ALABAMA CLAIMS. 155 
Let us analyze these two separate but related 
opinions, and thus make clear the intention of the 
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 principles 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 opinion, 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 
