« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
Protocol of the were willing to consider what principles should conferences as to tho Alabama be laid down for observance in similar cases in
future, with the understanding that any principles that should be agreed upon should be held to be applicable to the facts in respect to the Alabama Claims.
“ The British Commissioners replied that they could not admit that there had been
violation of existing principles of International Law, and that their instructions did not authorize them to accede to a proposal for laying down rules for the guidance of the Arbitrator, but that they would make known to their Government the views of the American Commissioners on the subject.
“At the respective conferences on March 9, March 10, March 13, and March 14, the Joint High Commission considered the form of the declaration of principles or rules which the American Commissioners desired to see adopted for the instruction of the Arbitrator and laid down for observance by the two Governments in future.
"At the close of the conference of the 14th of March, the British Commissioners reserved several questions for the consideration of their Government.
“At the conference on the 5th of April, the British Commissioners stated that they were instructed by Her Majesty's Government to declare
Protocol of the conferences as to
that Her Majesty's Government could not assent to the proposed rules as a statement of principles thA la ba ma of International Law which were in force at the time when the Alabama Claims 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, agreed that, in deciding the questions between the two countries arising out of those claims, the Arbitrator should assume that Her Majesty's Government had undertaken to act upon the principles set forth in the rules which the American Commissioners had proposed, viz: ". That a neutral Government is bound,
First, 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 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.
“Secondly, 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
Protocol of the the purpose of the renewal or augmentation of thu Ala ba ma military supplies or arms, or the recruitment of
“Thirdly, to exercise due diligence in its own ports or waters, and, as to all persons within its jurisdiction, to prevent any violation of the foregoing obligations and duties.'
“It being a condition of this undertaking that these obligations should in future be held to be binding internationally between the two countries.
“It was also settled that, in deciding the matters submitted to him, the Arbitrator should be governed by the foregoing rules, which had been agreed upon as rules to be taken as applicable to the case, and by such principles of International Law, not inconsistent therewith, as the Arbitrator should determine to have been applicable to the
“The Joint High Commission then proceeded to consider the form of submission and the manner of constituting a Tribunal of Arbitration.
“At the conferences on the 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 12th of April the Joint High Commission considered and discussed the form of submission, the manner of the awaid, and the mode of selecting the Arbitrators.
"The American Commissioners, referring to the hope which they had expressed on the 8th of
Protocol of the conferences as to
March, inquired whether the British Commissioners were prepared to place upon record an expres- the Alabama sion of regret by Her Majesty's Government for the depredations committed by the vessels whose acts were now under discussion; and the British Commissioners replied that they were authorized to express, in a friendly spirit, the regret felt by Her Majesty's Government for the
under whatever circumstances, of the Alabama and other vessels from British ports, and for the depredations committed by those vessels.
“The American Commissioners accepted this expression of regret as very satisfactory to them and as a token of kindness, and said that they felt sure it would be so received by the Government and people of the United States.
“In the conference on the 13th of April the Treaty, Articles I to XI, were agreed to.” The Treaty referred to in this statement was The Treaty of
Washington. signed at Washington on the 8th day of May, 1871, and the ratifications thereof were exchanged at London on the 17th day of the following June. The articles which relate to this subject are the following:
“Whereas differences have arisen between the Government of the United States and the Government of Her Britannic Majesty, and still exist,
The Treaty of growing out of the acts committed by the several
vessels which have given rise to the claims generi-
“And whereas Her Britannic Majesty has au-
“Now, in order to remove and adjust all com
Aubay not have plaints and claims on the part of the United
States, and to provide for the speedy settlement "Citizens 01"
of such claims, which are not admitted by Her