(Tenders du "Florida;") Le tribunal est d'avis, à l'unanimité; Que les Tenders ou navires auxiliaires devant être considérés comme accessoires, doivent forcément suivre le sort des navires principaux et être soumis aux mêmes décisions qui frappent ceux-ci. Quant au navire nommé "Retribution." Le tribunal, à la majorité de 3 voix contre 2 est d'avis. Que la Grande-Bretagne n'a manqué ni par action, ni par omission, aux devoirs énoncés dans les trois règles de l'article VI du traité de Washington, ou reconnus par les principes du droit des gens qui ne sont pas en désacord avec ces règles. Quant aux navires nommés: "Georgia," "Sumter," "Nashville," "Tallahasse," "Chickamauga," Le tribunal est d'avis, à l'unanimité, Que la Grande-Bretagne n'a manqué, ni par action, ni par omission, aux devoirs énoncés dans les trois règles de l'article VI du traité de Washington, ou reconnus par les principes du droit des gens qui ne sont pas incompatibles avec ces règles. Le tribvnal a été d'avis, à l'unanimité, De les illiminer de ses délibérations, faute de preuve. Considérant, Que les frais de poursuites" des croiseurs confédérés doivent se confondre avec les frais généraux de la guerre soutenue par les Etats-Unis ; Est d'avis, à la majorité de 3 contre 2. Qu'il n'y a lieu d'adjuger aux Etats-Unis aucune somme à titre d'indemnité de ce chef. Considérant, Que les "profits éventuels" ne sauraient être l'objet d'aucune compensation, puisqu'il s'agit de choses futures et incertaines; Est d'avis, à l'unanimité, Qu'il n'y a lieu d'adjuger aux Etats-Unis aucune somme à titre d'indemnité de ce chef. Considérant, Que pour établir une compensation équitable des dommages soufferts, il faut écarter les "réclamations doubles" et n'admettre les réclamations pour "frets," qu'en tant qu'elles représentent le "fret net; Considérant, Qu'il est juste et raisonnable d'allouer des intérêts dans une proportion équitable; Considérant, Que, suivant l'esprit et la lettre du traité de Washington, il est préférable d'adopter le système de l'adjudication d'une somme en bloc, plutôt que de déférer au conseil d'assesseurs prévu par l'article X du dit traité, les discussions et délibérations ultérieures, et faisant usage du pouvoir qui lui est conféré par l'article VII du dit traité; Le tribunal, à la majorité de quatre voix contre une. Adjuge aux Etats-Unis la somme en bloc de quinze millions et cinq cent mille dollars en or. A titre d'indemnité. Que la Grande-Bretagne devra payer pour toutes les réclamations déférées au tribunal, conformément aux prescriptions du dit article VII. Et conformément à l'article VI du dit traité. Le tribunal, Déclare entièrement, absolument et définitivement réglées toutes les réclamations mentionnées au traité et soumises au tribunal. Il déclare, en outre, que chacune des dites réclamations, qu'elle lui ait été ou non notifiée, faite, présentée ou soumise, est et demeure définitivement réglée, annulée et désormais inadmissible. En foi de quoi, le présent acte de décision a été expédié en double original et signé par les arbitres, qui y ont donné leur assentiment, le tout conformément à l'article VII du dit traité de Washington. Fait et délibéré à l'hôtel de ville de Genève (en Suisse), le quatorzième jour du mois de septembre de l'an de Notre-Seigneur, mil huit cent soixante-et-douze. (Signé) C. F. ADAMS, (Signé) FREDERIC SCLOPIS, (Signé) STAMPFLI, (Signé) Vicomte D'ITAJUBA. THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON BEFORE THE PARLIAMENT OF CANADA. The Treaty of Washington has been more successful than was expected. The indirect Alabama claims, which for a time seemed to threaten the very existence of the Treaty, have been thrown out by the Geneva Court of Arbitration. The direct claims have been finally adjusted by the award of the 14th September last. The San Juan difficulty has also been removed in the way that we had anticipated. The British Claims Commission, sitting at Washington, reports progress daily. That portion of the Treaty which concerns the British Provinces, has been ratified by the Parliament of Canada. In fact, in order to come into full effect, the Treaty now requires only the sanction of the Congress of the United States, as provided for by article 33. The action of the Legislature of New Brunswick, in fact, is only needed with regard to the lumber duties on the River St. John, to give to British subjects an unconditional right to the coasting trade, granted by article 30. The last question likely to be determined will be the value of the Canadian fisheries, forming the subject matter of enquiry by the Halifax Commission under article 22. The debate on the ratification of the Treaty in the Canadian Parliament led to the publication of many official documents of importance to the history of the public law of Canada.* Message, despatches and Minutes of the Privy Council relating to the Treaty of Washington, printed by order of Parliament, Ottawa, 1872. A writer in La Revue de Droit International lately observed that the opinion, expressed in this Review,-that the Crown has no power to surrender any portion of the fisheries, or the navigation of the St. Lawrence, without the assent of Parliament,-was utterly unfounded, foncièrement erronée, because, as he asserts, the right ceded is only a right of use, un droit d'usage. But it is clear, at a first glance, that the permanent right of navigating the St. Lawrence is a servitude, and therefore a part of the right of property therein, un démembrement de la propriété. Moreover, this point can no longer be raised under our constitutional law. On the 10th March, 1871, exactly one month after the publicatiou of our article on the Joint High Commission, we find the Government of Canada representing to the British Government that, in their opinion, "the Canadian fisheries cannot be sold without the consent of the Dominion." On the 17th of the same month, the British Government transmitted the following reply: "MY LORD,-In answer to your telegram, received on the 10th instant, stating that in the opinion of you. Government, the Canadian fisheries cannot be sold without the consent of the Dominion, I have already informed your Lordship by telegraph that Her Majesty's Government never had any intention of advising Her Majesty to part with those fisheries, without such consent. "When the Reciprocity Treaty was concluded, the Acts of the Nova Scotian and New Brunswick Legislatures relating to the Fisheries were suspended by Acts of those Legislatures, and the Fishery rights of Canada are now under the protection of a Canadian Act of Parliament, the repeal of which would be nccessary in case of the cession of those rights to any Foreign Power. "I think it right, however, to add, that the responsibility of determining what is the true construction of a Treaty, made by Her Majesty with any foreign power, must remain with Her Majesty's Government, and that the degree to which this country would make itself a party to the strict enforcement of treaty rights, may depend not only on the literal construction of the treaty, but on the moderation and reasonableness with which these rights are asserted.-I have, &c., Governor-General (Signed) The Right Honorable Lord Lisgar, KIMBERLEY. Another despatch from the Colonial Office, dated the 23rd November, 1871, to the Executive Committee of Canada, contains the following: "The Committee seem to be under the impression that the right to participate in the Colonial Inshore Fisheries has been conceded to the United States without the previous consent of Canada. On this I have to observe that provision has been made for obtaining the assent of Canada in the manner which is strictly in accordance with constitutional usage, namely by stipulating that the fishery articles shall not come into force without the previous assent of the Dominion Parliament. If the Crown were to conclude a similar Treaty as regards the Fisheries of the United Kingdom, the assent of the Imperial Parliament would be reserved in no other manner." It also appears from the documents laid before our Parliament that the Canadian Government met the Treaty of Washington with a strong protest, dated the 28th July, 1871. It is gratifying to find that the views expressed in La Revue Critique a few weeks previous, coincide so closely with the opinions expressed in that protest: "The Committee of the Privy Council have had under their consideration the Earl of Kimberley's despatch to Your Excellency, dated the 17th June ult., transmitting copies of the Treaty signed at Washington on the 8th May last, by the Joint High Commissioners, and which has since been ratified by Her Majesty and by the United States of America; of the instructions to Her Majesty's High Commissioners, and of the protocols of the Conferences held by the Commission; and likewise the Earl of Kimberley's despatch of the 20th June ultimo, explaining the failure of Her Majesty's Government to obtain the consideration by the United States Commissioners of the claims of Canada for the losses sustained owing to the Fenian raids of 1866 and 1870. "The Committee of the Privy Council have not failed to give their anxious consideration to the important subject discussed in the Earl of Kimberley's despatches, and, they feel assured that they will consult the best interests of the Empire, by stating frankly for the information of Her Majesty's Government the result of their deliberations, which they believe to be in accordance with public opinion in all parts of the Dominion :— "The Committee of the Privy Council readily admit that Canada is deeply interested in the maintenance of cordial rela |