Record of the proceedings of the tribunal of arbitration at the eighth conference, held at Geneva, Switzerland, on the 28th of June, 1872.
The conference was held pursuant to adjournment. All the arbitrators and the agents of the two governments were present.
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.
Sir A. Cockburn moved for re-argument; motion denied. Sir Alexander Cockburn, as one of the arbitrators, then proposed to the tribunal to require a written or printed statement or argument by the counsel of the two governments for further elucidation on the following points, viz:
1. What is the “due diligence” required from a neutral state, according to the general rules of international law, and according to the rules of the sixth article of the treaty of Washington?
2. What were the international obligations of neutral states in respect to the construction, sale, and fitting out, within neutral territory, of ships intended for warlike use by a belligerent, independently of the municipal legislation of the neutral state, and of the rules laid down by the treaty of Washington?
3. What rights are conferred upon a belligerent power by the municipal legislation of a neutral state for the maintenance of its neutrality, if such legislation exceeds the limits of the obligations previously imposed upon neutral States by international law?
4. Is a neutral state under any international obligation to detain in, or exclude from, its ports vessels fitted out in violation of its neutrality, after such vessels have been commissioned as public ships of war by a belligerent power, whether such power be or be not recognized as a sovereign state?
5. Whether Her Majesty’s proclamation of neutrality, recognizing the belligerency of the Confederate States, is in any, and what, way material to the question of the liability of Great Britain for losses sustained by the United States, in consequence of the acts of the vessels referred to in the treaty of Washington?
6. Whether the laws of Great Britain, during the civil war, were, or were not, sufficient, if properly enforced, for the fulfillment of Her Britannic Majesty’s neutral obligations?
7. If a vessel, which has been fitted out in violation of the neutrality of a neutral state, has escaped from the neutral territory, through some want of due diligence on the part of the neutral government, ought such neu ral state to be held responsible to the other belligerent for captures made by such vessel?
If so, to what period does this responsibility extend? May it be modified or terminated by circumstances afterward supervening, (as, for instance, by assistance afterward rendered to the vessel by an independent power, without which her capacity for warlike purposes would have ceased, or by her entrance into a port of the belligerent to whom she belongs,) or does it necessarily extend to the end of the war?
Furthermore, does this responsibility still exist, when the persons who made such captures were insurgent citizens of the state against which they waged war, to whom, upon the conclusion of the war, such illegal acts have been condoned?
8. If a vessel, which has not been fitted out or armed in violation of [Page 26] the neutrality of a neutral state, is afterward permitted to receive supplies of coal and repairs in a neutral port, does the neutral state, in whose port she receives such supplies and repairs, incur on that account a responsibility for her subsequent captures, or any of them?
After deliberation a majority of the tribunal decided not to require such statement or argument at present.
The tribunal then decided that, in the course of their discussions and deliberations, the agents should attend the conferences, accompanied by the counsel of their respective governments, except in cases when the tribunal should think it advisable to conduct their discussions and deliberations with closed doors.
The tribunal then determined to permit publicity to be given to the statement made by the agent of Her Britannic Majesty at the third conference, the declaration of the arbitrators made at the fifth conference, the subsequent statements of the agent of the United States made at the sixth conference, and of the agent of Her Britannic Majesty made at the seventh conference, and the address of the president of the tribunal delivered at the seventh conference.
The tribunal then adjourned until Monday, the 15th proximo, at 2 o’clock in the afternoon.
- FREDERICK SCLOPIS.
- J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS.
- TENTERDEN.
- ALEX. FAVROT, Secretary.