The New York herald., 1872-11-01


can Commissioners, the imputati0n OF III faith.
which the charge implies primarily attaches to the
x%erican oomissl0ne.s i, venture - .nsreiors 70
nom you any statement or your recollection on the
subject or any suggestion on the matter.
yUDGB NELSON, IN REPLY, SAID.
The extract had attracted my attention at the
time It nrst appeared but was inclined to regard
s me as s
for Sir Stanord arising nom our intercourse during
the negotiations. inclined me TO this conclusion.
4: fact made, and further that the only NEE TING
Of f6e Com r,issioners at which indirect injury or
to %nc q the sr'1 18th 81
= : JUDGE noAR SAID,
~ cannot. OF course, undertake 70 say what any
gentleman understood nor does IL appear by
whom, or in what manner or on what occasion Sir
Stafford UNDERSTOOD that the promise vas giye2.
PROMISE either nS7daay or IN a%s aS yutn Wt
others. That no such promise was ever made
IN my hearing or with my knowledge; that never
listed, or was understood by any one. On the con-
trary, always thought and suspected that those
computation, and rom their magnitude incapa.
10 10 the tribunal Of arbitration = and i''se urged
be awarded, which should be an ample ana liberal
compensation for our losses by captures and burn
luHb, WAJnOut kOin8 lutO petty Oet8llS."
Judge Williams, now Attorney General, an
swered in the following terms:-
have no means Of knowing what the British
Commissioners understood upon that subject, for
an understanding may be founded upon an infer
means to say tnet any promise as to said claims
not found in the treaty or protocol accompanying 1t
was given by the American Commissioners, am pre-
never party to any such promise, nor did ever
hear Of ANYTHING Of the kind; and the probabilities
Commissioners must have known that any promise
modifying the treaty would have no validity II not
Ss ea to %sc Ss Course Senate deu
psSmlse pro- % ne the case existence H sa vSsR sR
Stafford Northc0te used the language imputed to
him that he was betrayed into an inaccuracy OF ex
British Commissioners understood that the claim
for consequential damages was not to be put for
% e and
was given by the American commissioners
General Schenck's answer came last, but 1t con-
nrmed what the others had SAID. The Minister
says:- &--4a.
In reply to your appeal to me on the subject,
have no hesitation In saying distinctly and en-
phaticaly. as one OF the American Commissioners,
that II any promise Of the kind mentioned by Sir
snowedse 0.p'0 vas nor mao 40
believe that any such promise was made BY my
sr OF em f OF
What might have been the understanding" or
the British Commissioners 1t is impossible for me
men forbids my doubling for moment the asser-
tlon OF either OF them when he states
s @ mnS the cam In
only answer for what they themselves may have
said or done to give Just OF sufficient occasion for
IN With rs ssate$sn and S'' what
na IS ssmsd to y sS
not have seen when you wrote to me, has been
be- suspected that tn the British S one aCw
made to them. In the letter to Lord Derby-a
copy Of which ! send you herewith
sxHs wa a e s made q y s s
conference on the sth Of March. and which is set
upon that or on nything outside the treaty ITSELF
to support his conclusion. How this opinion,
%orS Of the the q % %oS nd ee
for Interpretation to all the world, should bring
the British Commissioners into painful relations
full questions to arise between them," do not
comprehend. II n enough to know tnat the proof
ierentiaily rom the language Of the treaty and
protocol, and am sure that differences Of opinion
as to the meaning to be assigned to those docS
out any need or danger Of making the controversy
"A PERSONAL QUESTION:
fishes as the finally admitted basis OF Sir STAFFORD
understanding" about the waiver OF the indirect
sSs Is gan En- e @ On
retaries, Lord Tenterden and Bancroft Davis, and
missioners. 1t opens With 81 statement OF the ma.
tionai grievances against England on account OF
due to the operations Of the Alabama and other
cruisers the "indirect INJURY was brought for.
e Wsrd ses5 rna ssse. wa, The ness sn0s aaca
s estooo ss sse %s sSs0d THAT in The s
s ssss e M e1sfR ssst sfsssRs9y & gSss sR Bss Es,
count IA the event Of no such settlement being
Gray, had presided over the British Commission.
ers spoke as follows in the House OF Lords ut about
the time Mr. Fish was making ns inquiry Of his
MY LoRps-There seems to have got abroad an
Washington last year relied on what has been de-
scribed as secret understanding subsisting be-
tween them and the American Commissioners that
these indirect claims would not be brought for
HrS nnss Ss :" Sess the part
have have failed or we may have. succeeded
in employing, language which excludes these
entering into any elaborate argument on that sub
table but, whether we failed or whether we sue
which we considered would admit those claims
by any consideration OF that kind, and
waiver. On the Sth OF March, as referred to IN the
protocol, these claims were mentioned by the
United States Commissioners, mentioned in O man.
ner which, in substance Is described in that pro-
tocol on your Lordships table, and throughout the
course Of the subsequent negotiations these claims
were not again brought forward.
These remarks were In reference to certain ut
terances OF the Earl OF Derby the night previous,
and with reference to which Sir Stafford Northcotc
himself addressed Lord Derby in the following
language, requesting him to read 1t In the House
OF Lords, which was d0ne:-
SIR STAFFORD's CORRECTION.
SO HARLEY STREET, w., June 6, 1872
DEAR LORD DERBY:-
observe that In your speech in the House Of
Lords last night you referred to recent statement
OF mine with regard to the negotiations
at washington IN manner which shows
me that yon, as well as many other