DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE AND FOREIGN RELATIONS. 



251 



ference, the subsequent statements of the agent of 

 the United States made at the sixth conference, and 

 of the agent of her Britannic Majesty made at the 

 seventh conference, and the address of the president 

 of the tribunal delivered^ the seventh conference. 



The tribunal then adjourned until Monday, the 

 15th proximo, at 2 o'clock in the afternoon. 



FREDERICK SCLOFIS. 

 . J. C. BANCKOFT DAVIS. 



TENDERDEN. 



ALEX. FAVROT, Secretary. 



PEOTOOOL IX. 



Record of the Proceedings of the Tribunal of Arbitration, 

 at the Conference held at Geneva, in iywiteerland, on 

 the 15th of July, 1872. 



The conference was held pursuant to adjournment. 

 All the arbitrators and the agents of the two govern- 

 ments were present. 



The protocol of the last conference was read and 

 approved, and was signed by the president and sec- 

 retary of the tribunal, and the agents of the two 

 governments. 



Count Sclopis, as president, said that it would be 

 necessary in the first place to determine the method 

 and order of proceeding, in the consideration of the 

 subjects referred to the tribunal. 



Mr. Stampfli stated that he had prepared, and pro- 

 posed to submit, for the adoption of the tribunal, a 

 written programme on this question. 



After discussion, the consideration of this pro- 

 gramme was deferred to the next conference. 



The tribunal then adjourned until Tuesday, the 

 16th instant, at 2 o'clock in the afternoon. 



FREDERICK SCLOPIS. 



J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS. 



TENTERDEN. 



ALEX. FAVROT, Secretary. 



PROTOCOL X. 



Record of the Proceedings of the Tribunal of Arbitration 

 at the Tenth Conference, held at Geneva,in Switzerland, 

 on the IQth of July, 1872. 



The conference was held pursuant to adjournment. 

 All the arbitrators and the agents of the two gov- 

 ernments were present. 



The protocol of the last conference was read and 

 approved, and was signed by the president and sec- 

 retary of the tribunal and the agents of the two gov- 

 ernments. 



The following programme, submitted by Mr. 

 Stampfli at the last meeting, was taken into consid- 

 eration : 

 A. Indications generates. 



Question a decider. 

 II. Delimitation des faits. 

 III. Principes generaux. 

 B. Decision relative a chacun d&s croiseurs Observations 



preliminaires. 

 I. Le Sumter : 

 a Faits. 

 b Considerants. 

 c Jugeraent. 

 II. Le NashvUle. 

 a Faits, 

 b Considerants. 

 c Jugement. 



III. Le Florida. 



a Faits. 



b Considerants. 



c Jugement. 



IV. V Alabama. 



a Faits. 

 b Considerants. 

 c Jugetnent. 

 V. Le Retribution, 

 a Faits. 

 b Considerants. 

 c Jugement. 

 VI. Le Georgia: 

 a Faits. 

 b Considerants. 

 c Jugement. 



VII. Le Tallahassee, ou le Olustee : 

 a Faits. 



b Considerants. 

 c Jugement. 



Vin. Le Chickamauga : 

 a Faits. 



b Conside"rants. 

 c Jugement. 

 IX. Le Shenandoah : 

 a Faits. 

 b Considerants. 

 c Jugeraent. 



. Determination du tribunal d'adjuger une somme 



en bloc. 



Jb.Examen des elements pour fixer une somme en bloc. 



IE. Conclusion el adjudication definitive d'une somme en 



bloc. 



Sir Alexander Cockburn, one of the arbitrators, 

 submitted the following propositions to the consid- 

 eration of the tribunal. 



I. That the complaint of the Government of the United 

 States is of a threefold character, and may be stated un- 

 der the three following heads, namely : 



1. That, by want of due diligence on the part of the 

 British Government, vessels-of-war were suffered to be 

 equipped in ports of her Majesty, and to depart therefrom, 

 to the injury of American commerce. 



2. That such vessels, having been again found in Brit- 

 ish ports or waters, were not seized or detained, but were 

 Buffered to go forth again on the same destructive service. 



3. That such vessels received undue assistance, or were 

 permitted to remain an unduly long time, in ports within 

 her Majesty's dominions. 



II. That on each of these heads of complaint, the deci- 

 sion of the tribunal must depend, not only on the facts 

 relating to each vessel, but also on the principles of inter- 

 national law applicable to the particular subject. 



III. That the rational, logical, and most convenient 

 course to be pursued will be, before proceeding to deal 

 with each of these heads of complaint, to consider and de- 

 termine what are the principles of law applicable to the 

 subject, and by which the decision of the tribunal must 

 ultimately be determined. 



IV. That it will be convenient to take the three heads 

 of complaint separately, and in the order hereinbefore 

 stated. 



V. That there is nothing in the Vllth Article of the 

 treaty which prevents the adoption of this mode of pro- 

 ceeding, the only object and effect of that article being 

 to insure the separate consideration of the facts relating 

 to each vessel, and a separate and distinct judgment of 

 the tribunal on the complaints specifically referable to 

 each in particular. 



VI. That the consideration of the first-mentioned head 

 of complaint, reference being had to the Vlth Article of 

 Ihe treaty, and the rules therein laid down, necessarily 

 involves three questions of law : the first, what effect is 

 to be given to the term "due diligence," with reference 

 to the different allegations of the want thereof put for- 

 ward by the United States Government; the second, 

 whether the general principles of international law, re- 

 ferred to in such Vlth Article, have relatively to the rights 

 and duties of neutrals any and what effect in determining 

 what constitutes due diligence or the want of it, or in ex- 

 tending or limiting the liability of a neutral state with 

 reference to this head of complaint; the third, whether a 

 government, acting in good faith, and honestly intending 

 to fulfil the obligations of neutrality, is to be held liable 

 by reason of mistake, error in judgment, accidental delay, 

 or even negligence on the part of a subordinate officer. 



VII. That it will be convenient, and indeed necessary, 

 to commence our proceedings with the consideration of 

 these questions of law. 



Vin. That, looking to the difficulty of these questions, 

 and the conflict of opinion which has arisen among dis- 

 tinguished jurists on the present contest, as well as to 

 their vast importance in the decision of the tribunal on 

 the matters in dispute, it is the duty, as it must be pre- 

 sumed to be the wish of the arbitrators, in the interest 

 of justice, to obtain all the assistance in their power, to 

 enable them to arrive at a just and correct conclusion. 

 That they ought, therefore, to call for the assistance of 

 the eminent counsel who are in attendance on the tribu- 

 nal, to assist them with their reasoning and learning, so 

 that arguments scattered over a mass of documents may 

 be presented in a concentrated and appreciable form, and 

 the tribunal may thus have the advantage of all the light 

 which can be thrown on BO intricate and difficult a mat- 

 ter, and that its proceedings may hereafter appear to the 

 world to have been characterized by the patience, the de- 

 liberation, and anxious desire for information 011 all 



