ipotentiary to France, Count
Sclopis, an Italian minister of State, and M. Jaques Staempfli, of
Switzerland, comprised the rest of the tribunal. Each side was
represented by counsel, Caleb Cushing, William M. Evarts, and Morrison
R. Waite appearing for the United States. An agent presented the printed
case of each government.

[1872]

The American claims included direct and indirect losses--direct, by the
destruction of vessels with their cargoes and by national expenditure in
chasing the Confederate cruisers; indirect, by the loss of a large part
of the United States ocean carrying trade, by increased marine insurance
rates, and by the prolongation of the war with proportionally increased
expense. Great Britain vehemently objected to the indirect claims coming
before the tribunal, and at one time seemed about to withdraw. Upon
reassembling in June, 1872, the tribunal decided that the indirect
claims were not admissible, and the case went forward. Counsel having
presented their respective arguments, the tribunal took up the case of
each cruiser separately. During the consideration of damages it sat with
closed doors, only the arbitrators being present. On September 14th,
after thirty-two conferences, the tribunal gave its decision.

The Geneva case is of two-fold interest, first, for its decision of the
facts involved, and the consequent award; second, for its enunciation of
important principles of international law.

The Treaty of Washington laid down three rules for the guidance of the
tribunal. They are such important contributions to international law
that they must be quoted in full.

"A neutral government is bound,

"First: 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.

"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