ALABAMA ARBITRATION. The facts of this case are as follows: In 1861 the Southern States of North America seceded and set up a separate government. Hostilities began with the capture of Fort Sumter by the Confederates on April 13, 1861. On the 19th President Lincoln declared a blockade of the southern ports. On May 14 the British government issued a proclamation of neutrality, by which the Confederates were recognized as belligerents. This example was followed shortly afterwards by France and other States. In June 1862 the vessel, the "Alabama," originally known as "No. 29o," was being built by Messrs. Laird at Birkenhead. She was then nearly completed and was obviously intended for a man-of-war. On June 23 Mr. C. F. Adams forwarded to Earl Russell a letter from the United States consul at Liverpool giving certain particulars as to her character. This letter was laid before the law officers, who advised that, if these particulars were correct, the vessel ought to be detained. On July 2I sworn evidence, which was supple mented on July 23, was obtained and laid before the commis sioners of customs (who were the proper authorities to enforce the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act of 1819), but they declined to move. On July 23, the same evidence was laid before the law officers, who advised that there was sufficient ground for detention. By some accident, the papers were not returned till July 2g. Instructions were then issued to seize the vessel, but she had already sailed on the evening of the 28th. Although she remained for two days off the coast of Anglesey, there was no serious attempt at pursuit. She afterwards made her way to the Azores, where she received her armament, which was brought from Liverpool in two British ships. Captain Semmes there took command of her under a commission from the Confederate Government. After a most destructive career she was sunk off Cherbourg by the "Kearsarge" on June 19, 1864.
On these facts the United States Government alleged against Great Britain two grievances : first the recognition of the Southern States as belligerents and a general manifestation of unfriendli ness in other ways; second, the breach of neutrality in allow ing the "Alabama," the "Florida," the "Shenandoah" and other Confederate vessels to be built and equipped on British terri tory. Correspondence ensued extending over several years and in 1871 a commission was appointed to determine the mode in which the questions at issue might be settled. The British com missioners suggested that the "Alabama" should be submitted to arbitration. The American commissioners refused "unless the principles which should govern the arbitrators in the considera tion of the facts could be first agreed." Eventually it was agreed that the three following rules should apply : A neutral government is bound—(i ) to use due diligence to prevent the fitting out, arming or equipping within its jurisdiction of any vessel, which it has reasonable ground to believe is intended to cruise or to carry on war against a power with which it is at peace, and also to use like diligence to prevent the departure from its juris diction of any vessel intended to cruise or carry on war as above, such vessel having been specially adapted, in whole or in part, within such jurisdiction, to warlike use; (2) not to permit or suffer either belligerent to make use of its ports or waters as the base of naval operations against the other, or for the pur pose of the renewal, or augmentation of military supplies or arms or the recruitment of men; (3) to exercise due diligence in its own ports and waters and as to all persons within its juris diction to prevent any violation of the foregoing obligation and duties. These rules were embodied in the treaty of Washington (1871), which provided that the "Alabama" claims should be referred to a tribunal composed of five arbitrators, one to be named by each of the contracting parties and the remainder by three neutral powers. Art. 6 provided that the arbitrators should be governed by the three rules quoted above, and by such prin ciples of international law not inconsistent therewith as the arbitrators should determine to be applicable to the case. By the same article the parties agreed to observe these rules as between themselves in future, and to bring them to the knowledge of other maritime powers. Art. 7 gave power to the arbitrators to award a sum in gross if Great Britain were adjudged in the wrong.
The treaty was, on the whole, welcomed in England. The United States appointed Mr. C. F. Adams as arbitrator and Mr. J. C. Bancroft Davis as agent. The British government appointed Sir Alexander Cockburn as arbitrator and Lord Tenterden as agent. The arbitrators appointed by the three neutral powers were Count Sclopis (Italy), M. Staempfli (Switzerland), Baron d'Itajuba (Brazil). The first meeting of the tribunal took place on Dec. 15, 1871, in Geneva. As soon as the cases had been formally presented, the tribunal adjourned till the following June. There followed immediately a controversy which threatened the collapse of the arbitration. The United States claimed damages not only for the property destroyed by the Confederate cruisers, but for such "indirect losses" as the transference of the American marine to the British flag, the enhanced payments of insurance, the expenses of pursuit and the prolongation of the war. They also revived the charges of "insincere neutrality" and "veiled hostility" which had figured in the diplomatic correspondence, and had been repudiated by Great Britain, and dwelt at length upon the premature recognition of belligerency, the unfriendly utter ances of British politicians and the material assistance afforded to the Confederates by British traders. These claims for indirect losses, etc., caused great excitement in England. That they were within the treaty was disputed, and it was argued that, if they were, the treaty should be amended or denounced. In Oct. 1872 Lord Granville notified to General Schenck, the United States minister, that the British government did not consider that the indirect losses were within the submission, and in April the Brit ish counter-case was filed without prejudice to this contention. On June 15 the tribunal reassembled and the American argu ment was filed. To saye the situation Mr. Adams persuaded his colleagues to make a spontaneous declaration that by the principles of international law the indirect claims, ought to be excluded from their consideration. The discussion then Wined mainly on the question of the measure of "due diligence." The United States contended that it must be a diligence commensurate with the emergency or with the magnitude of the results of negli gence. The British government maintained that while the measure of care which a government is bound to use in such cases must be dependent more or less upon circumstances, it would be un reasonable to require that it should exceed that which the gov ernments of civilized States were accustomed to employ in matters concerning their own security or that of their citizens.
The tribunal adopted the view suggested by the United States.
It found that Great Britain was legally responsible for all the depredations of the "Alabama" and "Florida" and for those com mitted by the "Shenandoah" after she left Melbourne. In the case of the "Alabama" the court was unanimous; in the case of the "Florida" Sir A. Cockburn alone, in that of the "Shenan doah" he and Baron d'Itajuba, dissented from the majority. In the cases of the other vessels the judgment was in favour of Great Britain. The tribunal decided to award a sum in gross, and (Sir A. Cockburn again dissenting) fixed the damages at $15,5oo,000 in gold. On Sept. 14 the award was formally pub lished, and signed by all the arbitrators except Sir A. Cockburn, who filed a lengthy statement of his reasons.
The first of the Washington Rules, with the substitution of the words "the means at its disposal" for the words "due diligence," was adopted by Art. 8 of the Hague Convention XIII., i9o7.
See L. A. Atherley-Jones and H. H. L. Bellot, Commerce in War 09°7). (H. H. L. B.)