Record of the proceedings of the tribunal of arbitration at the tenth conference held at Geneva, in Switzerland, on the 16th of July, 1872.
[Geneva,
Switzerland, July 16,
1872.]
The conference was held pursuant to adjournment. All the arbitrators and the agents of the two governments were present.
Order of proceedings. Mr. Stæmpfli’s paper. Sir A. Cock-burn’s renewed mo-ton for argument. The protocol of the last conference was read and approved, and was signed by the president and secretary of the tribunal and the agents of the two governments.
The following programme, submitted by Mr. Stæmpfli at the last meeting, was taken into consideration:
- A.
- —Indications générales.
- I.
- Question à décider.
- II.
- Délimitation des faits.
- III.
- Principes généraux.
- B.
- —Décision relative à chacun des
croiseurs—Observations préliminaires.
- I.
-
Le Sumter:
- a
- Faits.
- b
- Considerants.
- c
- Jugement.
- II.
-
Le Nashville:
- a
- Faits.
- b
- Considérants.
- c
- Jugement.
- III.
-
Le Florida:
- a
- Faits.
- b
- Considérants.
- c
- Jugement.
- IV.
-
L’Alabama:
- a
- Faits.
- b
- Considérants.
- c
- Jugement.
- V.
-
Le Retribution:
- a
- Faits.
- b
- Considérants.
- c
- Jugement.
- VI.
-
Le Georgia:
- a
- Faits.
- b
- Considérants.
- c
- Jugement.
- VII.
-
Le Tallahassee, ou le Olustee:
- a
- Faits.
- b
- Considérants.
- c
- Jugement.
- VIII.
-
Le Chickamauga:
- a
- Faits.
- b
- Considérants.
- c
- Jugement.
- IX.
-
Le Shenandoah:
- a
- Faits.
- b
- Considerants.
- c
- Jugement.
- C.
- —Détermination du tribunal d’adjuger une somme en bloc.
- D.
- —Examen des éléments pour fixer une somme en bloc.
- E.
- —Conclusion et adjudication definitive d’une somme en bloc.
Sir Alexander Cockburn, one of the arbitrators, submitted the following propositions to the consideration of the tribunal:
- I.
- That the complaint of the Government of the United States is
of a threefold character, and may be stated under the three
following heads, viz:
- 1.
- That, by want of due diligence on the part of the British government, vessels of war were suffered to be equipped in ports of Her Majesty, and to depart therefrom, to the injury of American commerce;
- 2.
- That such vessels, having been again found in British ports or waters, were not seized or detained, but were suffered to go forth again on the same destructive service;
- 3.
- That such vessels received undue assistance, or were permitted to remain an unduly long time, in ports within Her Majesty’s dominions.
- II.
- That on each of these heads of complaint the decision of the tribunal must depend, not only on the facts relating to each vessel, but also on the principles of international law applicable to the particular subject.
- III.
- That the rational, logical, and most convenient course to be pursued will be, before proceeding to deal with each of these heads of complaint, to consider and determine what are the principles of law applicable to the subject, and by which the decision of the tribunal must ultimately be determined.
- IV.
- That it will be convenient to take the three heads of complaint separately, and in the order hereinbefore stated.
- V.
- That there is nothing in the VIIth article of the treaty which prevents the adoption of this mode of proceeding, the only object and effect of that article being to insure the separate consideration of the facts relating to each vessel, and a separate and distinct judgment of the tribunal on the complaints specifically referable to each in particular.
- VI.
- That the consideration of the first-mentioned head of complaint, reference being had to the VIth article of the treaty, and the rules therein laid down, necessarily involves three questions of law: the first, what effect is to be given to the term “due diligence,” with reference to the different allegations of the want thereof put forward by the United States Government; the second, whether the general principles of international law, referred to in such VIth article, have relatively to the rights and duties of neutrals any and what effect in determining what constitutes due diligence or the want of it, or in extending or limiting the liability of a neutral state with reference to this head of complaint; the third, whether a government acting in good faith, and honestly intending to fulfill the obligations of neutrality, is to be held liable by reason of mistake, error in judgment, accidental delay, or even negligence on the part of a subordinate officer.
- VII.
- That it will be convenient, and indeed necessary, to commence our proceedings with the consideration of these questions of law.
- VIII.
- That, looking to the difficulty of these questions, and the conflict of opinion which has arisen among distinguished jurists on the present contest, as well as to their vast importance in the decision of the tribunal on the matters in dispute, it is the duty, as it must be presumed to be the wish of the arbitrators, in the interest of justice, to obtain all the assistance in their power to enable them to arrive at a just and correct conclusion. That they ought, therefore, to call for the assistance of the eminent counsel who are in attendance on the tribunal to assist them with their reasoning and learning, so that arguments scattered over a mass of documents may be presented in a concentrated and appreciable form, and the tribunal may thus have the advantage of all the light which can be thrown on so intricate and difficult a matter, and that its proceedings may hereafter appear to the world to have been characterized by the patience, the deliberation, and anxious desire for information on all the points involved in its decision, without which it is impossible that justice can be duly or satisfactorily done.
After discussion, the tribunal decided to proceed with the case of the Florida at the next meeting, according to the programme of Mr. Stæmpfli.
The tribunal then adjourned until Wednesday, the 17th instant, at 1 o’clock in the afternoon.
- FREDERICK SCLOPIS.
- J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS.
- TENTERDEN.
- ALEX. FAVROT, Secretary,