The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1872-02-10
The AmsrIo.n a.d English GASES.

A@~ 0AoeR 91u n 8kA1A O0808s
The disoontent In England which has
followed the publication Of the printed
iscasa. OF the American Government, as
ttesdptea to the Geneva commission on
the Alabama claims. continues and In
cfeaSes. as the cable dispatches from day
TO dSy bear witness. The London ISass
Of Saturday declares that Il. repndiatss
s'the construction which has been mt on
the treaty Of Washington in the Amsfi.
oah oAs1; and must withdraw from the
arbitration IL this construction is insisted
ton; but if this point is 'redtif fed, : We kte
ready to stand loyalty by the treaty. I"
Thus it would appear Nj be "tbe Ooh
struction". which - put Upon the treaty,
and not the treaty itself, which is the
subject OF Dissatisfaction. An agree
mont may be understood differently by
the parties to it, and if this has happen
ed without fault Of any one. neither, if
asking only what was right. would insist
upon aught that was not warranted by
the spirit OF the contract. or was not Just
and equitable. II the misunderstand-
ing arose from ohioanery or fraud on the
part OF either, there would be still less
reason why the party through whom this
happened should take advantage Of his
own wrong.
There seems to be no evidence, how
ever. OF any design on either side in the
Washington treaty to take undue advan.
tage OF the other; and, as we have be-
fore indicated, the American case, in
narreting everything that was aver said,
or done, or claimed. with regard to Brit
ish liability, may be understood az SIM
ply adduoing illustrative evidence, only
part Of which can go into the question
Of damages, and also showing tho ami.
mus Of England to enable the commits
sion to pass intelligently on the ques.
tions they have to decide. The London
journals, indeed, claim that there was
an implied promise on the part Of our
Government not to claim compensation
for indirect damages, such as the pro-
longatlon of the war and the; like. uhl
that, in spite OF its promise, the case in
question, does, urge the indirect Injury
done in aggtavatioh Of damages.
This complaint is set forth by the
London Spectator. which gives iss sub
stantiaily as follows: eat the Washing.
ton conference, on March 8. 1871, the
American commissioners eaid that claims
already presented for damages done by
British cruisers amounted to $l4, 600, 600;
that there might yet be large sums added
to this, aud that the cost to the Govern
ment OF pursuing these ships GOULD east
ly be'detetminsd."
They added that 'in the hope OF an
amicable, settlement, no estimate was
made of the indirect losses. without pre-
Judice, however, to the right to indem-
nification on their account, in the event
of no such settlement being made" The
American commissioners then asked two
things: An expression OF regret on the
part OF Great Britain for the depreda-
tions cqmmittsd by the British vessels,
and an agreement by the commission at
once upon q certain gross sum to be
paid by Great Britain in satisfaction of
oil claims, with interest. The British
commissioners agreed to put on record
the expression of regret asked for, but
declined to agree upon any gross sum to
be paid, believing that there was still
defence which, in case of arbitration,
OF paying anything. The American
commissioners i accepted the expression
of regret 'as very satisfactory to them
and as token Of kindness" Now, the
Spectator insists, and other British Jour
nails assume, that the treaty which fol-
lowed wac an ''amicable settlement"
that it was doubly 80 in view of the cor
dial acceptance by our commissioners OF
the expression OF regret made in it, and
that, having reached this settlement, the
United States were bound to avoid MAX
ing any claim whatever for indirect da-
images thereafksr.
Whatever may be thought OF this view
of the matter, it seems 10 have been the
general understanding in this country
that Mr. Summers absurd claim for oon.
sequential damages would not he receiy-
ed, and the moderation Of the treaty had
drawn down upon it vehement assaults
from General Butler and others. who in
sisted that We bad been "sold" by the
British commissioners, aud even pre-
tended to believe that under the opera
tions of the treaty the claims of Great
Britain might prove larger than our own.
Mr.. Motley's recall from England, after
putting forth the claims of Summer, was
also significant. Besides, the almost
universal satisfaction with which the
treaty was received in England, shows
that it could not have been understood
there as covering revival of Mr.. Sum.
ner's demand, which. when made by
him in the Senate. had drawn forth q
burst of contempt and execrntion from
ona end nf tho hin ~ tbo Ill.,.