As to principles decided by the entire procedure of the commissioners and of their Governments in the formation of the Treaty, and of the Arbitrators in making the award, we may say, first, that all questions of damages resulting from the lack of due diligence on the part of a neutral in the fulfilment of the duties of neutrality were regarded as proper subjects for arbitration, and that the determination of the question whether the claims presented, or any of them, are a good foundation for an award of compensation was also regarded as a proper question for arbitration; second, that due diligence to be exercised by neutral governments is diligence "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"; third, that the fact that a commission was only subsequently given by a belligerent to a vessel constructed, equipped or armed for the belligerent in the port of the neutral does not heal the violation of the duties of neutrality by the neutral in not using due diligence to prevent such construction, equipment or armament in its ports; fourth, that the privilege of ex-territoriality accorded to vessels of war can never be appealed to for the protection of acts done in violation of neutrality; fifth, that no neutral can excuse itself from the due discharge of the duties of neutrality on account of imperfections in its own laws and government; and sixth, that the cost to the belligerent of pursuing vessels, which have been enabled to operate against the belligerent on account of the dereliction of the neutral, and all indirect loss resulting therefrom, do not constitute a "good foundation for an {319} award of compensation or computation of damages between nations." [Sidenote: The Northwest boundary question.] Two other questions of great importance were placed in course of solution by the Treaty of Washington. One was the contention between the two high contracting parties concerning the boundary line between the United States and British Columbia from the point where the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude intersects the middle of the channel which separates the continent from Vancouver's Island to the Pacific Ocean. The contention on the part of Great Britain was that this line should run, according to the stipulations of the Treaty of June 15th, 1846, through the Rosario Straits, and on the part of the United States that it should run through the Canal de Haro. The high contracting parties agreed, in the thirty-fourth article of the Treaty of Washington, to submit this question to the arbitration and award of His Majesty the German Emperor, whose decision thereon should be final and without appeal. The German Emperor, William I., accepted this duty; and on the 21st of October, 1872, announced his award, upholding the contention of the United States. [Sidenote: The Fisheries question.]