Rensselaer Union, Volume 5, Number 1, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 26 September 1872 — Decision of the Geneva Board of Arbitration. [ARTICLE]

Decision of the Geneva Board of Arbitration.

.... Geneva, September 14. The decision of the Alabama Claims Arbitration Tribunal in the award of settlement in the case between Great Britain and the United States, was delivered today in the Council Room in this city. It begins with the recital, in the formal trehnical language, of tho terms, of the’Treaty of Washington; recites the names and titles of the Arbitrators and agents appointed by the arbitrating Governments; sets forth the facts of the assemblage of the Court In the Geneva Exchange, and the verification of the powers of its members, and the presentation of the National English and American cases by agents and counsel. . Having concluded this legal and Judicial preface of tho Court, -the decision continues to declare' Derbrttim as follows: The Tribunal bavins fully taken Into consideration tho treaty, can 1 #, counter-cases, documents, evidence, arguments,' and all the communications which have been and having Impartially and carefully examinod tlic same, has arrived at a decision, and presents as foljows tts award and bases # f award: Whereas, Having regard to the sfrth and seventh articles of the Treaty of Washington, the Arbitrators are hound by the terms of the seventh, article, lu deciding matters submitted tothem. to he governed by the three rules therein specified, and bv such principles of International law as are not Inconsistent therewith, as the arbitrators shall determine applicable to the ease; and Whereas, The due diligence referred to in the first and third of said rules should he exercised by neutral governments lb-, exact proportion to the risks to wlvch either ono lof the belligerents may be exposed by a failure tej rulflll the obligations of neutrality on thoir part; ibid Whereas, The circumstances out of which facts of the snhject. matter of the present controversy arose, wore of a nature to call for the exercise on the part of Her Ma jesty’s Government of .all pose! hie solicitude for the observance of the rights and duties Involved in Her Majesty's proclamation; of neutrality, Issued on the 13th day of May, In the yearxif our T ord one thousand eight hundred and slxty-dihe, the effecTsVtf a violation of neutrality committed bv moans of the construction, equipment, and armament of a vessel are not done away with by anv Commission which the Govern merit of a belligerent power, benefited by the violation of neutrality, may afterward grant that." vessel, and the ultimate step hv which the offense Is completed cannot be admitted as a ground for absolution of the offender, nor can the consummation of his fraud become the means of establish, ing his Innocence; and o Whereas. The privilege of exterrllorlality nccorderl to vessels of war is admitted Into the law of nations, not as an absolute right, hnt as founded on the principle of courtesy and mutual deferand therefore can never be appealed to for justification of acts done In violation sf neutrality; and Whereas, The absence of a previous legislative rnle cannot he regarded as a failure In the law of nations. In a case In which a veesel carries Us own condemnation; and Whereas, In order to impart to supplies of coal a character Inconsistent with the second rule, prohibiting the nse of nentrnl ports and waters-** a basis of operation*, it Is necessary that such snpSlles he connected with special circumstances of me, person, and place: and Whereas, With respect to the vessel called the Alabama, it clearly results from all the facts relative to .her const ruction in the port of -Liverpool, her equipment and armament in the vicinity of Tercefra, throhgh the agenev of other vessels dispatched from Great Britain for that, purpose, that the British Government failed to esc dno diligence in the performance of Its neutral obligations, and, notwithstanding the official representations made by the agents of the United States daring the construction of said ship, omitted to take effective measures for Its prevention, and that theordors foivher detention, which the British Government' did finally give, were issned so late that the execntlon or said orders was not practicable; and Whereas, After the escape of that vessel the measures which were taken for her pursuit and arrest were so imperfect ns to lead to no result, and therefore cannot be considered as a snftlcient release for Great Britain from the responsibility she incurred; and ’’Hereas, xm.ntte the violations of nentrallty thns commuted, the same vessel was on several occssions freely admitted to ports of the Colonies of Great Britain, instead of befpg proceeded against as she ought to have been in any and every port under British jurisdiction, where she might havo been found; and • jr* l ?. Q o y® rn »ent of England cannot justify itself for Us failure n dne diligence on tbs plea of Insufficiency of the legal means of action it possessed, four of the Arbitrators, for reasons above assigned, and the fifth. Lord Chief Jnstlce Coekhnrn. for reasons separately assigned bv him are of opinion that Great. Britain has to this case' failed by omission to fulfill the duties prescribed in the first and third rales established by the Treaty of Washington: end Whereas, With respect to the Florida, it results from all the facts th*t the English authorities failed to take mo&aures adequate to prevent a violation of neutrality, notwithstanding the representations of the agents es the United “tares to the effect that Her Majeatv’a Government failed to use due diligence to fulfill ita duties of neutrality. It likewise results from facts which have been presented relative t<tthe stay of theOretoat Nassau, New Provi-dence-to her issue thenre. her enlistment of men, her supplies and her armament , with the co-opera-tion of the British vessel Prince Alfred, In Green Bsv.that there was negligence on the part of the British Colonial authorities; and WHffhEAs, Notwit h«tandine the violation of neutrality which Great Britain committed in the case of the Oreto. tho same vessel, at a later date called the Florida, was ouseveral occasions freely admitted to British porta: and. Whereas, The judicial acquittal of the Oreto, at Nassau, New Providence, cannot relieve Great Britain from the responsibility Incurred nndee the principles of International law, nor can the fact of “•••"try of the Florida Into the Confederate- port ri **bile and her stay there during a period of -Jflßr lannjhs, stMmsiMi th» soeixiaslhtluy uravt. iSS'JJUJ 1 b l ore *t Britain. For these reason* the Tribunal of Arbitration, by a majority

of four voices to one, 1b of the opinion that Great Rritain bag In this case failed by her omlssloD to fulfill the duties prescribed In the first, second, afid third rules established in Article « of the Treaty of Washington; and Whereas, With respect to the oase of the Shenandoah, it results from facts placed before the Court that in the departure from the port of London of the Sea King, and her subsequent transformation into a cruiser near Madeira, the Fnglish Government is not chargeable with any failure down to that date In dne diligence to fulfill its duties of neutrality; but. Whereas, It results from facts connected with the stay of the Shenandoah at Melbourne, aqd especially by the augmentation which England admits to have been-clandestinely effected In her force of men by enlistments at this port, that there was neglteence on the part of the British authorities at that place. For these reasons the.Trlbunal of Arbitration is unanimously of opinion that England has not failed by act of omission to fulfill the, duties prescribed by the three rules of the Treaty of Washington, or in the observance of the principles of international law, wijh respect to the Shenandoah, during the pcriod-fltilme anterior to her entry into the port of Melbourne, and. by a majority of three to two votes, the Tribnnal decides that Great Britain has failed in her duties as prescribed in the second end third rules of the Treaty, in the case of the same vessel, the Shenandoah, from and after her entry into Hobson's Bay. and is therefore, responsible for the acts of that vessel after her departure from Melbourne, on the 18th dajtof February, 18*15. As relates to cases of the Tuscaloosa, the Clarence. and Tacony. the aiders or tenders to the Alabama and Florida, the Court Is unanimously of the opinion that these accessories must follow the lot or their principals, and submit to the same decision. ~ *-

As far as It relates to the case of the privateer K6frtlTOttrHr,thc Tribunal, by a -aaaj(wUy-of-th.ee-to two voices, is of the opinion that England has not failed to fulfill her duties under the three rules So far as relateß to the Georgia, Sum ten Nashville, Tallahasse, and Chlckamauga, the four! is unanimously of opinion that Great Britton has not failed to fulfill the duties prescribed uiiier the three rules of the Treaty, or by International law. The Court Is of opinion that the Sallle, Jeff. Davis, v usic, Boston, and Joy are excluded tram consideration for want of ; and HSt / Whereas, So far as relates to the ijitlqfnlar form of indemnity claimed by the Unlt£dPtatßß for costs incurred in the pursuit of craisejiflL.lß not,. in the judement of the Tribunal, Luilsliahle from the general cxpeneeexpinfe^Pir; therefore, the Court is of opinion, by affnajorlty of three to two, that there Is no ground for awarding any snm by way of indemnity under this head; and Whereas, Prospective injuries cannot properly lie made subjects for compeusutiou, Inasmuch as they depend on the nature of future and uncertain contingencies, the Tribunal is unanimously of opinion tha.t there is no ground for award under this head; and , Whereas, In order to arrive at an equitable compensation for the damages sustained. It Is necessary to set aside all double claims for losses, and claims for gross freight so far as it oxcecds net freight ; and Whereas, it is Inst, and reasonable to allow Interest at a reasonable rate; and Whereas, In accordance with the spirit and letter of the Treaty of Washington, it is preferable to adopt a form of adjudication of a snm In gross rather than refer the subject of compensation for further discussion and deliberation to the Board of Assessors provided in Article 10 of the Treaty of Washington, the Tribunal of Arbitration,using the authority conferred on it# members by Article 7of the Treaty, by a majority of four voices, awards to the United States of America the snm of it 15,500.000 in gold, a» tho lnclemnlty to be paid by Great Britain to the use of the American Government, for the satisfaction of all claims referred to the con.ideration of the Arbitrating Tribunal, conformably to the provisions contained in Article 7 of the Trealy. and in accordance with tho terms of Article lT of the Treaty. The Tribunal declares thaf all cTaini# which have been referred to tt for adjudication arc hereby fully, perfectly, and finally settled. The Court furthermore declares that each and every one of said claims, whether the same may or may not have been presented to the notice of or laid before the Tribunal, shall henceforth he considered and treated as settled and barred. In teslimony whereof, the present decision and award has h,e«n made In duplicate and sinned by the Arbitrators, who have given assent thereto, the whole being in exact conformity, Avith the provisions of the Treaty of Washington. Made and concluded at the Hotel ae Yille, Genova, Switzerland, September 14, A. D 1»73. Charges Francis Adams, Count SclOVib, Jacob Htabmpfli, Baron D’ltajuba.