ALABAMA CLAIMS. 157 



on private losses, produced by the failure of a Neu 

 tral to maintain neutrality. 



We asserted the responsibility of Great Britain 

 for the acts of such of the Confederate cruisers as 

 came within either of the three Rules, just as if those 

 cruisers had been fitted out or supplied by the Brit 

 ish Government, to the extent at least of the prizes 

 of private property which those cruisers made. That 

 was the theory of imputed responsibility. Any cruis 

 er enabled to make prizes by the fault of the Brit 

 ish Government was to be regarded as pro tanto a 

 British cruiser, and Great Britain, in the words of 

 the British Counter-Case, &quot; treated [in that respect] 

 as a virtual participant in the war.&quot; The Tribuna&quot; 

 seems to have so held; that is, in regard to the loss 

 of individual citizens of the United States. 



Moreover, it was argued on both sides, as by com 

 mon consent, that the question between the two 

 Governments was one of war, commuted for indem 

 nity. 



&quot;Her [Great Britain s] acts of actual or constructive com-j 

 plicity with the Confederates,&quot; says the American Argument, 

 &quot; gave to the United States the same right of war against her, 

 as in similar circumstances she asserted against the Xether-| 

 lands. .,. 



&quot;We, the United States, holding those rights of war, hare 

 relinquished them to accept instead the Arbitration of this 

 Tribunal. And the Arbitration substitutes correlative legal 

 damages in the place of the right of war.&quot; 



This position is clearly stated in the British Coun 

 ter-Case as follows : 



&quot;Her Majesty s Government readily admits the general 



