{315} It was supposed by the Americans that the whole case on both sides was now in, and that, unless the Arbitrators should require further argument or statement in reference to specific points, the Tribunal would now proceed to make its decisions. But the British counsel and the British agent immediately petitioned the Tribunal to be allowed to prepare and present another argument, and to have six weeks' time in which to do it, and even the member of the Tribunal appointed by the British Government exerted himself to secure this delay and this new opportunity for the British agent and his counsel. The Tribunal felt, however, that it was in possession of the evidence and the argument necessary for determining the question before it, and refused the request. The Tribunal now adjourned to the 15th of July, in order to give its members time and opportunity to study the cases. On the 15th, the arbitrators reassembled and invited the agent and counsel of each of the high contracting parties to sit with them in their conferences. To all others, however, the doors were closed. They spent some two days discussing the order of the procedure which they should follow, and finally adopted the order proposed by Mr. Staempfli, and also indicated in the Treaty itself, which was to take up the case of each vessel separately, and allow each Arbitrator to express a provisional opinion upon it, which opinion, however, should not be conclusive even on the Arbitrator himself who gave it. [Sidenote: The decision of the Tribunal in the case of the _Florida_.] On the 17th of the month (July), the Tribunal proceeded to take up the case of the _Florida_ and to hear the opinions of the Arbitrators upon it. Four of the five Arbitrators were of the opinion that the British Government had failed to exercise due diligence in the discharge of its neutral duties toward the United States in this case. Sir Alexander {316} Cockburn alone disagreed with this view. The four also held that the tenders of the _Florida_ should follow the lot of their principal. The reading of the opinion in the case of the _Florida_ was finished on the 22d, and the Tribunal adjourned to the 25th. Upon the reassembly of the arbitrators, Baron d'Itajubá called on the British counsel for a statement or an argument on the questions of due diligence, and of the effect of commissions held by Confederate war vessels which had entered British ports, and of the legitimacy of coal supplies to Confederate vessels in British ports. Of course the counsel of the United States would be permitted to reply. [Sidenote: The decision in the case of the _Alabama_.] The Tribunal approved the proposition, and then proceeded to the case of the _Alabama_. The Arbitrators agreed unanimously in their views of this case, holding the Government of Great Britain guilty of a lack of due diligence. The case of the tender to the _Alabama_ was viewed in the same light.