ALABAIkIA CLAIMS. 155 



•Let US analyze tliese two separate but related 

 opinious, and tlius make clear tlie intention of tlie 

 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 equipments in its ports, or the issue of 

 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, 

 " upon the jyrinciples of international law applicable 

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

 constitute " good foundation for an award of compen- 

 sation or computation of damages between nations." 



Such, in my oj^inion, is the thought of the Arbitra- 

 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, " 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 due diligence for the 



