276 APPENDIX. 
and verification of their respective powers, which were found duly authenticated, 
the Tribunal of Arbitration was declared duly organized. : 
The Agents named by each of the High Contracting Parties, by virtue of the 
same Second Article, to wit : 
For Her Britannic Majesty : 
Charles Stuart Aubrey, Lord Tenterden, a Peer of the United Kingdom, 
Companion of the Most Honorable Order of the Bath, Assistant Under- 
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs ; 
And for the United States of America: 
John C. Bancroft Davis, Esquire; 
whose powers were found likewise duly authenticated, then delivered to each of 
the Arbitrators the printed Case prepared by each of the two Parties, accompa- 
nied by the documents, the official correspondence, and other evidence on which 
each relied, in conformity with the terms of the Third Article of the said Treaty. 
In virtue of the decision made by the Tribunal at its first session, the Coun- 
ter-Case, and additional documents, correspondence, and evidence, referred to in 
Article IV. of the said Treaty, were delivered by the respective Agents of the 
two Parties to the Secretary of the Tribunal on the 15th of April, 1872, at the 
Chamber of Conference, at the Hotel de Ville of Geneva. 
The Tribunal, in accordance with the vote of adjournment passed at their 
second session, held on the 16th of December, 1871, reassembled at Geneva on 
the 15th of June, 1872; and the Agent of each of the Parties duly delivered to 
each of the Arbitrators and to the Agent of the other Party the printed Argu- 
ment referred to in Article IV. of the said Treaty. 
The Tribunal having since fully taken into their consideration the Treaty, and 
also the cases, counter-cases, documents, evidence, and arguments, and likewise 
all other communications made to them by the two Parties during the progress 
of their sittings, and having impartially examined the same, 
Has arrived at the decision embodied in the present Award: 
Whereas, having regard to the Sixth and Seventh Articles of the said Treaty, 
the Arbitrators are bound under the terms of the said Sixth Article, ‘‘in decid- 
ing the matters submitted to them, to be governed by the three Rules therein 
specified, and by such principles of International Law not inconsistent there- 
with as the Arbitrators shall determine to have been applicable to the case ;” 
And whereas the ‘‘due diligence” referred to in the first and third of the 
said Rules ought to be exercised by neutral Governments in exact proportion 
to the risks to'which either of the belligerents may be exposed from a failure to 
fulfill the obligations of neutrality on their part ; 
And whereas the circumstances out of which the facts constituting the sub- 
ject-matter of the present controversy arose were of a nature to call for the 
exercise on the part of Her Britannic Majesty’s Government of all possible so- 
licitude for the observance of the rights and the duties involved in the Procla- 
mation of Neutrality issued by Her Majesty on the 13th day of May, 1861; 
And whereas the effects of a violation of neutrality committed by means of 
