New-York tribune., 1872-09-16
THE WASHINGTON TREATY.
DECISION OF THE ARBrTRAToRS.

BAMA, TIE FLORIDA, TIE SHENANDOAH, AND
THEIR TENDEBs-THE DECISION AGAINST TIE
UNITED STATES IN TIE CASES OF TIE OTHER
GENEVA SATURDAY., Sept "a, 1872
The decision of the Alabama Claims Arbitra-
ton Tribunal in award OF the settlement Of the case be-
Great Britain the United States delivered To-
day in the council in tins city. begins with recital
In formal technical language of the terms of the Treaty
OF Washnpton recites the and titles OF the ari
traitors and agents apponted sets forth the facts OF the
sssemb &c Of the Court in Geneva, the exchange and
verneton OF the powers Of it's members and the pre-
eeutaoa O the national English and American cases Ivy
the agents aad counsel Having cOneln lei this legal
and judicial preface tho decision continues to de-
clare, eeybatio, as follows:
TENT OF THE DECISION.
Tbc Tribunal having fully taken into consideration
the treaty the cases. the counter documents evil
deRce arguments and all communications which have
been made, and having impartialy aud carefully
amined the has arrived at decision aud presents
as follows its award and the bases of the award.
Whereas Having regard to the sixth and seventh art
cles Of the Treaty Washin gon, the Arbtrators
bound the terms OF the seventh article in deciding
the matters submitted to them 20 be governed by three
rules therein specified, and by such principles of inter
national law not inconsistent Herewith, as the
Arbitrator shall determine applicable TO the
Whereas due diligence referred to in the first and
third Of said should be exercised by neutral Gov
ornments in exact proportion TO the risks to which
either one OF the behgerents may be exposed by failure
To fuau the obligations OF neutrality their part.
whereas The circumstances of which the the
the present controversy arose were
OF call for the exercise, the part of Her
Macsty's Government, of all possible soicude for the
observance OF the rights and duties involved in Her
Majesys proclamation OF neutrality issued on the thr
teenh day May in the yea- of Lord one thousand
eight hundred and sxty-One;
Whereas, The effects of violation Of neutrality, com
mitted 10y means of the construction, equipment, and
of . vessel, are not done away with by any
nff hp hplliO
power benefited by the violation Of neutrality, may
afterward grant that vessel and the ultimate step by
which the offense is completed be admitted
ground for the absouton Of the offender, the
oonsummation OF his fraud become the means Of etab
hsbius his innOcence;
Whereas, The privilege exterritoriality accorded
vessels of is admitted the nations not
absolute right but founded on principle
tcsy and mutual deference, and therefore be
appealed To for justification acts done in violation OF
neutraty and whereas absence Of previous legis-
atiye rule cannot ho regarded failure the law Of
ncns, ia case in which the vessel carries its
leDlu.tion;
CASE OF TIE ALABAMA
whereas u order impart to supplies OF coal char
slcr inconsistent with the second rule prohibiting the
n of neutral ports waters bases operations it
eu.ccsaFy that such supplies be connected with spe-
sial circumstances Of time, person, and place; and,
Nhereas, with respect to the vessel called
The Alabama, il clearly results from all the
facts relative TO her construction in the
Pc,t Of Liverpool, her equipment and arma-
nen ia the vicinity OF Terceira through the agency Of
r vessels dispatched from Britain for that pur-
,oe that the British Government failed to use due dill
euc, in the performance Of its neutral obligations and
Notwithstanding official representations made by agents
d the United during the construction Of tho said
hlp omitted 10 take effective measures for its preven
fan UrirTs dGte1fcn, wicn the Bift1
did finally give, were issued SO late that the
executing OF tie said orders not practicable; and
glerca after the escape OF that vessel the measures
which her pursuit and arrest i'm
perfect lead 10 result and therefore be
considered a sufficient release for Great Britain from
the responsibility she incurred.
whereas Despite the violations OF neutrality thus
committed, the vessel was several occasions,
freely admitted to the ports of colonies Of Great Britain
OF being proceeded against she ought TO have
been, any and every port under British jurisdiction
where she might have been found and. whereas, the
Government Of England cannot justify itself for its fail
III due diligence on the plea of the insuhcency Of
The legal means Of action it possessed;
FJur o. the Arbitrators, for the reasons above as
signed and the ffth Lord ChiefJustce Cockburn, for
separately assigned by him, are Of opinion that
Great Britain has in this failed by omission to fulfil
duties prescribed in the first and third rules estb
ushed by the Treaty OF Washington.
CASE OF THE FLORIDA
And whereas With respect TO the Florida IL results,
from all facts that the English authorities failed TO
take adequate 70 prevent violation OF neu-
tralty, Notwithstanding the representations of the
agents the United states TO the effect that Her Maj
ssty's Government failed due diligence to fulfill
its duties Of neutrality. It likewise results from the
facts which have been presented relative to the stay of
the Oroto at Nassau New-Proyidenee, to her issue
thence enlistment of men. her supplies, and her
armament with the cooperation of the British vessel
Prince Alfred, in Green Bay. that there was negl-
gence on the part Of British Colonial authorities
whereas Notwithstanding the violation Of neutrality
which Great Britain committed the case OF the oreto
the same vessel at later date called the Florida, on
several occasions freely admitted TO British ports; and
whereas the judicial acqutta of the oreto at Nassau
New Providence cannot relieve Great Britain from the
responsibility incurred the principles OF nter
national law nor the fact Of the entry OF the tiOIu
into the Confederate port Of Mobile, and her stay there
during period OF four months extinguish the response
tility previously incurred by Great Britain
For these reasons the Tribunal OF Arbitration, by
majority four voices TO one Is OF opinion 1nst AZ S %
Britain has in this failed by her omission 20 iuin
he duties prescribed in the first second ana thrd Iules
established In Article Six OF the treaty Oh @Snin
CASE OF THE SHENANDOAH.
Whereas with respect 70 the case OF the shenandoah,
n reut from the facts placed before the Court that IN
The darpre from the port OF London OF the Sea King
and her subsequent transformation into cruiser near
Madeira the English Government Is not chargeabie with
80 ,,re down 10 that date in due diligence TO fulnH
the dufes Of neutrality but whereas II results iro ,he
facts connected win the stay S INC eotstion which
England admits TO have been capdesIlnely tpecuu III
her force Of men BY enlist G Us ~ s ar
For these reasons the Tribunal Of Arbitration unan
monsy Of opinion that England has not tailed py tne
act OF osson TO fulfill the duties prescribed by three
rules Treaty OF Washington or IN the
OF principles international law with respect 10 the
BhenaDdOah during period OF time anterior 10 heI ehuy
into the port Of Melbourne and 1y Ryan 81 .Ias a
failed In her duties prescribed IN the second ana tDhu