Preparation of the Award.

At the thirtieth conference, which was held on the 6th of September, the arbitrators proceeded to consider a draft of an award in French, of which, at the request of the tribunal, Mr. Adams and Sir Alexander Cockburn undertook to provide for the translation into English. At the conference on the 9th of September the draft which was considered on the 6th was definitely adopted as the text of the award, Mr. Adams and Sir Alexander Cockburn presenting the English translation; and the tribunal resolved that the award should be signed at the next conference, which was to be held on Saturday, the 14th of September, at half-past twelve o'clock.

At the appointed hour the tribunal asClose of the Tribunal. sembled, and for the first time the doors were thrown open to persons other than those

connected, directly or officially, with the arbitration. The cantonal government of Geneva were present in a body as the guests of the tribunal. The proceedings of the day were begun by the reading and signing of the protocol of the last conference. When this preliminary was completed Mr. Fav rot, the secretary of the tribunal, read in a firm voice the official copy of the award in English, "amid the profound silence of the audience." The reading of the French text was dispensed with, and the four arbitrators who concurred in the award (Sir Alexander Cockburn dissenting) signed it. "Count Selopis then, rising, took in his right hand the copy for the United States, and in his left hand the copy for Great Britain, and delivered them simultaneously" to Mr. Davis and Lord Tenterden, respectively. Sir Alexander Cockburn handed in a bulky paper, partly in print and partly in manuscript, which he said contained his reasons for dissenting from the opinions of his colleagues and which he desired to have annexed to the protocol. Count Sclopis said that it would be done. The tribunal then resolved to request the council of state at Geneva to receive its archives, and after the protocol of the thirtysecond and last conference was drawn up and signed Count Sclopis, in appropriate terms and amid salvos of artillery discharged by order of the cantonal government, declared the tribunal to be dissolved.

Thus came to an end an arbitration which, whether measured by the gravity of the questions at issue or by the magnanimous and enlightened statesmanship which conducted them to

a peaceful determination, was justly regarded as the greatest the world had ever seen.

Award of the Tribunal.

The text of the award was as follows:

"DECISION AND AWARD

"Made by the tribunal of arbitration constituted by virtue of the first article of the treaty concluded at Washington the 8th of May, 1871, between the United States of America and Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

treaty of Washington.

"The United States of America and Her Britannic Majesty having agreed by Article I. of the treaty conRecital of provisions of the cluded and signed at Washington the 8th of May, 1871, to refer all the claims 'generically known as the Alabama claims' to a tribunal of arbitration to to be composed of five arbitrators named:

"One by the President of the United States,

"One by Her Britannic Majesty,

"One by His Majesty the King of Italy,

"One by the President of the Swiss Confederation,

"One by His Majesty the Emperor of Brazil;

"And the President of the United States, Her Britannic Majesty, His Majesty the King of Italy, the Appointment of arbitrators. President of the Swiss Confederation, and His Majesty the Emperor of Brazil having respectively named their arbitrators, to wit:

"The President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, esquire;

"Her Britannic Majesty, Sir Alexander James Edmund Cockburn, baronet, a member of Her Majesty's privy council, lord chief justice of England;

"His Majesty the King of Italy, His Excellency Count Frederick Sclopis, of Salerano, a knight of the Order of the Annunciata, minister of state, senator of the Kingdom of Italy; "The President of the Swiss Confederation, M. James Stämpfli;

"His Majesty the Emperor of Brazil, His Excellency Marcos Antonio d'Araujó, Viscount d'Itajubá, a grandee of the Empire of Brazil, member of the council of H. M. the Emperor of Brazil, and his envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary in France.

"And the five arbitrators above named having assembled at Geneva (in Switzerland) in one of the chamOrganization of tribunal. bers of the Hôtel de Ville on the 15th of December, 1871, in conformity with the terms of the second article of the Treaty of Washington, of the 8th of May of that year, and having proceeded to the inspection and verification of their respective powers, which were found duly authenticated, the tribunal of arbitration was declared duly organized.

"The agents named by each of the high contracting parties, by virtue of the same Article II., to wit:

"For the United States of America, John C. Bancroft Davis, esquire;

And for Her Britannic Majesty, Charles Stuart Aubrey, Lord Tenterden, a peer of the United Kingdom, companion of the Most Honorable Order of the Bath, assistant under-secretary of state for foreign affairs;

"Whose powers were found likewise duly authenticated, then delivered to each of the arbitrators the printed Delivery of cases. case prepared by each of the two parties, accompanied by the documents, the official correspondence, and other evidence on which each relied, in conformity with the terms of the third article of the said treaty.

Delivery of counter-cases.

"In virtue of the decision made by the tribunal at its first session, the counter-case and additional documents, correspondence, and evidence referred to in Article IV. of the said treaty were delivered by the respective agents of the two parties to the secretary of the tribunal on the 15th of April, 1872, at the chamber of conference, at the Hôtel de Ville of Geneva.

"The tribunal, in accordance with the vote of adjournment passed at their second session, held on the 16th Delivery of arguments. of December, 1871, re-assembled at Geneva on the 15th of June, 1872; and the agent of each of the parties duly delivered to each of the arbitrators, and to the agent of the other party, the printed argument referred to in Article V. of the said treaty.

"The tribunal having since fully taken into their consideration the treaty, and also the cases, counterDeliberations of tribunal. cases, documents, evidence, and arguments, and likewise all other communications made to them by the two parties during the progress of their sittings, and having impartially and carefully examined the same,

"Has arrived at the decision embodied in the present award: "Whereas, having regard to the VIth and VIIth articles of the said treaty, the arbitrators are bound under the terms of the said VIth article, 'in deciding the matters submitted to them, to be governed by the three rules therein specified and by such principles of international law, not inconsistent therewith, as the arbitrators shall determine to have been applicable to the case;'

"And whereas the 'due diligence' referred to in the first and third of the said rules ought to be exercised Definition of due diligence. by neutral governments in exact proportion to the risks to which either of the belligerents may be exposed, from a failure to fulfil the obligations of neutrality on their part;

"And whereas 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;

"And whereas the effects of a violation of neutrality committed by means of the construction, equipEffect of a commission. ment, 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 afterwards have granted to that vessel; and the ultimate step, by which the offense is completed, cannot 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;

war.

"And whereas the privilege of exterritoriality accorded to vessels of war has been admitted into the law Exterritoriality of vessels of 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;

Effect of want of notice.

"And whereas 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; "And whereas, 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 a 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;

Supplies of coal.

the Alabama.

"And whereas, with respect to the vessel called the Alabama, it clearly results from all the facts relative to Responsibility for acts of the construction of the ship at first designated by the number 290' in the port of Liverpool, and its equipment and armament in the vicinity of Terceira through the agency of the vessels called the 'Agrippina' and the Bahama,' dispatched from Great Britain to that end, that the British government failed to use due diligence in the performance of its neutral obligations; and especially that it omitted, notwithstanding the warnings and official representations made by the diplomatic agents of the United States during the construction of the said number 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; "And whereas, 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 cannot be considered sufficient to release Great Britain from the responsibility already incurred;

"And whereas, 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;

"And whereas the government of Her Britannic Majesty cannot justify itself for a failure in due diligence on the plea of insufficiency of the legal means of action which it possessed: "Four of the arbitrators, for the reasons above assigned, and the fifth for reasons separately assigned by him,

"Are of opinion

"That Great Britain has in this case failed, by omission, to fulfill the duties prescribed in the first and the third of the rules established by the VIth article of the Treaty of Washington.

And of the Florida.

"And whereas, with respect to the vessel called the 'Florida,' 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, that Her Majesty's government has failed to use due diligence to fulfil the duties of neutrality; "And whereas 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;

And whereas, 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 whereas the judicial acquittal of the Oreto at Nassau cannot 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 previously to that time incurred by Great

Britain:

"For these reasons,

"The tribunal, by a majority of four voices to one, is of opinion

"That Great Britain has in this case failed, by omission, to fulfil the duties prescribed in the first, in the second, and in the third of the rules established by Article VI. of the treaty of Washington.