THE DECISION AND AWARD. 279 



to the vessel called the Shenandoah, during the period of time anterior to her 

 entry into the port of Melbourne. 



And by a majority of three to two voices, the Tribunal declares that Great 

 Britain has failed, by omission, to fulfill the duties prescribed by the second and 

 third of the Rules aforesaid, in the case of this same vessel, from and after her en- 

 try into Hobson's Bay, and is therefore responsible for all acts committed by that 

 vessel after her departure from Melbourne on the 18th day of February, 1865. 

 And so far as relates to the vessels called 

 The Tuscaloosa 

 (Tender to the Alabama), 

 The Clarence, 

 The Tacony, and 

 The Archer 



(Tenders to the Florida), 

 The Tribunal is unanimously of opinion, 



That such Tenders or auxiliary vessels, being properly regarded as accesso- 

 ries, must necessarily follow the lot of their Principals, and be submitted to the 

 same decision which applies to them respectively. 



And so far as relates to the vessel called the Retribution, 

 The Tribunal, by a majority of three to two voices, is of opinion, 

 That Great Britain has not failed, by any act or omission, to fulfill any of 

 the duties prescribed by the three Rules of Article VI. in the Treaty of Wash- 

 ington, or by the principles of International Law not inconsistent therewith. 

 And so far as relates to the vessels called 

 The Georgia, 

 The Sumter, 

 The Nashville, 

 The Tallahassee, and 

 The Chickamavga, respectively, 

 The Tribunal is unanimously of opinion, 



That Great Britain has not failed, by any act or omission, to fulfill any of 

 the duties prescribed by the three Rules of Article VI. in the Treaty of Wash- 

 ington, or by the principles of International Law not inconsistent therewith. 

 And so far as relates to the vessels called 

 The Sallie, 

 The Jefferson Davis, 

 The Music, 

 The Boston, and 

 The V. H. Joy, respectively, 

 The Tribunal is unanimously of opinion. 



That they ought to be excluded from consideration for want of evidence. 

 And whereas, so far as relates to the particulars of the indemnity claimed 1 y 

 the United States, the costs of pursuit of the Confederate cruisers are not, in 

 the judgment of the Tribunal, properly distinguishable from the general ex- 

 penses of the war carried on by the United States, 



