150 'I'li^ tui:aty of Washington. 



pivvontlon of violation of neutrality in tlic ports of 

 such Neutral. Tliat is to say, the i)arties to tlic 

 Treaty of "Wasliington are estopped froni claiming 

 compensation, one of the other, on account of the n.'v 

 tional injuries occasioned by any such breaches of 

 neutrality, not because they are iudurd losses, — for 

 they are not, — but because they arc uatloual losses, 

 losses of the State as such. And each of us may, in 

 controversies on the same point Avith other nations, 

 allege iWinond authority of the Tribunal of Geneva. 

 But, while national losses incurred by the Bellig- 

 erent as a State in conse(iuence of such breaches of 

 neutrality are not to be made the siibjcct of "com- 

 pensation or computation of damages,'\ill private or 

 individual losses may be, under the qualifications and 

 limitations as to character and amount found by the 

 Tribunal, and which will be explained in treating of 

 that part of the Decision. 



These conclusions are the inevitable result of care- 

 ful comparison of the several claims with llie several 

 decisions. True it is, the mttioual claims of indem- 

 nity for the cost of the pursuit of the Confederate 

 cruisers hai)pened to come before the Tribunal asso- 

 ciated with fe.rictly private claims, and the strictly 

 2))'ivate claims on account of payment of extra war 

 premiiuns associated with national claiins ; but these 

 are perfectly immaterial incidents, which do not in 

 any way affect appreciation of the oj)inions of the 

 Tribunal. 



Another subject of reflection suggests itself, in 

 comparing the respective decisions on national and 



