Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1872-09-16
LATEST NE w S,
BY TELEGBArH
20 TEE VF0RCEsTER DAELx sly
The Award from Geneva.
Fifteen Million Five Hundred Thousand
Dollars ia EOId-End Of the Arbiirn-
ton.

GENEVA, Sept. 14.-Ihe decision OF the trlbu-
nal awarding damages TO the United States be-
Gins with a recital Of the formal language OF the
terms of the treaty of Washington, the names
and titles of the arbitraors and agents OF the
assembly ut Geneva, the exchange OF powers,
the presentation Of the eases, and continues YER
batim as follows:
The tribunal, having fully taken into consid-
Grafton the treaty cases, counter cases. evidence,
arguments, and all communications made, has
impartally and carefully examined the same,
aud has arrived at the decision embodied in the
present award
Whereas having regard for the sixth and
seventh articles of the treaty, the arbitrator are
bound by the terms of the seventh article in de-
Gliding the matters submitted, to be governed by
three rules therein specified, and by such prnci-
pies Of International law, not inconsistent there
with, rs the arbitrator shall determine applica
BILE TO the case; and
Whereas, the due diligence referred to in the
first and third Of said rules should be exercised
by neutral government, in exact proportion TO
the risks to which either belligerent may be eX-
posed by failure to fulfil the obligation of neu-
trality on their part;
And whereas, the circumstances out of which
the facts of the subject matter of the present
controversy arose were Of nature to call for the
exercise on the partOl her majeSty's government
OF all possible SOicitude for the observance of
the rights and duties involved IN the proclama-
ton issued May IS, 1861; and whereas, the eff
iects OF ayiolation of neutrality, committed by
means of the construction, equipment and arm
ament of vessels, are not done away with by
any commission which the government OF bellig-
erent powers, benefited by thelviolation of neu-
tralitv, maytaltcrwards grant that. vessel, and
the ultimate step by which the offence is COM
pleted cannot be admitted as ground for the
absoutiOn of the offender, nor the consummation
of his fraud become the means Of establishing
his innocence;
And Whereas the privilege Of eX-territorialitv,
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
Difference, and therefore can never be appealed
to for justification of acts done in violation of
neutrality; and whereas, the absence of pre-
vious knowledge cannot be regarded as Il failure
in the law of nations in case in which vessel
carries its own condemnation; and whereas, in
order to impart to supplies of coal Il character
inconsistent with the second rue, prohibiting
the use OF neutralports and waters as base of
operations, the necessary supplies must
be connected with the special circum-
stances oil time, person and place; aud
whereas in respect to the vessel called the Ala
bama it clearly results from all the facts rela-
tive to her construction in theiport of Liverpool
and her equipment and armament in the vicinity
of Terciera, through the agency of other vessels
dispatched from Great Britain for that purpose,
that the British government failed to use due
diligence in the perlor nance of neutral obi
reservations of the agents of the United States
duting the construction of said ship, omitted to
take effective measures of prevention, and that
the orders of detention which the government
did finally give were issued so late that the
executing of them was not practicable;
and whereas, after the escape of that vessel, the
measures taken for her pursuit and arrest were
so imperfect that they led to no result, and
therefore cannot be considered a sufficient re.
lease of Great Britain from the responsibility n-
curred and whereas, despite the violation of
neutrality committed the same vessel was on
several occasions freely admitted to ports of the
colonies of Great Britain instead OF being pro.
ceeded against as she ought to have been in any
and every port of British jurisdiction where she
might have been found; and whereas, the gov
eminent of England cannot justify itself for its
failure in due diligence on plea ofinsuficiency
of the legal means of action it possessed four Of
the arbitrator, for the reasons above assigned,
and the 9th, Lord Cockburn, for tue
reasons separately assigned by him,
are of the opinion that Great Brit
ain has in this case failed, by omis-
sion, to fulfil the duties prescribed in the first
and third rules established by the treaty of
Washington.
And whereas, in respect to the Florida, it re-
suits from all the facts that the English author
titles failed to take measures adequate to prevent
violation of the neutrality law, notwithstand-
ing the representations of the agents of the Unit
tu oldltS W ICI HlilCSly > gONCIuulCutJ IL
failed TO use due diligence to fuiHl the duties of
neutrality; it likewise results from the stay of
the 0reto at Nassau to her issue thence, to
her enlistment Of men and her supplies and ar
mament with the co operation of British YES
sci, the Prince Alfred, in Green bay, that there
was negligence on the part of the British colo
NAL authorities; and whereas, Notwithstanding
the violation of the neutrality law by
Great Britain committed by the 0reto, the
same vessel. later called the Florida,
was on several occasions freely admitted into
British ports; and whereas, the judicial acqut-
tai of the Oreto at Nassau cannot relieve Great
Britain from the responsibility incurred under
the principles Ofinternational law, nor can the
fact of the entry of the Florida into the confed-
crate port of Mobile, and her stay there during
four months, eXtinqush the responsibility pre-
viously incurred by Great Britain.
For these reasons the tribunal by a majority
of four voices to one, is of the opinion that
Great Britain has in this case failed by an omis-
sion to fulfil the duties prescribed in the first,
second and third rules established in article 9th
of the treaty of Washington.
And whereas, with respect to the Shenandoah,
it results from the facts of the departure from
London Of the Sea King and her transformation
into a cruiser near Madeira, that the Eng
lish government is not chargcablc with
any failure down to that date, in due diligence
to fulfil the duties of neutralityi but whereas, IT
results from the facts that the stay of the Shen-
andoah at Melbourne and especially the aug-