Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 16.pdf/200

 International A rbitration. try to this method of adjusting' international differences; but for the lawyer the Geneva Tribunal possesses additional interest, in that it marked an important advance in the law of nations and in the practice of international judicatories. Although Lord Russell had firmly declined to make reparation for the acts of his government, the treaty of 1871 contains an authorization in advance for the British plenipotentiaries "to express, in a friendly spirit, the regret felt by Her Maj esty's government for the escape, under whatever circumstances, of the Alabama and other vessels from the British ports, and for the depredations committed by those ves sels." This declaration, unusual in treaty stipulations, prepared the way for a friendly consideration of the questions submitted to the Tribunal; but it was accompanied by a provision which rendered a decision in favor of the United States almost certain. This provision was the insertion of three rules in the treaty which was to govern the arbitrators in their decision of the questions submitted to them. These rules embody the principles of neutrality announced by the ad ministration of Washington and which had been early incorporated into the statutes of the United States. They constitute such a distinct triumph on the part of our govern ment in the recognition of principles of inter national law for which it had so long con tended, that I extract them in full from the treaty. "A neutral government is bound— "First, to use due diligence to prevent the fitting out, arming or equipping, within its jurisdiction, of any vessel whch it has reason able 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 dili gence 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.

157

"Secondly, 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 purpose of the renewal or augmentation of military supplies or arms, or the recruitment of men. "Thirdly, to exercise due diligence in its own ports and waters, and, as to all persons within its jurisdiction, to prevent any viola tion of the foregoing obligations and duties." The British government asserted that it could not assent to these rules as principles of international law in force during the Civil War, but it agreed that they might be made applicable to the contemplated arbitration. It further agreed to observe these rules in the future relations of the two countries, and the two governments stipulated to bring them to the knowledge of other maritime powers, and to invite them to accede to them. The last clause of the agreement was not carried out, Great Britain showing a reluc tance to a submission of the rules to other powers for accession thereto, influenced in part by disappointment over the award and by the construction put upon some clauses of the rules by the tribunal. The general concurrence of opinion of publicists at the time, with some dissent in England, was that they were a correct statement of internat ional law. At this day they are recognized by all governments, including Great Britain. The Treaty of Washington of 1871 is of further interest in that it contained the most complete provisions as to the mode of procedure in arbitration which up to that date had been made. It may not be without interest to briefly recapitulate them. The tribunal was composed of one American, one British, and three neutral members; and its decisions were to be made by a majority. Each government was represented by an agent, and such counsel were to be appointed as each government should think proper. The case of each of the two parties, accom panied by the documents and evidence on