of their duty on the part of the Court and of the attorney representing the Government. No appeal was taken by the Government.

The Oreto then threw off all pretensions of inno cence; she openly completed her equipment, arma. ment, and crew, partly at one place and partly at an other, under the eye of the colonial authorities; and proceeded to cruise and to make prizes as an avowed man-of-war by the name of Florida. Meanwhile, with the illegality of her operations in England, and also in the Bahama Islands, now notorious and admitted, she continued to come and go in British ports, and to obtain supplies there as her base of operations, without interference on the part of the British Government.

On these facts, the three neutral Arbitrators and Mr. Adams convicted the British Government of want of due diligence, and of disregard otherwise of the Rules of the Treaty, notwithstanding that the Florida had entered and remained some time in the Confed erate port of Mobile.

Their several opinions were precise, definite, clear, and with positive conclusion, as to all the material points of the case, in favor of the United States.

Sir Alexander Cockburn's adverse opinion was a verbose special plea,-which, while admitting all the material facts charged, and conceding the palpable fraud practiced by Miller & Sons and Thomas,-the original guilt of the vessel,-the absurdity of the ac tion of the Admiralty Court of Nassau,-the illegal equipments at Nassau and elsewhere in British ports, -and the continued use of British ports as a base of

operations,―could not discover in these incidents any negligence or any violation of neutrality on the part of the British Government. Sir Alexander chose not to remember that the affair of the Oreto or Florida was, from the beginning to the end, according to the confession of Lord John Russell himself, a scandal and a reproach to the laws of Great Britain, and still more, we may add, a scandal and a reproach to cer tain of the British Ministers, of whose honor Sir Alexander assumes to be the special champion.

When Count Sclopis had concluded the reading of his opinion, Sir Alexander Cockburn renewed his mo tion for the hearing of Counsel; but was again over. ruled by the Tribunal, which assigned for its next Conference the consideration of the case of the Ala bama.

SPECIAL ARGUMENTS ORDERED ON CERTAIN POINTS.

The Tribunal met again on the 25th; and the Bar on d'Itajubá then made a precise and formal propo sition, calling on the Counsel of Great Britain for a written or printed Statement or Argument in elucida tion of three questions of law, namely:

"1. The question of due diligence treated in a general man

ner.

"2. The effect of commissions possessed by Confederate ves sels of war which had entered into British ports.

"3. The supplies of coal furnished to Confederate vessels in British ports."

And with liberty to the Counsel of the United States to reply either orally or in writing as the case may be.

This proposition was adopted by the Tribunal.

H

In so far as regards the first point, the call for Ar gument was obviously induced by a desire to put an end to the unseemly importunities of Sir Alexander Cockburn; for the Arbitrators had in effect again and again declared that in their judgment there was Jo occasion for clucidation or further discussion of the general question of due diligence; that the Tribunal did not desire any theoretical discussions of abstract questions; and that the practical question of due diligence had been already discussed to satiety in the several Cases and Arguments filed by the re spective Governments. We shall perceive in the se quel how well-founded were the objections of the Tribunal in this respect; and how devoid of any useful object or purpose had been the ill-digested calls of Sir Alexander Cockburn.

To the other questions propounded by the Baron d'Itajubá, no objection could be made: they were fit subjects of the "clucidation" contemplated by the Treaty.

CASE OF THE “ALABAMA" DECIDED.

The Arbitrators then proceeded to read alphabetically their opinions in the case of the Alabama,-that is to say, Mr. Adams, Sir Alexander Cockburn, Count Sclopis, and Mr. Stampfli read argumentative statements at length, and the Baron d'Itajubá expressed his concurrence in the statement made by Sir Alex ander Cockburn.

In this case the Arbitrators were unanimously of opinion, the British Arbitrator equally with his

colleagues, that the British Government had been guilty of culpable want of the due diligence required, either by the law of nations, the Rules of the Treaty, or Act of Parliament.

In fact, this vessel had been built and fitted out in Great Britain in violation of her laws, with intent to carry on war against the United States; evidence of this fact had been submitted, sufficient, in the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, to justify her de tention; notwithstanding which, by reason of absence of due vigilance, and not without suspicion of conniv ance on the part of public officers, and with extraor dinary delay in issuing necessary orders, she was suf fered to go unmolested out of the immediate jurisdiction of the British Government. IIer armament, sup plies, and crew were all procured from Great Britain. And, in like violation of law, she was received and treated as a legitimate man-of-war in the colonial ports of Great Britain.

Sir Alexander Cockburn was constrained to admit want of due diligence as to the case of the Alabama, in three distinct classes of facts, each one of which sufficed to establish the responsibility of the British Government.

If Sir Alexander had any good cause to accuse his colleagues, as he did, of precipitancy and want of knowledge or practice of law, because they came to provisional conclusions in the case of the Florida without waiting to hear Sir Roundell Palmer, surely the British Government had reason to attach the same censure to him in the case of the Alabama.

How could he presume to condemn Great Britain in this behalf, ignorantly, blindly, in the dark, and with out assistance of the "reasoning and learning" of the eminent Counsel in attendance on the Tribunal?

But even Sir Alexander Cockburn could no longer resist the force of conviction, nor help admitting the truth of the allegation of the United States, their Agent and Counsel, imputing culpable negligence to his Government. The United States had, not with out cause, brought the British Government to the bar of public opinion and of the Tribunal of Arbitration; himself now confessing it, their Agent and Counsel had not been engaged, as he had charged, in prefer ring "false accusations, unworthy of them and of their Government." And if the proved and admit ted truth of these accusations implies impeachment of the personal honor of any British Minister or Min isters, that is not the fault of the American Govern ment, its Agent or Counsel, but of the British Gov. ernment, whose violation of neutrality is at length conceded even by Sir Alexander Cockburn.

In the ultimate judgment of all the Arbitrators, the condemnation of the Alabama and the Florida carried with it the condemnation of their respective tenders, namely, the Tuscaloosa, the Clarence, the Tacony, and the Archer.

CASE OF THE "SHENANDOAII" DECIDED.

There remained but three vessels as to whose responsibility we had reason to have hopes, namely, the Georgia, the Retribution, and the Shenandoah;