ALABAMA’ CLAIMS. 157 
on private losses, produced by the failure of a Neu- 
tral to maintain neutrality. 
We asserted the responsibility of Great Britain 
for the acts of such of the Confederate cruisers as 
came within either of the three Rules, just as if those 
cruisers had been fitted out or supplied by the-Brit- 
ish Government, to the extent at least of the prizes 
of private property which those cruisers made. That 
was the theory of imputed responsibility. Any cruis- 
er enabled to make prizes by the fault of the Brit- 
ish Government was to be regarded as pro tanto a 
British cruiser, and Great Britain, in the words of 
the British Counter-Case, “treated [in that respect] 
as a virtual participant in the war.” The Tribunal 
seems to have so held; that is, in regard to the losses 
of individual citizens of the United States. 
Moreover, it was argued on both sides, as by com- 
mon consent, that the question between the two 
Governments was one of war, commuted for indem- 
nity. 
“Her [Great Britain’s] acts of actual or constructive com- 
plicity with the Confederates,” says the American Argument, 
“gave to the United States the same right of war against her, 
as in similar circumstances she asserted against the Nether- 
lands. 
“We, the United States, holding those rights of war, have 
relinquished them to accept instead the Arbitration of this 
Tribunal. And the Arbitration substitutes correlative legal 
damages in the place of the right of war.” 
This position is clearly stated in the British Coun- 
ter-Case as follows: 
' “Her Majesty’s Government readily admits the general 
