Mower County transcript. [volume] (Lansing, Minn.) 1868-1915, 1872-09-26

Ill pOeSS1Ol6 SU11C1luOS AOIi WIG ODD0IV~
ance of the rights and duties involved
in Her Majesty's proclamation of neu-
trality, issued on the thirteenth day of
Nay, in the year of our Lord, 1861, the
effects of violation of neutrality COM
mitted by means of the construction,
equipment and armament of YES sells are
not done away with by any commission
which the government of q belligerent
power benefited by q violation of neu
trality may afterwards grant that ves-
sci, and the ultimate step by which the
offense is completed, cannot be admit:
ted as q ground for the absolution OF
the offender; nor can the consumma-
tion of his fraud become the means OF
establishing his innocence.
WHEREAS, The privilege Of exterri-
torial accorded to vessels of water is
admitted into the law of nations, not
as absolute right, but as founded on q
principle Ct courtesy and neutral de-
tense, and, therefore,, can never be ap
Piled to for the justification OF acts
done in violation of neutrality:
AND WHEREAS, The absence of pre-
vious legislative rule cannot he regard
ed as a failure in the law of nations in
o case in which the vessel carries it's
own condemnation.
WHEREAS, In order to impart to the
supplies of coal character inconsist-
ent with the second rule prohibiting
the use of neutral ports and waters as
q basis of operations, it is necessary
that such supplies be connected with
the special circumstances of time, per-
son and place;
AND WHEREAS, with respect to the
vessel called the Alabama it is clearly
the result from all the facts relative to
her construction in the port Of Liver
pool, her equipment and armament in
the vicinity of Ferceira, through the
agency of other vessels dispatched
from Gre Britain for that purpose,
that the British government failed to
use due diligence in the performance
of its neutral obligations, and notwith-
standing the official representations
made by the agents of the United
States during the construction OF said
ship, omitted to take effective measures
for it's prevention, and that the orders
for her detention which the British
government did finally give wereiseued
60 late that the execution of said orders
was impracticable.
AND WHEREAS, After the escape of
that vessel, tho measures which were
taken for her pursuit and arrest were
so imperfect as to lead to the result,
and cannot be considered rs sufficient
release for Great Britain from tho re-
spOnsibilitY she incurred.
WHEREAS, Despite the viol0tions Of
neutrality thus committed, the same
vessel was on several occasions freely
admitted to ports of colonies of Great
Britain, instead of 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 cannot justify itselffor its fail
ure in due diligence on tho plea of the
insufficiency of legal means of action
it possessed, four of the Arbltrators,
for the reasons above assigned, and
the fifth, Lord Chief Justice Cockburn,
for reasons separately assigned by him,
are of the 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 q
violation of neutrality, notwithstand-
ing the representations of agents of the
United States to the effect that Her
Maiesty's Government failed to use due
diligence to fulfill its duties of neu-
trality. It likewise results from the
facts which have been presented rela-
tive to the stay of Oveta at Nassau,
New Providence, to her issue thence
her enlistment of men, her supplies
and armament, with the cooperation
of the British vessel Prince Alfred in
Green Bay, that there was negligence
on the part of the British Colonial
authority.
WHEREAS, Notwithstanding the vic.
lation of neutrality which Great Bri-
tain committed in the case OF the Oveto.
the same vessel at q later date called
Florida, vas on several occasions free
~ admitted to Britieh ports; and
whereas, judicial acquittal of the
Oveto Mt Nassau, New Providence, can
not relieve Great Pritain from the re-
sponsibility incurred under the priu.
ciples of international law, nor 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
previously incurred by Great Britain.
For these reasons the Tribunal OF
Arbitration, by majority Of fou,
voices to one, are of the opinion that
Great Britain hns, in this case, failed
by her omission to fulfil the dutie.
prescribed in the LIST, I'd and Sd rules
established in article 6 of the Treaty o1
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
transfer to q cruiser near Madeira, the
English Government is not chargeabie
with any allure down to that date in