ALABAMA CLAIMS. 155 



Let us analyze tlicsc two separate Init related 

 opinions, and thus make clear the intention of tlic 

 Tribunal. It is this: 



The injuries done to a Belligerent by the failure of 

 a Neutral to exercise due diligence for the prevention 

 of belligerent equipiuents in its ports, or the issue of 

 liostile 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, 

 "upon t\iQ principles of international laui ai)plical)le 

 to such cases" [excluding, that is, the three lUiles], 

 constitute " good foundation for an award of compen- 

 sation or computation of damages between nations." 



Such, in my opinion, is the thought of the Arbitra- 

 tors, partially expressed in one place as to certain 

 clainiH of which they did not take jurisdiction, and 

 ])aj'tially in another place as to others of which they 

 did take jurisdiction, — the t\vo partial statements be- 

 ing complementary one of the other, and forming to- 

 gether a perfectly intelligilde and complete judgment 

 as to the whole nuitter. 



The direct efl'ect of the judgment as between the 

 United States and Great Britain, \^ to prevent either 

 Govemunent, when a Belligerent, from claiming of the 

 othei", Avhen a Neutral, " an award of compensation or 

 computation of damages" for any losses or additional 

 charges or " general expenses of war," which such Bel- 

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

 fer by reason of the want of duo diligence for the 



