both from a.historical and a juridical point of view, and
affords a conspicuous example of the value of arbitration
as a means of averting war. The facts are as follows:--
In 1861 the Southern States of North America seceded from the
rest on the slavery question and set up a separate government
under President Jefferson Davis. Hostilities began with the
capture of Fort Sumter by the Confederates on the 13th of April
1861. On the 19th of April President Abraham Lincoln declared
a blockade of the southern ports. On the 14th of May 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
nations. The blockade of the southern ports was not at
first effective, and blockade-running soon became an active
industry. The Confederates established agencies in England
for the purchase of arms, which they despatched in ordinary
merchant vessels to the Bahamas, whence they were transhipped
into fast steamers especially constructed for the purpose.
In June 1862 the vessel, the ``Alabama,'' originally known as
``No. 290,'' was being built by Messrs. Laird at Birkenhead.
She was then nearly completed and was obviously intended for a
man-of-war. On the 23rd of June 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 the 21st of July sworn evidence, which was
supplemented on the 23rd of July, was obtained and laid before
the commissioners of customs (who were the proper authorities
to enforce the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act of
1819), but they declined to move. On the 23rd of July the same
evidence was laid before the law officers, who advised that
there was sufficient ground fordetention. By some accident,
which has never been satisfactorily explained, but was probably
connected with the severe illness of Sir John Harding, the
queen's advocate, the papers were not returned till the 29th of
July. 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 Sommes 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 the 19th of June 1864.
On these facts the United States government alleged against
Great Britain two grievances, or sets of grievances. The first
was the recognition of the Southern States as belligerents
and a general manifestation of unfriendliness in other
ways. The second was in respect of breaches of neutrality
in allowing the ``Alabama,'' the ``Florida'' (originally the
``Oreto'', the ``Shenandoah'' and other Confederate vessels
to be built and equipped on British territory. Correspondence
ensued extending over several years. At length in February
1871 a commission was appointed to sit at Washington in
order, if possible, to arrive at some common understanding
as to the mode in which the questions at issue might be
settled. With resoect to the ``Alabama'' claims the British
commissioners suggested that they should be submitted to
arbitration. The American commissioners refused ``unless
the principles which should govern the arbitrators in the
consideration of the facts could be first agreed upon.'' After
some discussion the British commissioners consented that the
three following rules should apply. A neutral government is
bound---(1) 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 jurisdiction 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 purpose 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 jurisdiction
to prevent any violation of the foregoing obligation and
duties. The arrangements made by the commission were embodied
in the treaty of Washington, which was signed on the 8th
of May 1871, and approved by the Senate on the 24th of May.
Article 1, after expressing the regret felt by Her Majesty's
government for the escape, in whatever circumstances, of the
``Alabama', and other vessels from British ports, and for
the depredations committed by these vessels, provided that
``the claims growing out of the acts of the said vessels, and
generically known as 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 remaining three by
the king of Italy, the president of the Swiss Confederation
and the emperor of Brazil respectively. By Article 2 all
questions submitted were to be decided by a majority of the
arbitrators, and each of the contracting parties was to name
one person to attend as agent. Article 6 provided that the
arbitrators should be governed by the three rules quoted
above, and by such principles 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. Article 7 provided that the decision should be
made within three months from the close of the argument, and
gave power to the arbitrators to award a sum in gross in the
event of Great Britain being adjudged to be 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 meetinhof the tribunal took
place on the 15th of December 1871 in the Hotel de Ville,
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. It was found that in the American case damages
were claimed not only for the property destroyed by the
Confederate cruisers, but in respect of certain other matters
known as ``indirect losses,'' viz. 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. But this was not all. The American case revived the
charges of ``insincere neutrality'' and ``veiled hostility''
which had figured in the diplomatic correspondence, and had
been repudiated by Great Britain. It dwelt at length upon
such topics as the premature recognition of belligerency,
the unfriendly utterances of British politicians and the
material assistance afforded to the Confederates by British
traders. The inclusion of the indirect losses and the other
matters just referred to 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 October 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 British counter-case was filed
without prejudice to this contention. On the 15th of June
the tribunal reassembled and the A11erican argument was
filed. The British agent then applied for an adjournment of
eight months, ostensibly in order that the two governments
might conclude a supplemental convention, it having been
meanwhile privately arranged between the arbitrators that
an extra-judicial declaration should be obtained from the
arbitrators on the subject of the direct claims. On the
10th of June Count Sclopis intimated on behalf of all his
colleagues that, without intending to express any opinion
upon the interpretation of the treaty, they had arrived at
the conclusion that ``the indirect claims did not constitute
upon the principles of international law applicable to such
cases a good foundation for . an award or computation of
damages between nations.'' In consequence of this intimation Mr
Bancroft Davis informed the tribunal on the 25th of June that
he was instructed not to press those claims; and accordingly
on the 27th of June Lord Tenterden withdrew his application
for an adjournment, and the arbitration was allowed to
proceed. The discussion turned 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 negligence. 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 unreasonable
to require that it should exceed that which the governments
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 committed 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 ``Shenandoah'' 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 $15,500,000 in
gold. On the 14th of September the award was formally
published, and signed by all the arbitrators except Sir A.
Cockburn, who filed a lengthy statement of his reasons.
The stipulation that the three rules should be jointly submitted
by the two powers to foreign nations has never been carried
out. For this the British government has been blamed by some. But
the general view of continental publicists is, that the language
of the rules was not sufficiently precise to admit of their being
generally accepted as a canon of neutral obligations. (M. H. C.)
ALABAMA RIVER, a river of Alabama, U.S.A., formed by the
Tallapoosa and Coosa rivers, which unite about 6 m. above
Montgomery. It flows W. as far as Selma, then S.W. until,
about 45 m. from Mobile, it unites with the Tombigbee to form
the Mobile and Tensas rivers, which discharge into Mobile Bay.
The course of the Alabama is tortuous; its width varies from
200 to 300 yds., its depth from 3 to 7 ft.; its length by the
United States Survey is 312 m., by steamboat measurement, 420
