ALABAMA CLAIMS. 155 



Let us analyze these two separate but related 

 opinions, and thus make clear the intention of the 

 Tribunal. It is this : 



The injuries done to a Belligerent by the failure o 

 a Neutral to exercise due diligence for the prevention 

 of belligerent equipments in its ports, or the issue 

 hostile expeditions therefrom, in so far as they are in 

 juries done to the Belligerent in its political capacity 

 as a nation, and resolving themselves into an element 

 of the national charges of war sustained by the Bel 

 ligerent in its political capacity as a nation, do not, 

 &quot; upon the principles of international law applicable 

 to such cases&quot; [excluding, that is, the three Rules], 

 constitute &quot; good foundation for an award of compen 

 sation or computation of damages between nations.&quot; i 



Such, in my opinion, is the thought of the Arbitral 

 tors, partially expressed in one place as to certain 

 claims of which they did not take jurisdiction, and 

 partially in another place as to others of which they 

 did take jurisdiction, the two partial statements be 

 ing complementary one of the other, and forming to 

 gether a perfectly intelligible and complete judgment 

 as to the whole matter. 



The direct effect of the judgment as between the 

 United States and Great Britain, is to prevent either 

 Government, when a Belligerent, from claiming of the 

 other, when a Neutral, &quot; an award of compensation or 

 computation of damages&quot; for any losses or additional 

 charges or &quot; general expenses of war,&quot; which such Bel 

 ligerent, in its political capacity as a nation, may suf 

 fer by reason of the want of due diligence for the 



