158 "^11^ TREATY OF WASHINGTON. 



" principle that, where an injury has been done by one nation 

 " to another, a chiim for some appropriate redress arises, and 

 " that it is on all accounts desirable that this right should be 

 " satisfied by amicable reparation instead of being enforced by 

 " war. All civil society reposes on this principle, or on a prin- 

 "ciple analogous to this ; the society of nations, as well as that 

 "which unites the individual members of each particular com- 

 " monwealth." 



Now the capture of jirivate property on the seas, 

 it can not be denied, is one of the methods of 2:)ublic 

 war. Whether such capture be made by letters of 

 marque, or by regular nien-of war, is immaterial ; in 

 either form it increases the resources of one Bellisfer- 

 ent and it weakens those of the other; and if the 

 Neutral fits out [or, in violation of neutral duty, suf- 

 fers to be fitted out in its ports, which is the same 

 thing] cruisers in aid of one of the Belligerents, such 

 Neutral becomes a virtual participant in the war, not 

 only prolonging it and augmenting its expenses, but 

 perhaps producing decisive effects adverse to the 

 other Bellio-erent. These are the national losses, or, 



O 7 7 



as the British Government insists, the indirect losses, 

 inflicted by neglect or omission to discharge the ob- 

 ligations of neutrality. 



In deciding that such losses, — that, in general, 

 the national charges of war, — can not by the law of 

 nations be regarded as "good foundation for an 

 award of com2:)ensation or computation of damages 

 between nations," the Tribunal in effect relegated 

 that question to the unexplored field of the discre- 

 tion of sovereif]i;n States. 



Claims of indemnity for the national losses gro^v- 



