14
THE NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE.

in conformity with the terms of the 3rd Article of the said Treaty.

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 December, 1871, reassembled 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 IV. of the said Treaty.

The Tribunal having since fully taken into their consideration the Treaty, and also the Cases, Counter-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 6th and 7th Articles of the said Treaty, the Arbitrators are bound under the terms of the said 6th 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 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 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, 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 afterwards have granted to that vessel and the ultimate step, by which the offence 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:

And whereas the privilege of exterritoriality accorded to vessels of war has been admitted into the law 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:

And whereas the absence of a previous notice cannot 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:

And whereas, with respect to the vessel called the "Alabama," it clearly results from all the facts relative to 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," despatched 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 the 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 fulfil the duties prescribed in the first and the third of the Rules established by the 6th Article of the Treaty of Washington.

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