth day of May, in the year Of
our Lord one thousand eight hundred
and sixty-One; the effects of a viola
ton of neutrality committed by
means of the construction and arma-
ment of vessel, not done away with
by any commission, the government
Of the belligerent power benefited by
the violation of neutrality, afterWard
grant that the vessel and ultimate
step by which the offence is compile
ted cannot be admitted as ground for
the absOlutiOn of the offender, nor
can the eOnsummatiOn of his fraud
become a means of establishing his
innocence;
WHEREAS, The privilege of exterri- /
tOriality accorded TO vessels of war, is
admitted into the laws of nations,
not as an absolute right, but as founded
on a principle of courtesy and mutual
Difference, and therefore can never be
to for the Justification Ofacts |
done in violation of neutrality; and
WHEREAS, The absence Of previ- /
Gus legislative rule cannot be regard |
ed as failure in tine law of nations,
in case in which a vessel carries its |
own condemnation;
WHEREAS, In order to import sup /
plies Of coal and a character ineOnsis- |
tent with the second rule prohibiting |
the use of neutral ports and waters, as /
a bSsis of operations, it is necessary |
that such supplies be connected with /
special circumstances of time, person !
and place; and
WHEREAS, With respect to the YES
sci called the Alabama, it clearly re-
suits from all the facts relative 10 her j
in the port of Liverpool, |
her equipment and armament in the 4
vicinity of Jerceira, through the agen-
ey of other vessels dispatched from 4
Great Britain for that purpose, that |
the British government failed to use 4
due diligence in the performance OF /
its neutral obligations, and nOtwith- |
standing the official representation |
made by the government of the Uni |
ted States during the construction of /
said ship, omitted to take effective /
measures for its prevention, and that 1
orders for her detention, which the /
British government did finally give, /
were issued so late that the execution |
Of said orders was not practicable; |
and
WHEREAS, After the escape of that |
vessel the measures which were Ia |
ken for her pursuit and arrest, were /
so imperfect as to lead to no result, /
and therefore could not be considered /
as a sufficient release for Great Brit /
ain from the responsibility she in
Cured
WHEREAS, Despite the violations
of neutrality thus committed, the |
same vessel, on several occasions, /
was freely admitted to the ports of 4
of Cheat Britain, instead Of |
being proceeded against as she ought 1
to have been, in any and every port /
under British Jurisdiction, where she 4
might have been found and
WHEREAS, The government Of /
England cannot justify itself for its
failure in due diligence, on the plea
Of an insufficiency of the legal means /
Of action it possessed, four Of the arbi-
traitors, for the reasons above assigned,
and the fifth, Lord Chief Justice Cock
burn, for reasons separately assigned /
by him, are of the opinion that Great
Britain has in this case, failed by
to fulfill the duties prescribed /
in the first and third rules established
by the Treaty Of Washington; and
WHEREAS, With respect 10 the Flo
rida, that the English authorities
failed to take measures adequate to
prevent the violation of neutrality, /
Notwithstanding the representations
of the agents Of the United States to /
the effect that her majesty's govern
ment failed TO use due diligence to
fulfill its duties of neutrality; it like
wise results from the facts which /
have been presented relative to the /
stay of the Oreto at Nassua, New /
to her issue thence, her 4
Of men, 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 /
WHEREAS, Notwithstanding the /
violation of neutrality which Great /
Britain committed in the case Of the |
OretO, the same vessel, at later date |
Cdllc4 the Il lDllultf was Oh 5ENEAdA oC- i
casions freely admitted to British |
ports and
WHEREAS, The judicial aequittal Of
the Oreto at Nassua, New Providence !
can not relieve Great Britain from 4
the responsibility incurred under the /
principles of international law, nor
can the fact Of the entry Of Florida in /
to the Confederate port OfMObile, and /
her stay there during period Of four |
months, eXtinguish the responsibility /
previously incurred by Great Britain. /
For these reasons the Tribunal Of Ar |
bitratiOn, by majority Of four voices !
to one, is Of the opinion that Great 4
Britain has in this case failed, By her .
omission to fulfil the duties prescrib- |
ed in the first, second and third rules 4
established in article six Of the Treaty /
of Washington;
WHEREAS, With respect to the case |
Of the Shenandoah, il results from .
the facts placed before the Court, that I
in the departure from the port Of Lon /
don Of the Sea King, and her subse- /
quent transformation into a cruiser, /
near Madeira, the English govern |
ment is not chargeable with failure .
down to that date, in due diligence to I
fulfil the duties Of neutrality; but
WHEREAS, It results from the facts /