the selection of Count Sclopis, the Italian representative, as president. The cases were submitted by the agents of the respective governments, and the tribunal directed that the counter cases, additional documents, correspondence, and evidence should be delivered to the secretary on or before April 15, 1872. After making some arrangements as to procedure, the tribunal, on the following day, adjourned to meet on June 15, 1872. Indirect Claims. In the case submitted by the United States certain claims appeared for damages due under the heads of— Ist. "The losses in the transfer of the American commercial marine to the British flag." 2d. "The enhanced rates of insurance." 3d. "The prolongation of the war, and the addition of a large sum to the cost of the war and the suppression of the rebellion." The consideration of these indirect claims by the tribunal was objected to by the agent of the British Government; and the tribunal decided that, according to the rules of international law applicable to such cases, they did not constitute a good foundation for an award, and should be wholly excluded from the consideration of the tribunal in making its award. This ruling was accepted by both of the governments interested.' Rules of Interpretation. Before the members of the tribunal were able to apply the rules furnished them in the treaty to the decision of the case they were obliged to place an interpretation upon some of the terms there used, and to define the rule of international law upon certain points which were involved in the judicial determination of questions not covered by the rules themselves. It was therefore decided (1.) That due diligence "ought to be exercised by neutral governments in exact proportion to the risks to which either of the belligerents may be exposed, from a failure to fulfil the obligations of neutrality on their part." 1 For. Rel. U. S. 1872, 1873, "Geneva Arbitration," vol. iv. p. 20. (2.) "The effects of a violation of neutrality committed by means of the construction, equipment, and armament of a vessel are not done away with by any commission which the government of the belligerent power benefited by the violation of neutrality may afterwards have granted to that vessel; and the ultimate step by which the offence is completed cannot be admissible as a ground for the absolution of the offender, nor can the consummation of his fraud become the means of establishing his innocence." 3.) "The principle of exterritoriality has been admitted into the law of nations, not as an absolute right, but solely as a proceeding founded on the principle of courtesy and mutual deference between different nations, and therefore can never be appealed to for the protection of acts done in violation of neutrality."' Decision. A decision was reached by the tribunal at the session of September 9, 1872. It was concurred in and signed by four of the members, the English representative offering a dissenting opinion. On September 14, after directing that a copy of the decision should be delivered to each of the agents of the two governments, the tribunal was dissolved. Award. In the cases of the Alabama, of the Florida, and of the Shenandoah after her departure from Melbourne on February 18, 1865, the tribunal was of opinion that Great Britain had failed, by omission, to perform the duties prescribed in two or more of the rules of Article VI. of the Treaty of Washington." For. Rel. U. S. 1872, 1873, "Geneva Arbitration," vol. iv. pp. 49, 50. "The finding in the case of the Alabama was of a failure in respect to the first and third rules; in the case of the Florida, of the first, second, and third; in the case of the Shenandoah, of the second and third respectively. The Tuscaloosa, a tender of the Alabama, and the Clarence, Tacony, and Archer, tenders of the Florida, were held to be involved in the lot of their principals. It was held in the cases of the Georgia, Sumter, Nashville, Tallahassee, and Chickamauga that Great Britain had not failed to observe the three rules. The cases of the Sallie, Jeff Davis, Music, Boston, and V. H. Joy were excluded from consideration for want of evidence."- For. Rel. U. S. 1872, 1873, "Geneva Arbitration," vol. iv. pp. 51, 53. The sum of $15,500,000 in gold was awarded to the United States as the indemnity to be paid by Great Britain for the satisfaction of all the claims referred to the consideration of the tribunal; and, in accordance with the terms of Article XI. of the treaty, it was declared that "all the claims referred to in the treaty as submitted to the tribunal are hereby fully, perfectly, and finally settled." Results of the Geneva Arbitration. The effect of the Geneva Arbitration upon international law has been much discussed, especially in connection with a clause in the treaty which binds the high contracting parties "to observe these rules as between themselves in future, and to bring them to the knowledge of other maritime powers, and to invite them to accede to them."" Neither power is believed to have made any special or positive efforts to include other states in the operations of the treaty. In so far as the rules themselves are concerned, such action seems hardly necessary. Their effect has not been to change any existing rule of international law, for the strict observance of neutral obligation and duty would require substantial compliance with their provisions by any neutral state in time of war. Their chief effect has been to define and make clear a principle already existing, and so generally sanctioned by the usage of nations as to cause it to be regarded as a doctrine of international law." 1 For. Rel. U. S. 1872, 1873, “Geneva Arbitration," vol. iv. p. 53. Treaties and Conventions of the United States, 1776-1887, p. 481. "Before an award had been rendered an attempt was made to carry out the provisions of the Treaty of Washington by bringing the rules to the attention of the powers with a view to their adoption. The correspondence on this subject, which was interrupted in 1872, was resumed in 1873, and terminated, without result in the way of adhesions, in 1876. In January, 1879, the correspondence was submitted to the Senate by President Grant. The correspondence clearly estab- It RIGHT OF ASYLUM A state in becoming a neutral cannot divest itself of its duties to other states and to their individual subjects which are incumbent upon it in time of peace. These continue in force, but certain precautions incident to, and made necessary by the fact of war must be observed in their performance. Asylum to Troops. A neutral is obliged to grant an asylum to individuals of the enemy who come into its territorial limits to escape pursuit or to find protection from acts of hostility. They become subject to neutral jurisdiction so soon as they enter its territory. If fleeing from an enemy, they are disarmed, and, at the discretion of the neutral government, may be removed to points in the interior, and may there be subjected to such measures of police supervision or positive restraint as it may deem necessary to secure respect for its neutrality. If in large numbers and without means of support, these fugitives are made the subject of treaty arrangements and are usually supported at the expense of their own government.' The French troops who fled to Belgium after the battle of Sedan were disarmed and conveyed to a point at some distance from the frontier, and the expense of their maintenance was ultimately defrayed by the French Govern ment. Asylum to Public and Private Armed Vessels. A similar right of asylum exists in the case of public and private armed vessels, and to merchant ships belonging to either belligerent. They may seek refuge in a neutral port from the perils of the sea or from a superior force of the enemy. The protection of the neutral government is extended to 1 Hall, § 230; Creasy, pp. 586; Woolsey, 167; Risley, pp. 173175; Snow, p. 120; Articles 57, 58 Conference of The Hague; II Ortolan, pp. 283-286; Klüber, §§ 283 285; Vattel, liv. iii. chap. vii. § 133; Heffter, § 149; II Halleck, pp. 183, 184; IV Calvo, §§ 26682684. See, also, Appendix F, Convention No. 5. them so soon as they come within its territorial waters; and it may resist, by force if need be, any hostile attempts that are directed against them while within its jurisdiction.' As the favor is that of asylum only, the asylum may terminate at the will of the neutral. When vessels of two belligerents are found in a neutral port at the same time, it is within the power of the neutral to establish such regulations in regard to their conduct and departure as will make it impossible for an engagement to take place in the immediate vicinity of the port. This object is usually attained by the enforcement of the twenty-four-hour rule, by which, when one belligerent vessel departs, the other is forbidden to sail within twenty-four hours. This rule has been so frequently and generally applied in recent times as to have received the universal sanction of nations." "Belligerent ships-of-war, privateers, and the prizes of either, are entitled, on the score of humanity, to temporary refuge in neutral waters from casualties of the sea and land."-The President and Prize, VII Opin. Att.-Gen. p. 122 (Cushing, 1855). "By the law of nations belligerent ships-of-war, with their prizes, enjoy asylum in neutral ports for the purpose of obtaining supplies or undergoing repairs, according to the discretion of the neutral sovereign, who may refuse the asylum absolutely, or grant it under such conditions of duration, place, and other circumstances as he shall see fit; provided that he must be strictly impartial in this respect towards all the belligerent powers."-Ibid. "Where the neutral state has not signified its determination to refuse the privilege of asylum to belligerent ships-of-war, privateers, or their prizes, either belligerent has a right to assume its existence, and enter upon its enjoyment, subject to such regulations and limitations as the neutral state may please to prescribe for its own se curity."-Ibid. "The United States II Ortolan, pp. 291-298; Hall, pp. 631-633: Bluntschli, 8776 bis; II Halleck, p. 152; Risley, pp. 206 - 208. "So long ago as 1759 Spain laid down the rule that the first of two vessels of war belonging to different belligerents to leave one of her ports should only be followed by the other after an interval of twenty-four hours." -Ortolan, Dip. de la Mer, p. 257. "In 1778 the Grand Duke of Tus |