ing out of a state of war being thus disposed of, we arrive at the great class of private losses, which chief ly occupied the time of the Tribunal.

DECISION AS TO PRIVATE LOSSES.

The Arbitrators, assuming that, pursuant to the command of the Treaty, they are to be governed by the three Rules, and the principles of international law not incompatible therewith, proceed to lay down the following prefatory positions, namely:

1. "The due diligence' referred to in the first and third of the said Rules, ought to be exercised by neutral Governments in exact proportion to the risks to which either of the Belligerents may be exposed from a failure to fulfill the obligations of neutrality on their part.

2. "The circumstances, out of which the facts constituting the subject-matter of the present controversy arose, were of a nature to call for the exercise on the part of Her Britannic Majesty's Government of all possible solicitude for the observance of the rights and the duties involved in the proclamation of neutrality issued by Her Majesty on the 13th day of May, 1861.

3. "The effects of a violation of neutrality committed by means of the construction, equipment, and armament of a vessel are not done away with by any commission which the Government of the belligerent Power benefited by the violation of neutrality may afterward have granted to that vessel; and the ultimate step, by which the offense is completed, can not be admissible as a ground for the absolution of the offender; nor can the consummation of his fraud become the means of establishing his innocence.

4. "The privilege of ex-territoriality accorded to vessels of war has been admitted into the laws of nations, not as an absolute right, but solely as a proceeding founded on the principle of courtesy and mutual deference between different nations, and therefore can never be appealed to for the protection of acts done in violation of neutrality.

5. "The absence of a previous notice can not be regarded as a failure in any consideration required by the law of nations, in those cases in which a vessel carries with it its own condemnation.

6. "In order to impart to any supplies of coal a character inconsistent with the second Rule, prohibiting the use of neutral ports or waters, as a base of naval operations for the Belligerent, it is necessary that the said supplies should be connected with special circumstances of time, of persons, or of place, which may combine to give them such character."

Keeping in view these rules of construction, the Tribunal proceeds to judge the British Government in regard to each of the Confederate cruisers before them.

As to the Alabama, originally "No. 290," constructed in the port of Liverpool and armed near Terceira, through the agency of the Agrippina and Bahama, dispatched from Great Britain to that end, the Tribunal decides that the British Government failed to use due diligence in the performance of its neutral obligations:

1. Because "it omitted, notwithstanding the warnings and official representations made by the diplomatic agents of the United States during the construction of the said 'No. 290,' to take in due time any effective measures of prevention, and that those orders which it did give at last, for the detention of the vessel, were issued so late that their execution was not practicable;" 2. Because, " after the escape of that vessel, the measures taken for its pursuit and arrest were so imperfect as to lead to no result, and therefore can not be considered sufficient to release Great Britain from the responsibility already incurred;" 3. Because, "in despite of the violations of the neutrality of Great Britain committed by the '290,' this same vessel, later known as the Confederate cruiser Alabama, was on several occasions freely admitted into the ports of Colonies of

Great Britain, instead of being proceeded against, as it ought to have been, in any and every port within British jurisdiction in which it might have been found;" 4. And because "the Government of her Britannic Majesty can not justify itself for a failure in due diligence on the plea of the insufficiency of the legal means of action which it possessed."

As to the Florida, originally called Oreto, the Tribunal decides that the British Government failed to use due diligence to fulfill its duties:

1. Because "it results from all the facts relative to the construction of the Oreto in the port of Liverpool, and to its issue therefrom, which facts failed to induce the Authorities in Great Britain to resort to measures adequate to prevent the violation of the neutrality of that nation, notwithstanding the warnings and repeated representations of the Agents of the United States;" 2. Because "it likewise results from all the facts relative to the stay of the Oreto at Nassau, to her issue from that port, to her enlistment of men, to her supplies, and to her armament with the co-operation of the British vessel Prince Alfred at Green Cay, that there was negligence on the part of the British Colonial Authorities;" 3. Because," notwithstanding the violation of the neutrality of Great Britain committed by the Oreto, this same vessel, later known as the Confederate cruiser Florida, was nevertheless on several occasions freely admitted into the ports of British Colonies;" and, 4. Because "the judicial acquittal of the Oreto at Nassau can not relieve Great Britain from the responsibility incurred by her under the principles of international law; nor can the fact of the entry of the Florida into the Confederate port of Mobile, and of its stay there during four months, extinguish the responsibility previous to that time incurred by Great Britain."

As to the Shenandoah, originally called the Sea King, the Tribunal decides that the British Government is not chargeable with any failure in the use of due diligence to fulfill the duties of neutrality respect

L

ing her during the period of time anterior to her entry into the port of Melbourne: but

"That Great Britain has failed, by omission, to fulfill the duties prescribed by the second and third of the Rules aforesaid, in the case of this same vessel, from and after her entry into Hobson's Bay, and is therefore responsible for all acts committed by that vessel after her departure from Melbourne, on the 18th day of February, 1865."

The Tribunal further decides as to the Tuscaloosa, tender to the Alabama, and as to the Clarence, the Tacony, and the Archer, tenders to the Florida:

"That such tenders or auxiliary vessels being properly regarded as accessories, must necessarily follow the lot of their principals, and be submitted to the same decision which applies to them respectively."

As to the other vessels accused, namely, the Retribution, Georgia, Sumter, Nashville, Tallahassee, and Chickamauga, the Tribunal decided "that Great Britain has not failed, by any act or omission, to fulfill any of the duties prescribed by the three Rules of Article VI. in the Treaty of Washington, or by the principles of international law not inconsistent therewith."

Thus far the Tribunal had dealt only with the considerations of law and of fact applicable to the gener al question of the naked legal responsibility of Great Britain.

As preparatory to the ulterior question of the sum to be awarded to the United States by way of indemnity, the Tribunal decides; 1. "That prospective earnings can not properly be made the subject of compen

sation, inasmuch as they depend in their nature upon future and uncertain contingencies;" 2. "In order to arrive at an equitable compensation for the damages which have been sustained, it is necessary to set aside all double claims for the same losses, and all claims for gross freights' so far as they exceed 'net freights;'" 3. "It is just and reasonable to allow interest at a reasonable rate."

Finally, the Tribunal, deeming it preferable, in accordance with the spirit and the letter of the Treaty of Washington, to adopt the form of adjudication of a sum in gross rather than to refer the subject of compensation to Assessors, concludes as follows:

"The Tribunal, making use of the authority conferred upon it by Article VII. of the said Treaty, by a majority of four voices to one, awards to the United States the sum of fifteen millions five hundred thousand dollars in gold as the indemnity to be paid by Great Britain to the United States for the satisfaction of all the claims referred to the consideration of the Tribunal, conformably to the provisions contained in Article VII. of the aforesaid Treaty.

"And, in accordance with the terms of Article XI. of the said Treaty, the Tribunal declares that all the claims referred to in the Treaty as submitted to the Tribunal are hereby fully, perfectly, and finally settled.'

"Furthermore, it declares that each and every one of the said claims, whether the same may or may not have been presented to the notice of, or made, preferred, or laid before the Tribunal, shall henceforth be considered and treated as finally settled, barred, and inadmissible."

It deserves to be remembered that the British Arbitrator, and he alone, refused to sign the Decision. No good reason appears to justify this refusal, seeing