ALABAMA CLAIMS. 151 



find justification for the acts of negligence of British 

 Colonial authorities in the matter of the Shenandoali 

 or that of the Retribution. And, as might have been 

 anticipated, his conception of the duties of a State 

 suppose a higher standard of national morality than 

 that recognized by the British Arbitrator. 



Mr. Staeinpflrs opinions are also of considerable 

 length, but differ from those of Mr. Adams, especially 

 in the form, which is that customary among the jurists 

 of the Continent. He also, while confining himself to 

 the most rigorous deductions of international law, in 

 discussing the acts of the inculpated Confederate cruis 

 ers, yet writes like a statesman, habituated to breathe 

 the air of that &quot;climate&quot; of &quot;the impartiality of a 

 jurist and the delicate honor of a gentleman&quot; which 

 was not the &quot; climate&quot; of the British Arbitrator. 



The opinions of the Yiconite d ltajuba are very 

 brief, but in the same form of analysis as the opinions 

 of Mr. Staempfli. It is to be noted, however, that, be 

 yond stating his reasoning and conclusion as to each 

 of the inculpated cruisers, he speaks of only one of the 

 special questions argued, namely, that of the effect to 

 be given in British ports to the Confederate cruisers 

 exhibiting commissions. As to this point he con 

 cludes as follows : 



&quot;La commission dont un tel navire est pourvu, ne suffit pas 

 pour le couvrir vis-a-vis du neutre dont-il a viole la neutralite. 

 Et comment le belligerant se plaindrait-ii de 1 application de 

 ce principe ? En saisissant on detenant le navire, le neutre ne 

 fait qu empecher le belligerant de tirer profit de la fraude com- 

 mise sur son territoire par ce meme belligerant ; tandis que, 

 en ne procedant point contre le navire coupable, le neutre 



