were Governed.
Gexeva, September 14th.—The decision of the Alabama claims by the Arbitration Tri-burial in the award and settlement in the ease between Great Britain and the United States, was delivered to-day in the Council room of this city.
Tt begins with recital to formal technical language of the terms of the Treaty of Washington, recites the names and titles of the arbitrators and agents appointed by the aubitrating Governments, sets forth the facts of the assemblage of the Court in Geneva, exehiange and verification of the powers of its members, and presentation of the English and American cases by the agents and counsel.
Having concluded this legal and judicial Jatin es follows reface, the Court decision is continued ter-
'The Tribunal having fully taken into consideration the treaty, the cases and counter cases, the documents' in evidence, the arguments and all communications which have been made, and having impartially and carefully examined the same, has arrived at a decision, and presents it as follows Wretess, Having regard to the sixth and seventh articles ofthe Treaty of Washington, ie arbitrators are bound by' the terms of the seventh article in deciding the matters submitted to them to be governed by three rules therein specified, and by such principles of international law as-are not inconsistent therewith, and as the arbitrators determine applicable to the ease.
Whereas, The due diligence referred to in the first and third of the said rales should Wo exercised by neutral Governments in exact proportion to the risks to which either one of the belligerents may be exposed by failure to fulfil obligations of neutrality on their part.
Whereas, The circumstances out of which the facts and subject matter of the present controversy arose were of a nature to call for the exercise on the part of her Majesty's Governnent of all possible 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 year of our Lord 1861. Ihe effect of the violation of neutrality, committed by the 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 afterward grant that vessel, and the ultimate step by which the offence is completed cannot be admitted as a ground for the absolution of the offender, nor the Consummation of his fraud become the means of establishing his innocence.
Whereas, The privilege; of externationality fAecorded to vessels of war is admitted into the Jaw of nations not as an absolute right, but as founded on a principal of courtesy and mutual deference, and. therefore can never be appealed to for justification of acts done in violation of neutrality; and Whereas, The absence of previous legislative rule cannot be regarded as a failure in the law of nations in a case in which a vessel carries its own condemnation.
Whereas, In order to impart to supplies of coal a character inconsistent with the second rule prohibiting the use of neutral ports and waters 4s a basis of operations, it is necess: that such supplies be connected with special circumstances of time, tperson and place.
The " Alabama" Case.
Whereas, with respect to the vessel called the Alabama, it clearly results from all the facts relative to her construction in the port of Liverpool; her equipment and armament in the vicinity of Terceira, through the agency of other vessels despatched from Great Britain for that purpose; that the British Government failed to use due diligence in the performance of its neutral obligations, and notwithstanding official representations by agents of the United States during the construction of said ship, omitted to take effective measures for its prevention, and that orders for her detention which the British Government did finally give, were issued so late that the execution of said orders was not practicable; and, Whereas, After the escape of that vessel, the measures which were taken for her pur: suit and arrest were so imperfect as to lead to no result, and therefore cannot be considered as sufficient to release Great Britain from the responsibility she incurred Whereas, Despite the violations of neutrality thus committed, this same vessel was, on several occasions, admitted$to ports of the Colonies of Great Britain, instead of being proceeded against, as she ought to have been, in any and every port under British jurisdiction where she might have been found; and Whereas, The Government of Eogland cannot justify itself for its failure in due diligence on the plea of insufficiency of the legal means of action it possessed, four of the Arbitrators, for the reasons above assigned, and the fifth, Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, for reasons separately assigned by him, are of opinion that Great Britain has in this case failed by omission to perform the duties prescribed in the first and third rules established by the Treaty of Washington.
The " Florida" Case.
Whereas, With respect to the Florida it results. from all the facts, that the English authorities failed to take measures adequate to prevent the violation of neutrality, notwithstand e representations of the agents of the United States; that Her Majesty's Government failed to use due diligence to fulfil its duties of neutrality. It likewise results from the facts, which have been presented in relative to the stay of the Oreto at Nassau, New Providence, her issue thence, her enlistment of men, her supplies and her armament, with the ce-operation of British Bay, that there was negligence on the part vessels, the Prince Alfred being in Green
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.