Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1872-09-17
FOREIGN.
Details Of the Alabama Award.
The 0fiicial Action Of the Board
Dissolution of the Court.

/ Dissolution Of the Court.
GENEVA, Sept. 14.-The decision of The
Alabama Claims Arbitration Tribunal, IL
award OF settlement of the case between
Great Britain and the United States, deliy
cred to-day in the Council-room in thi:
city, begins with the recital, In formal tech.
meal language, of the terms of the treaty
| OF Washington; recites the names and ii.
Ties OF the srbitrators and agents appointed
Dy The arbitrating Governments, and sets
lortn the facts Of the assemblage of the
court In Geneva, the exchange and verifica.
tion ofthe powers Of It's 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, and
declares verbatim, as follows:
i Inc tribunal having fully taken into con-
hderauon the treaty cases, the counter
cases; the documents, the evidence and all
communications which have been made,
ana having impartially and carefully ex-
amlned the same, has arrived at decision,
and presents as follows its award and basis
| of award: -
/ Whereas, Having regard to the sixth and
seventh articles of the treaty of Washing.
ton, tbs arbitrators are bound By the terms
Of the sesenth article in deciding matters
Submitted to them TO be governed by the
rules therein specified and by such princi-
| pies Of internstienal Law, not inconsistent
Herewith, as the arbltrat0rs shall determine
| applicable to the case.
Whereas, The due diligence referred to
In the first and third of the said rules should
be exercised by a neutral government In
exact proportion 10 the risks to which either
| one Of the belligerents may be exposed by
failure to fulfil the obligations of neutral
ity on their part.
Whereas, the circumstances out of which
arose the facts and subject matter of the
present controversy were of nature ID
call for the exercise on the part of Her Ma
| jesty's Government Of all possible solicit
tude for the observance of the rights and
duties involved In her Msjesty's proclama-
ton of neutrality, issued on the 18th day of
May, In the year Of our Lord one thOus-
and eight hundred and sixty-ene, the eff
fects of the violation of neutrality commit.
ted by means Of the construction and ar
mament of vessel are not done away with
by any commission which the Government
Of the belligerent power TO be benefited by
the violation Of neutrality may afterwards
grant that vessel, and the ultimate step by
which the offence is completed cannot be
admitted as ground for the a3solution of
the offender, nor consummation Eof bis
fraud become the means of establishing his
innocence.
Whereas, the privilege of ex-territoriali'y
accorded to vessels OF war is admitted into
the law Of nations not as an absolute right,
but as founded on the principle of courtesy
and mutual defense, and, therefore, can
never be appealed 10 for justification ofacts
done in violation of neutrality, and,
Whereas, the absence Of previous legis-
the law of nations in case in which yes
sci carries its own condemnation; and
Whereas, in order to impart to supplies
of coal character inconsistent with the
second rule prohibiting the use of neutral
ports and water as basis of operation, it
is necessary such supplies be connected
with special circumstances Of time, person
or place, and,
Whereas, with respect to the vessel call
ed the Alabama, it clearly results from al
the facts relative to her construction in the
port Of Liverpool, and her equipment and
through the agency of other vessels dis
patched from Great Britain for that pur-
pose, that the British Government failed to
use due diligence in the performance of its
neutral obligations, and notwithstanding
the official representation made by the
agents of the United States during the
construction of said ship, omitted to take
effective measures for its prevention, and
that the orders for her detention which the
British Government did finally give were
issued so late that the executing of said
orders was not practicable; and
Whereas, After the escape of that vessel
the measures which were taken for her
pursuit and arrest were so imperfect as to
lead to no result, and therefore can not be
considered as sufficient release for Great
Britain from the responsibility which she
incurred; and
Whereas, despite the violations Of neutral
ity thus committed, the same vessel was,
on several occasions, freeley admitted to
the ports Of the colonies of Great Britain,
instead of being proceeded against, as she
ought to have been in any and every port
under British jurisdiction where she might
have been found, and
Whereas, The Government of England
can not justify itself for its failure in due
diligence or the plea Of the insufficiency Of
the legal means it possessed:
Four Of the arbitrators for the reasons
above assigned, and the fifth, the Lord
Chief Justice CockOurn, for reasons sepa.
rately assigned by him, are of 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, With respect to the Florida, it
results from all the facts that the English
authorities failed to take measures adequate
to prevent the vocation of neutrality, not
yithstanding the representations Of the
agents of the United States to the effect that
her Majesty's Government failed to use due
diligence to fulfill its duties of neutrality.
It likewise results from facts which have
been presented relative to the stay of the
Oreto at Nassau, New Providence, to her
issue thence, her enlistment of men, her
supplies, and her armament with the COOP
eratien of the British vessel Prince Alfred in
Green Bay, that there was negligence on
the part of the British colonial au, horities;
Whereas, notwithstanding the violation
of neutrality Nhich Great Britain commit |
ted in The case Of the Oreto, the same vessel,
at later date called the Florida, was on
several occasions freely admitted to British
ports, and
Whereas, The judicial acquittal of the |
Oreto at Nassau, New Providence, can not |
relieve Great Britain from the responsibility |
incurred under the principles of international |
aw; norA can the fact of the entry of the !
Florida into the Confederate port Of Mobile, |
and her stay there during the period Of four |
months, extinguish the responsibility previ- |
ously incurred by Great Britain.
For these reasons the tribunal OF arbitra- |
ion, by minority of four votes to one, is of
he opinion that Great Britain has in this |
,sse failed by her omission to fulfill the du-
lies prescribed in the first, second and third |
rules established in article six of the Treaty
Of Washington:
Whereas, with respect to the case Of the |
Shenandoah, it results from the facts placed |
before the court that in the departure from
The port of London of the Sea King, and
her subsequent transformation into a cruis-
er near Madeira, the English Government
IS not chargeable with any failure down to
that date in due diligence to fulfill the du-
ties of neutrality.
But, whereas, as results from facts con-
nected with the stay of the Shenandoah at
Melbourne, and especially by the augmen-
tatiOn which England admits to have been |