ticle 1 arose, but that Her Majesty's Government, in order to evince its desire of strengthening the friendly relations between the two countries and of making satisfactory provision for the future, agrees that, in deciding the questions between the two countries arising out of those claims, the Arbitrators should assume that Her Majesty's Government had undertaken to act upon the principles set forth in these rules.

And the High Contracting Parties agree 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.

formulées les réclamations mentionnées dans l'art. 1, mais que le Gouvernement de Sa Majesté, dans le but de prouver son désir de fortifier les bonnes relations entre les deux pays et d'établir une base satisfaisante pour l'avenir, admet qu'en décidant les questions entre les deux pays résultant de ces réclamations, les arbitres présument que le Gouvernement de Sa Majesté avait résolu d'agir d'aprés les principles contenus dans ces régles.

Et les Hautes Parties Contractantes conviennent d'observer ces règles dans leurs relations mutuelles à l'avenir et de les porter à la connaissance des autres Puissances maritimes et de les inviter à y accéder.

Note.

Comme il résulte du texte de l'art. VI du traité de Washington les deux Puissances signataires de cet acte étaient convenues de communiquer son contenu aux puissances maritimes et de les inviter à y accéder.

Cependant cette communication n'eut pas lieu. Peu après la signature du traité une discussion surgit entre les Etats Unis d'Amérique et la Grand Bretagne concernant l'interprétation de la deuxième règle formulée par l'art VI. Le projet de note aux puissances maritimes que le Gouvernement Anglais soumit à l'appréciation du Gouvernement Américain ne trouva pas l'entière approbation de ce dernier. Le Gouvernement Fédéral suggéra quelques modifications dans la note projetée; Lord Granville, Ministre des Affaires Etrangères Anglais, répondit par de nouvelles propositions, lesquelles ne furent pas acceptées par le Président. La correspondance se rapportant à ce projet de note dura quelques années (18611876) et n'aboutit à aucun résultat pratique (voir livres bleus: Correspondence with the Government of the United States respecting the communication to other Governments of the rules of the treaty of Washington, North America. No1 (1874); idem, United States, No 2 (1897).

Vu l'intérêt très grand que présentent les règles dites de Washington nous. croyons utile de reproduire le projet de note qui donna lieu à la discussion susindiquée tel qu'il a éte formulé par Lord Granville le 17 Juin 1871.

Draft of Note to be presented to the Governments of Maritime Powers by the Representatives of England and of the Unitet States accredited to them.

The Undersigned, &c., has received the commands of the Queen, his Sovereign, to make the following communication to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Government.

The differences which have arisen between Her Majesty and the United States, growing out of the acts committed by the several vessels which have given rise to the claims generically known as the "Alabama" Claims, are a matter so notorious as to render it unnecessary to enter into any detailed explanation of them on the present occasion. It is enough to say that, after protracted negotiations extending over many years, a Treaty has been concluded between the respective Parties by means of which they trust that those differences will be for ever set at rest.

But it is no less notorious that one of the greatest obstacles to a settlement of those differences presented itself in the divergent views of the Contracting Parties in regard to principles of international law, and it appeared, therefore, to be an essential preliminary to any such settlement that the two Parties should come to an understanding between themselves upon those principles, which should not only apply to the matters immediately in question, but should be observed as between themselves for the future.

The Contracting Parties accordingly agreed to lay down, as between themselves, the following Rules, viz., that 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 cruize 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 cruize 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 water 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 violation of the foregoing obligations and duties.

But the Contracting Parties to this engagement are so impressed with the salutary influence on their mutual relations, where one may be a beligerent while the other may remain a neutral, of the Rules which they have thus laid down to be observed as between themselves, that they have thought it to be their duty. in the interest of the common harmony of nations, to bring these Rules to the knowledge of other maritime Powers and to invite them to accede to them; and for carrying out of their conviction in this respect, the Undersigned is ordered by his Government to make the present communication to the Government of But, in doing so, he is desired further to say, as some question has been

raised as to the true import of the Second Rule, that that Rule is understood by Her Majesty's Government (and, as the Government of

will learn from a similar communication that will be addressed to it by the Representative of the United States, by the Government of the United States also) as prohibiting the use of neutral ports or waters for the renewal or augmentation of military supplies or arms to a belligerent, only when those acts are done for the service of a vessel cruizing or carrying on war, or intended to cruize or carry on war, against another belligerent; and not when military supplies or arms are exported for the use of a belligerent Power from neutral ports or waters in the ordinary course of commerce. And it is in order to prevent any future misunderstanding on this point that the Undersigned, in communicating the three Rules above recited to the Government of

and in inviting the accession of that Government to them, is ordered distincly to state the construction which the Government of Her Britannic Majesty put upon the Second Rule, and under which they invite and desire to accept the accession of the Government of as they will that of all

other maritime Powers.

5. Etats Unis d'Amérique-Grèce.

Treaty of Commerce and Navigation, December 22, 1837.

Article 16.

Considering the remoteness of the respective Countries of the two High Contracting Parties, and the uncertainty resulting therefrom, with respect to the various events which may take place; it is agreed that a merchant-vessel belonging to either of them, which may be bound to a Port supposed at the time of its departure to be blockded, shall not, however, be captured or condemned for having attempted a first time to enter said port, unless it can be proved that said vessel could and ought to have learned during its voyage that the blockade of the place in question still continued. But all vessels which after having been warned off once, shall, during the

Article 16.

Vu l'éloignement des pays respectifs des deux hautes parties contractantes et l'incertitude qui en résulte sur les divers événements qui peuvent avoir lieu, il est convenu qu'un bâtiment marchand appartenant à l'une d'elles, qui se trouverait destiné pour un port supposé bloqué au moment du départ de ce bâtiment, ne bâtiment, ne sera cependant pas capturé ou condamné pour avoir essayé une première fois d'entrer dans le dit port, à moins qu'il ne puisse être prouvé que le dit bâtiment avait pu et dû apprendre en route que l'état de blocus de la place en question durait encore. Mais les bâtiments qui, après avoir été renvoyés une fois, essayeraient, pendant

6. Etats-Unis d'Amérique-Haiti.