The tribunal is unanimously of opinion That Great Britain has not failed, by any act or omission, to fulfil 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. And so far as relates to the vessels called The Sallie, The Jefferson Davis, The Music, The Boston, and The V. H. Joy, respectively, The tribunal is unanimously of opinion The Sallie, Jefferson Davis, Music, Boston, and V. H. Joy not taken into consideration. That they ought to be excluded from consideration for want of evidence. And whereas, so far as relates to the particulars of the indemnity claimed by the United States, the costs of pursuit of the con Claims for cost of federate cruisers are not, in the judgment of the tribunal, pursuit not allowed. properly distinguishable from the general expenses of the war carried on by the United States: The tribunal is, therefore, of opinion, by a majority of three to two voices That there is no ground for awarding to the United States any sum by way of indemnity under this head. And for prospective earnings. And whereas prospective earnings cannot properly be made the subject of compensation, inasmuch as they depend in their nature upon future and uncertain contingencies: The tribunal is unanimously of opinion That there is no ground for awarding to the United States any sum by way of indemnity under this head. And whereas, in order to arrive at an equitable compensation for the damages which have been sustained, it is necessary to set Net freights only aside all double claims for the same losses, and all claims for allowed. gross freights," so far as they exceed "net freights;" And whereas it is just 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 the form of adjudication of a sum in gross, rather than to refer the subject of compensation for further discussion and deliberation to a board of assessors, as provided by Article X of the said treaty: 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, $15,500,000 comawards to the United States a sum of $15,500,000 in gold, pensation awarded. 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. The payment to be a bar. 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." In testimony whereof this present decision and award has been made in duplicate, and signed by the arbitrators who have given their assent thereto, the whole being in exact conformity with the provisions of Article VII of the said treaty of Washington. Made and concluded at the Hôtel de Ville of Geneva, in Switzerland, the 14th day of the month of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-two. CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. VICOMTE D'ITAJUBÁ. IV.-OPINIONS OF THE ARBITRATORS. 1. OPINIONS OF COUNT FREDERICK SCLOPIS. 2. OPINIONS OF VISCOUNT D'ITAJUBÁ. 3. OPINIONS OF MR. JACQUES STÆMPFLI. 4. OPINIONS OF MR. CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. OPINIONS OF COUNT SCLOPIS. I. THE THREE QUESTIONS OF LAW ON WHICH THE TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION, IN ITS SITTING OF THE 25TH JULY, 1872, REQUEST ED ELUCIDATIONS FROM THE COUNSEL OF THE HIGH PARTIES PRESENT AT THE BAR. In its sitting of the 25th July, 1872, on the proposal of Viscount d'Itajubá, one of the arbitrators, the tribunal decided to require a written or printed statement or argument from the counsel of Great Britain upon the following questions of law: 1. The question of due diligence generally considered. 2. The special question as to the effect of the commissions of confederate ships of war entering British ports. 3. The special question as to supplies of coal in British ports to confederate ships, with the right to the other party to reply either orally or in writing, as the case may be; the whole under the terms of Article V of the treaty of Washington. The questions refer to Article VI of the treaty of Washington, which is as follows: ARTICLE VI. In deciding the matters submitted to the arbitrators they shall be governed by the following three rules, which are agreed upon by the high contracting parties as rules to be taken as applicable to the case, and by such principles of inter Opinions du Comte Frédéric Sclopis sur les trois questions de droit sur lesquelles le tribunal d'arbitrage, dans sa séance du 25 juillet 1872, a demandé des éclaircissements aux conseils des hautes parties présentes à la barre. Dans la séance du 25 juillet 1872, sur la proposition de M. le Vicomte d'Itajubá, l'un des arbitres, le tribunal décida de demander au conseil de la Grande-Bretagne une exposition ou argumentation, écrite ou imprimée, sur les trois questions de droit suivantes: 1. La question des dues diligences, traitée d'une manière générale ; 2. La question spéciale de savoir quel a été l'effet des commissions possédées par les vaisseaux de guerre confédérés qui sont entrés dans des ports britanniques; 3. La question spéciale des approvisionnements de charbon accordés aux vaisseaux confédérés dans les ports britanniques. Tout en réservant à la partie adverse le droit de répondre, soit oralement, soit par écrit, selon le cas, le tout aux termes de l'article V du traité de Washington, les questions se réfèrent à l'article VI du traité de Washington, ainsi conçu : “ARTICLE VI. Dans la décision des matières à eux soumises, les arbitres seront guidés par les trois règles suivantes, dont les hautes parties contractantes couviennent de faire une application spéciale à cette question, et par les principes du droit des gens national law not inconsistent therewith as the arbitrators shall determine to have been applicable to the case: RULES. A neutral government is bound— 1. To use due diligence to prevent the fitting out, arming, or equipping, within its jurisdiction, of any vessel which it has reasonable ground to believe is intended to cruise or to carry on war against a power with which it is at peace; and also to use like diligence to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of any vessel intended to cruise or carry on war as above, such vessel having been specially adapted, in whole or in part, within such jurisdiction, to warlike use. 2. Not to permit or suffer either belligerent to make use of its ports or waters as the base of naval operations against the other, or for the purpose of the renewal or augmentation of military supplies or arms, or the recruitment of men. 3. To exercise due diligence in its own ports and waters, and, as to all persons within its jurisdiction, to prevent any violation of the foregoing obligations and duties. Her Britannic Majesty has commanded her high commissioners and plenipotentiaries to declare that Her Majesty's government cannot assent to the foregoing rules as a statement of principles of international law which were in force at the time when the claims mentioned in Article I arose, but that Her Majesty's government, in order to evince its desire of strengthening the friendly relations between the two countries, and of making satisfactory provision for the future, ageees that in deciding the questions between the two countries arising out of those claims, the arbitrators should assume that Her Majesty's government had undertaken to act upon the principles set forth in these rules. And the high contracting parties agree to observe these rules as between themselves in future, and to bring them to the knowledge of other maritime powers, and to invite them to accede to them. Sir Roundell Palmer, formerly attorney-general, on behalf of Great Britain, General C. Cushing, Messrs. Evarts and Waite, on behalf of the United States, have been heard by means of their respective argu ments. qui, sans être en désaccord avec ces règles, auront été reconnus par les arbitres comme ayant été applicables dans l'espèce : "1. De faire les dues diligences pour prévenir l'armement en guerre ou l'équipement, dans les limites où s'exerce sa juridiction, de tout vaisseau qu'il peut raisonnablement soupçonner être destiné à croiser ou faire la guerre contre une puissance avec laquelle ce gouvernement est en paix; de faire même diligence pour empêcher le départ hors des limites de sa juridiction de tout navire destiné à croiser ou faire la guerre, comme il est dit ci-dessus, quand ce navire aura été spécialement adapté, en tout ou en partie, dans les limites de sa dite juridiction, à des usages belligérants. "2. De ne permettre ni souffrir que l'un des belligérants fasse usage de ses ports ni de ses eaux comme d'une base d'opérations navales contre l'autre belligérant, ni pour renouveler ou augmenter ses munitions militaires et son armement, ou s'y procurer ses recruls. "3. D'exercer les dues diligences dans ces eaux, et d'empêcher qu'aucune personne, dans l'enceinte de sa juridiction, ne viole les obligations et les devoirs précédents. "Sa Majesté britannique a chargé ses hauts commissaires et plénipotentiaires de déclarer que le gouvernement de sa Majesté ne saurait donner son assentiment aux règles précédentes comme à un exposé de principes du droit des gens en vigueur au moment où se sont élevées les réclamations mentionées à l'article I; mais, pour donner un témoignage de son désir de fortifier les relations amicales entre les deux pays et de prendre en vue de l'avenir des précautions satisfaisantes, le gouvernement de sa Majesté consent à ce qu'en décidant les questions qui naissent de ces réclamations entre les deux pays les arbitres tiennent pour accordé que le gouvernement de sa Majesté a voulu agir en conformité avec les principes énoncés dans ces règles. Les hautes parties contractantes s'engagent à observer ces règles dans leurs rapports mutuels à l'avenir, et à les porter à la connaissance des autres puissances maritimes, en les invitant à y adhérer." Ont été entendus, dans leurs plaidoyers respectifs, Sir Roundell Palmer, ci-devant attorney-general, pour la Grande-Bretagne, MM. le général C. Cushing, Evarts et Waite, pour les États-Unis. 1.-Due diligence. We are about to enter on the discussion of questions of principle. The first which presents itself, which will serve as a moral Due diligence. pole-star in the opinions we shall have to form as we come to the different practical cases which await our decision, is the true signification to be attached to the words "due diligence," which have been employed in the first of the three rules laid down in Article VI of the treaty of Washington. A lengthy discussion has taken place between the two powers as to the greater or less scope to be given to the signification of these words. It assuredly cannot be said that there has been any want of explanations on this point. In the original American case we find the whole of a long passage from the Pandects of Ayliffe, with copious quotations from the works of Story and Jones, as well as statements of the practice followed on this point by the Supreme Court of the United States and by the Scotch courts, besides eleven simple quotations from different authors. The original British case mentions "due diligence," and gives a definition of it, (p. 24 of the English text,) which is not absolute, and which refers to historical facts. In its counter case the British government enters into fuller explanations on the subject, (p. 21 of the English text,) and it agrees with that of the United States in considering that the words due diligence do not create any new or additional obligation. They exact from the neutral, in the discharge of the duties imposed on him, that measure of care, and no other, which is required by the ordinary principles of international jurisprudence, and the absence of which constitutes negligence; and to support this doctrine the British counter case cites a long passage from Reddie's work, “Researches in Maritime and International Law.' Sir Roundell Palmer takes these words in the sense that a neutral should employ all the legitimate means in his power, attaching to these words a reasonable construction. The United States seek to increase the measure of responsibility, and they maintain that the belligerent has a right to require the I.-" DUE DILIGENCE." Nous allons aborder les questions de principes. La première qui s'offre à nos yeux, celle qui nous servira comme de boussole morale dans les appréciations qu'il nous faudra faire, parcourant les différents cas pratiques qui attendent notre décision, c'est la véritable signification à attribuer aux mots "due diligence," qui ont été employés dans la première des trois règles établies par l'article VI du traité de Washington. Une longue discussion s'est établie entre les deux puissances sur le plus ou le moins d'étendue qu'il fallait donner à la signification de ces mots. On ne peut pas dire assurément qu'il y ait défaut d'éclaircissements sur cette matière. Dans le premier “Case” américain, on nous a donné tout un long passage des pandectes d'Ayliffe, de copieuses citations des ouvrages de Story et de Jones, ainsi que des indications de la jurisprudence suivie dans la matière par la Cour suprême des États-Unis et par les cours écossaises; de plus, onze simples citations d'auteurs. Le premier "Case" anglais parle de la "due diligence," et il en donne une définition (page 24, texte anglais) qui n'est point absolue, et qui s'en rapporte aux faits historiques. Dans le "Counter-case," le gouvernement britannique entre dans de plus amples explications à cet égard, (page 21, texte anglais,) et il s'accorde avec celui des États-Unis à considérer que ces mots, les dues diligences, ne créent aucune obligation nouvelle ou supplémentaire. Ils exigent du neutre, dans l'accomplissement des devoirs qui lui sont imposés, cette mesure de soin (et pas d'autre) qui est requise en vertu des principes ordinaires de la jurisprudence internationale, soin dont l'absence constitute la négligence et, pour appuyer sa doctrine, le "Counter-case" anglais produit un long passage du livre de Reddie, "Recherches sur le droit maritime et international." Sir Roundell Palmer prend ces mots dans le sens qu'un neutre doit employer tous les moyens légitimes en son pouvoir en donnant à ces mots une portée raisonnable. Les ÉtatsUnis étendent le cas de responsabilité et ils soutiennent que le belligérant a le droit de |