DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE AND FOREIGN RELATIONS. 



257 



not consent to submit the question of the lia- 

 bility of her Majesty's Government to arbitra- 

 tion unless the principles which should govern 

 the arbitrator in the consideration of the facts 

 could be first agreed upon. 



The British commissioners replied that they 

 had no authority to agree to a submission of 

 these claims to an arbitrator with instructions 

 as to the principles which should govern him 

 in the consideration of them. They said that 

 they should be willing to consider what prin- 

 ciples should be adopted for observance in 

 future; but that they were of opinion that 

 the best mode of conducting an arbitration 

 was to submit the facts to the arbitrator, and 

 leave him free to decide upon them after hear- 

 ing such arguments as might be necessary. 



The American commissioners replied that 

 they were willing to consider what principles 

 should 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 any vio- 

 lation of existing principles of international 

 law, and that their instructions did not author- 

 ize 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 com- 

 missioners on the subject. 



At the respective conferences on March 9th, 

 March 10th, March 13th, and March 14th, 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 Gov- 

 ernments 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 that her Majesty's Government could 

 not assent to the proposed rules as a state- 

 ment of principles of international law which 

 were in force at the time when the Alabama 

 claims arose, but that her Majesty's Govern- 

 ment, in order to evince its desire of strength- 

 ening the friendly relations between the two 

 countries, and to make satisfactory provis- 

 ion for the future, agreed that, in deciding 

 the questions between the two countries aris- 

 ing 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 commis- 

 sioners 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, 

 VOL. xi. 17 A 



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 the purpose of the renewal or 

 augmentation of military supplies or arms, or 

 the recruitment of men. 



Thirdly. To exercise due diligence in its 

 own ports or waters, and, as to all persons 

 within its jurisdiction, to prevent any viola- 

 tion 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 mat- 

 ters submitted to him, the arbitrator should be 

 governed by the foregoing rules, which had 

 been agreed upon as rules to be taken as ap- 

 plicable to the case, and by such principles of 

 international law, not inconsistent therewith, 

 as the arbitrator should determine to have 

 been applicable to the case. 



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 T 

 10th, and 12th of April, the Joint High Com- 

 mission considered and discussed the form of 

 submission, the manner of the award, and the 

 mode of selecting the arbitrators. 



The American commissioners, referring to 

 the hope which they had expressed on the 8th 

 of March, inquired whether the British com- 

 missioners were prepared to place upon record 

 an expression of regret by her Majesty's Gov- 

 ernment for the depredations committed by 

 the vessels whose acts were now under dis- 

 cussion; and the British commissioners re- 

 plied that they were authorized to express, in 

 a friendly spirit, the regret felt by her Ma- 

 jesty's Government for the escape, 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. 



ARTICLES XII. TO XVII. 



At the conference on the 4th 01 March it 

 was agreed to consider the subjects referred tr> 

 the Joint High Commission by the respective- 

 Governments in the order in which they ap/- 



