Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1872-09-20

--flL ALEXANDER COCkuuEN DELUEG.
WASHINGTON, Sept. IA telegram received
at the State Department today from J. c. Ban
croft Dsvia, sssnt CT the United States, rays tina,
the text Of the award Of the arbitratorr Il Gene
-, had been publicly announced there
The United states receive the gross sun Of
fifteen AID half millions Of dollars Tor lcsser
sustained by the actl Of the Alabama. Fi0rids
and Shenandoah, the latter after leaving Me-
bourne. b. the terms Of the treHty the award
il payable III gold 8; Warrington within one
year from the date Of the aWsrd
GE,ETA, Sept l4-Tbe Court Of Arbitration
met Al half pas; twelve This afternoon, The delay
in the arrival Of Sir Alexander Cockburn and
Lord Ienterden having prevented It's assembling
At twelve o'clock. The I've arbitrator, the
agents @! tho respective governments, several
Of the council, twelve ladies' and ten iournsliSls
were rresant Count Ssi7pif presided, ard read
tia arguments Of the arbitrator. coacurring in
the deciIion CT tie tribunal snd announced that
the rum awarded 70 the United States vas 3d.
100000 in gold si- Alexander Cockbu1n re-
fused 70 lign the decision Of the tribunal.
Count so.op:s WAS sppiaudei Fhen he con
c.uded After ths saiournmeu. Of tie Court,
twenty-five guns we've aral in honor Of the
closing Of its labor The Eariisa REPRESENT
tivel leave Geneva on 3iouisy. All the Amer
CANS On Tuesday
THE GENEVA AEUIIEATIoE-IuE DECISION c. IHE
C0UET o. Arbitration
GEsEvA. Sept 1.-THE decision ol The tribunal
awarding aamsres % the United States begins
win a recital Of the formal lsrrus-s Of the
treaty Of WssEiurtau. iae name AID title Ct The
sIbirrtto-s and r-eu.r Of the ass5Ht y 6. Genera;
tee exchange Of poTerI; tas presentation OF tte
cases, etc ard contiu-er the verbatim a. follows.
the tribunal having fully taken into eonEde-s-
ton the trest7. cases. counter cases, documents,
arguments. evidence an all c5mmuniesti1as
made. have impartial an carefully examined
the Eauc AZ have arrived a, the decision emb5i-
led in the present award
Whereas. Hsviac regard for The 6,h a-d 1-h
articles OF the treaty, the trtitrst5rs arc boani
by the terms o. The 9Th sr,io'e IL deciding the
matters submitted % be governed by three rules
therein specified anu by suca principles Ct inter
national law not inc1nsistaa, herewith. as the
srbitrs IRA ,h-I d5tsrm he app csb-s % the cars;
snd
WAGels, Tue lul li-i-eu-a referred TO u the
hrst AL thirI O. the EEL rules should be s1er-
cised by the reu.ra. governments 10 eza-t pro
portion % the rsss 90 vhica either h-lIire-sut
MY be exposed i7 lli-urs 20 la-a- iAe ob-irstioa
Of neu.llirv Oh their pur.; and vtese-s. the cir
cumtiauces ont Ct which the facts q the tutie-.
matter q he present controversy arose were %
nature % cal tcr me exercise ca the pLri OF her
uaisttTs government O. ell posti1.e E1lcitu11 fer
the Observance Of the rights and duueE Invo Fe-
10 The proclamation issued 1isT latb, 1851; sni
Whereas. Inc effect o. violation Of NEUTRAL
t7 committed 10y mGsuF ct construction Az
equipment an arnEneut 81 vessels ARE uot
done away with b. any c1umiIri-u which ire
goveTumeuiI % tclIEereut p1Fers benefited BY
the violation 60 neutrality may atterEAr1 grant
that yEsse Eu- the u.--ac step b. Fhicl tire
odeuce u COMMITTEE cannot b. admitted f1r A.
solution 2 the offender neither tlE c1nsum-
nation %. bic fraud become tre msEnt C.. es,a-.
iisninE bis iuuocsncei and
Whereas. the privilege Of gz-s-rirCris.--~ O.
corded TO vessels 81 Esr BE- admitted into the .av
OF nations. u1l 6 an a5so1te right but - f-unl-
Cd On q principle % courseEv and mutus defer
euce. and therefore czl never be appealed to llr
Justification @. ac-i 1-a- b. violation 81 rcu-
trsi5y arl
Nhrresa. t1l ats-1cs e- r-sv-1-s know ieire
uuct BE- regarded zs O. ial-ur III the .aE Of
nations. IL csae be- Ei.-1 a weasel cr-riei i-r
OWE c-1iauuEr---. al
Wheresf. in 1rie- Go iu-s-. So tlt Euppiies q
ceai character Inco1ssteni which the second
rue prohibiting ,-e ufe ai ueutraI po1s al5
waters ~ n.fe Of operations the necessary Fur-
pics -ur. be- CONTESTED with the circ1u-
stances Of time, rsTEou ard plscc arr
Nhersss u refnsct o. the vetsel called The
As5suf B. clearly results non AL the facts
relstive &c ner construction b. IRE poTt Ct Liver
pool ara her equipment Ar armament II the
vicinity o. Ie-lsirl through TIE sgercy q other
-esse.s difpE,casi from Great Britain f-- that
rrruose. ih.- ,he British government fsi.ei O.
use due diligence IL the Performance Of leu1rl'
sa-csiil1f. an n1-Ei,hsrlndiuE the c1c.Gi
Representatives. OF t1e agents C.! ihe United
States during the CO rFtru1tI1u 90 the EE-
ship. emitted 90 take effective measures o.
prevention. Erl t1sr lle orders cf de-
lsuti1n Vhica l1e government did nnGliy
give were lzsucl O. late that tie execution o.
then were not rrseticah.a and
NheresF. AFTER the escape e.. the vess-. TIE
mezEure5 taken Ter ter pursuit ard a-rsff were
a. imperfect that trey ieEl % 90 roF0it. anl
therefore caln1t Be csinei IS release 0f .
Great Britain from The responsibility 70 clrraI .
ani
Whereas. Despite The violation :. neutrality
COMMITTED The ssue vgsle. was, on severn. ocei .
fH 20 af|. -Tr
o. Great Britain inttszi Of being proceeded .
szEinst, as she ought 90 have been, 10 any Ind .
every port c. B-Iuta juriEiicticn where ale .
might be found All
v heress, The government q England cannot
ustify itself for iig failure lu due dill -e1ce On
plea Of inEufl.iency o. iezA. meEus Of action 3, .
poEseEsei four Of the arbitrator for the reasouf
above assigned. and the fi;h. Lord Cockhur1 fo-
the reasons separately assigned hy hin. are Of
The opinion tbtt Great Britain mas 10 thit clIe
failed by emission 90 fulfill the duties prescribed
In the first and thri rules established hy tae
trestv e Washington; Eul
Whereas. IN respect % tle Florida. 81 rcHults
frcn al tts facts .lAt the Encisa suthori5iss
failed 90 tako measures adequate 20 prevent
violation 0i tlc ucutra o. la~. uoiF itas;4uliu-
the Taprtssu,-tills 90 me aec-- Of the IaIt,i
otsiss o. her Asialt7't government, j. failei
70 uae due diligence 90 talaI t5e duties Of neutral
ity it hkesiss results from the stay q the preic
81 Nassau AID her isSuc thence; from her enlist
maut u men and the procurement q supplies
from tle arms NEXT with the cooperation u the
British vessei. the Prince Alfred. iH Green BsT
that there was negligence 90 the part Of the
British colonial AUTHORITIES an
Whereas N1twitaEtsrdinc the violations Of
the neutrality ihW by Great Britain committed
BY the Orei3 the same ves-sl later called the
i0ridE. WsG on several ouczE Is freely admitted
Into British ports s11
Whereas. The i1iicil. scla.,tal o. the 5reto
1t Nassau cannot relieve Great Britain from the
responsibility incurred under the principles O.
international lsV, nor can TIE fact Of the entry
q the Florida iu'- the Confederate p1rt Of Mo
lile and her stsy there during four months ex-
ingush the responsibility previously incurred
BY Great Britain; for these reasons the
ribunsl By msioriry OK four voises I
10 one Is Of the opinion that Gres; Britain has
q tins Gaze failed ny Al omissi1n TO fulfill the
iuties prescribed 10 the hrst second and third !
ules ESTABLISHED 10 article sixth Of the treaty I;
Z Washington; aul
Whereas, VIII reFpo1. TO tl6 Shenandoah it
esults ircn tla facH p tAe departure from I
london Of the Sea Eiuc and her trznSi5rmztion {
nto L cruiser near Madeira that the English
government is not chsreeE5s With any failure [
Town 10 that date IN due diligence 20 fulhl the {
iuties Of neutrality; but c
Whereas il resolis from the fact that the i
tsy Of TIE Shenandoah a. Melbourne, and e. :
'eciAly The sucmeniation which England sd- I
nits to nave been ciEudestiaey effected IN her :
oree. by enlistmenta 81 that port. that there 4
Fss negligence On th5 part Of The authorities a. ?
hat place for these rcsfons the tribunal IL IN d
Of the oFil--l tESt England has not
allied by any &c, Of omission to fulhl the dates
rescribei by the three rules Of the treaty, or I
= the principl.s Of International law in respect
; .he Shenandoah during thAt period Of .
me anterior 10 her entry into the port Of v
Ielbourne and by majority Of three Il
two votes, the tribunal decides that Il
treat Britain has failed in her duties present 81
4 BY the second and third rules in the case Of o.
he same vessel from and after her entry into o.