ALABAMA CLAIMS. 151 
find justification for the acts of negligence of British 
Colonial authorities in the matter of the Shenandoah 
or that of the Retribution. And, as might have been 
anticipated, his conception of the duties of a State 
suppose a higher standard of national morality than 
that recognized by the BritisheArbitrator. 
Mr. Steempfli’s opinions are also of considerable 
length, but differ from those of Mr. Adams, especially 
in the form, which is that customary among the jurists 
of the Continent. He also, while confining himself to 
the most rigorous deductions of international law, in 
discussing the acts of the inculpated Confederate cruis- 
ers, yet writes like a statesman, habituated to breathe 
the air of that “climate” of “the impartiality of a 
jurist and the delicate honor of a gentleman” which 
was not the “climate” of the British Arbitrator. 
The opinions of the Vicomte d’Itajuba are very 
brief, but in the same form of analysis as the opinions 
of Mr. Stempfli. It 1s to be noted, however, that, be- 
yond stating his reasoning and conclusion as to each. 
of the inculpated cruisers, he speaks of only one of the 
special questions argued, namely, that of the effect to 
be given in British ports to the Confederate cruisers 
exhibiting commissions. As to this point he con- 
cludes as follows: 
“La commission dont un tel navire est pourvu, ne suffit pas 
pour le couvrir vis-d-vis du neutre dont-il a violé la neutralité, 
Et comment le belligérant se plaindrait-il de lapplication de 
ce principe? En saisissant ou détenant le navire, le neutre ne 
fait qu’empécher le belligérant de tirer profit de da fraude com- 
mise sur son territoire par ce méme belligérant; tandis que, 
en ne procédant point contre le navire coupable, le nettre 
