New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-09-17


| Whereas, The due diligence referred t.
| in the first and third of said rules shoult
| be exercised by neutral governments il
| exact prOpoItion to the risks to which
either one of the belligerents may be ex
posed by the failure to fulfill the obliga
| tions of neutrality on their part.
Whereas, The circumstances out Of
which the facts, the subject matter of the
present controversy arose, were of a nature
TO call tor the exercise, on the part of hel
maJesty's government, of all possible so.
ilcltude for the observance of all of the
rights and duties involved in her maiestv's
pre- ectamation of neutrality, issued on the
thirteenth day of May in the year of our
Lord one thousand eight hundred and
sixty-one
Whereas, The effects of violation of neu-
tralIty committed by means of the con-
struction, equipment and armament of n
vessel, are not done away with by any COM
mission which the government Of the bel
ligerent power benefited by the violation
OF neutrality may afterward grant, that
vessel and the ultimate steps bv which the
Ottense is completed, can not be admitted
as ground for the absOlution of the of
fender, nor the consummation of his fraud
become means of establishing his innocence.
Whereas, The privilege of exterritoriality
accorded to vessels of war is admitted in
the law of nations, not as an absolute
right but as founded on a principle of
courtesy and mutual Difference, and there
fore can never be appealed to for iustifca-
tiOn of acts done in violation of neutrality.
Whereas, The absence of previous Iegis-
Iatiye rule can not be regarded as a failure
IN the law of nations in a case in which the
vessel carries its own condemnation.
CASE OF THE ALABAMA
Whereas, In order to impart to supplies
of coal a character inconsistent with the
second rule proposing the use OF neutral
ports and waters as basis of operations, it
is necessary that such supplies be connected
with special circumstances of time, person
and place; and
Whereas, With respect to the vessel
called the Alabama, it clearly results from
all the facts relative to her construction IN
the port of Liverpool; her equipment and
armament in the vicinity Of Terceria,
through the agency of other Yessls dis
patched from Great Britain for that
purpose, that the British government failed
to use due diligence in the performance of
its neutral obligations, and, notwithstand-
ing official representations made by agents
Of the United States during the construc-
ton of the said ships, omitted to take etfec-
tive measures tor its prevention, and that
orders for her protection which the British
government did finally give, were issued so
late that the executing Of said orders was
not practicable.
Whereas, After the escape of that vessel,
the measures which were taken for her pur-
suit and arrest was so imperfect as to lead
to no result, and therefore can not be con-
sidered as a sufficient release for Great
Britain from the responsibility she in
Cured.
Whereas, Despite the violations of neu-
tralitY thus committed, the same vessel was
on seyera occasions freely admitted to the
ports Of tEa colonies of Great Britain, in
stead of being proceeded against. as she
ought to have BEEN III any and every port
under British jurisdiction where she might
have been found.
not justify itself TOR its failure in the dill
gence on the plea Of the insufficiency of the
legal means of action it possessed
-Four OF the arbiti tors for the reasons
above assigned, and the ffth-Lord Chief
Justice C0ckburne, for reasons separately
by hiIn,-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.
CASE OF TIE FLORIDA.
And whereas, With respect to the Flor
da, it results from all the facts that the
adequate to prevent violation Of neutrality,
Notwithstanding the representations of the
agents of the United States to the effect
hat her malesty's government failed to use
iue diligence TO fulfill it duties of neutral
ty. 1t likewise results from the facts
which have been presented relative to the
3tay ct the Oreto at Nassau, New Provi-
lenceo to her issue thence, her en-
istment of men, her supplies and her
6o e
5he British vessel Prince Alfred, in
Green Bay, that there was negligence on
he part of the British colonial authorities.
Whereas, Notwithstanding the violation
If neutrality which Great Britain commit
ed in the case of the Oret0, the same vessel,
vt later date called the Florida, was on
everal occasions freely admitted to British
,orts; and,
Whereas, Tue judicial acquittal of the
)reto at Nassau, New Providence, can
lot relieve Great Britain from the re-
possibility incurred under the prin-
iples of international law, nor can the
act of the entry of the Florida into tile
Confederate port Of Mobile and her stay
here during a period of four months, ex-
ingu.sh the responsibility incurred by |
treat Britain.
For these reasons the tribunal of arb1-
ration by a majority of four voices to |
ne, is of the opinion that Great Britain
as in tlis case failed by her omi5- |
ion to fulfill the duties prescribed in the
rst, second and third rules established in
rticle six OF the treaty of Washington.
CASE OF THE SHENANDOAH.
Whereas, With respect to the case Of the
it results from the facts
laced before the court that in the depart
re from the port of London of the Sea
nd cI1h Fr,, /
Ito cruiser, near Madeira, the English |
overnment is not chargeable with any !
allure down to that date in due diligence |
fulfill the duties of neutrality; but where |
S, it results from the facts connected with
be stay Of the Shenandoah at Melbourne, |
nd especially by the augmentation which |
,ngland admits has been clandestinely ef- |
7cted IN her force of men by enlistments in |
hat port, that there was negligence on the |
art OF the British authorities at that place
For these reasons the tribunal of arbitra-
ion is unanimously of opinion that England
as not failed by the act of omission to
1ltill the duties prescribed by the rules of
he treaty OF Washington, or in the observ-
nee OF the principles of international law
nth respect to the Shenandoah during q
erlOd of time anterior to her entry into
le port of Melbourne, and by majority
three to two votes the tribunal decides
lat Great Britain has tailed IN her duties |
8 prescribed in the second and third rules
f the treaty in the case of the same vessel,
le Shenandoah, from and after her entry
Ito Hobsons bay, and therefore respon-
BILE for the acts, of that vessel after her
eparture from Melbourne, on the eight
enth day of February, 1865. The tenders
} the Alabama and Florida, and other yes
is, as relates to the cases of the Tusca-
osa,, the Clarence and Tacony, the aiders
; tenders to the Alabama and Florida, the
'urt Is unanimously of the opinion that
annnasnrian ILL 2