ALABAMA CLAIMS. 183 
each one of his opinions, to the contrary of the line 
of reasoning followed by the British Arbitrator. 
Finally, in assenting to the Decision, the Viscount 
of Itajubé remarked that, “ with regard to the supply 
of coal, he is of opinion that every Government is 
free to furnish to the Belligerents more or less of 
that article.” 
Thus, the tenor of the Decision of the Tribunal, 
and the commentaries of the Arbitrators thereon, 
combine to show that the second Rule can not have 
the effect ascribed to it by Count von Beust. 
Besides which, the latter greatly errs in supposing 
that the numerous naval stations possessed by Great 
Britain in different parts of the globe give to her so 
much advantage to the prejudice of other maritime 
Powers. She pays dearly for such benefits as she 
herself derives from those establishments, in the cost 
of maintaining them, whether in peace or in war; 
and if, while in a state of neutrality herself, she re- 
fuses hospitality to others [and she must do it to all, 
if she does to one], she forces other Powers to ac- 
quire similar establishments to be conducted with 
equal exclusiveness, or she is constrained to incur the 
risk of the charge of partiality as between several 
Belligerents. Hence, it is not for the interest of oth- 
er Powers to overstretch the responsibilities of Great 
Britain in this respect; and it is for her interest to 
deal justly and impartially with such other Powers. 
Great Britain was not condemned by the Tribunal 
‘because of the supply of coals-to Confederate cruisers 
in her Colonial ports, nor merely because those cruis- 
