ALABAMA CLAIMS. i: 



-»! 



on private lossesi, i)ro(luced hy (lie failure of a Xcii- 

 tral to maintain neutrality. 



We asserted the responsibility of Great Britain 

 for tlic acts of such of the Confederate crui>;ers as 

 came •within either of the three llules, just as if those 

 cruisers liad been fitted out or supjdied by the Brit- 

 ish Government, to the extent at least of the prizes 

 of private j)roperty "whicli those cruisers made. That 

 ■\vas the theory of imputed responsibility. Any cruis- 

 er enabled to make prizes by the fault of the Brit- 

 ish Government was to be j'cgarded as ^^ro tan to a 

 British cruiser, and Great Britain, in the words of 

 the Bi'itish Counter-Case, " treated [iu that respect] 

 as a virtual participant in the war." The Tribunal 

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

 of individual citizens of the United States. 



i\Ioreovei*, it was argued on both sides, as by com- 

 mon consent, that the question between the two 

 Governments was one of war, conunuted for indem- 

 nity. 



"Ilcr [Hrcit r»nlniirs] nets of actual or constructive coni- 

 ])licity uilh the Confederates," pays tlie Anierieau Ari^unieut, 

 "gave to tlic United Slates the same riglit of uar against lier, 

 .IS iu similar circumstances she asserted against tlie Xetlier- 

 lands. 



"We, the Ignited States, holding tliosc riglits of war, have 

 relinquished tliem to accept instead tlic Arbitration of this 

 Tribunal. And the Arbitration substitutes correlative legal 

 damages in the place of the right of war." 



This position is clearly stated iu the British Coun- 

 ter-Case as follows : 



"Ilcr Majesty's Government readily admits the geuci'al 



