The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-02-06

ionu ougnS 10 pay Whatever damages 10
suited from the violation Of this rule. Any
court Of law would so decide In . parallel
case between individuals. It is not the
amount of damage, however large that may
be, that is in question. The principle laid
down is only to be considered, whatever the
damages may be. What, then, is the damage
sustained by the United States2 This is the
question for the Geneva Conference to deter
mine, and W.. think the case of the United
States fairly and justly includes the loss by
the transfer Of the American commercial ma
rine to the British flag, and by the prolonga-
ton OF the war caused by the aid given to the
rebellion BY England.
But it is said by the English journals that
what they call indirect or consequential dam
ages were an afterthought of our govern
ment. This, to use the mildest term, Is mis-
take. Almost the same language used in the
case of the United States, as prepared for the
Geneva Conference, is found in the protocol
of the American High Commissioners, dated
Washington, May 4, 1871. 1t is as follows -
"That the history of the Alabama land other
cruisers which had been fitted out or armed or
equipped, or which had received augmenta-
ton of force in Great Britain or in her
colonies, and Of the operation Of those vessels,
showed extensive direct losses in the capture
and destruction of large number Of vessels
with their cargoes, and in the heavy national
expenditures in the pursuit of the cruisers,
and indirect injury in the transfer Of large
part of the American commercial marine
to the British flag, in the enhanced
payment Of insurance, in the pro-
longation of the war, and in the
addition Of large sum to the cost of the war
and suppression Of the rebellion; and also
showed that Great Britain, by reason of
failure In the proper observance of her duties
as neutral, had become justly liable for the
acts Of these cruisers and of their tenders. "
From first to last our government has as
sumed that England was liable for all damages
resulting from the action of these cruisers. 1t
is no afterthought. Yet should the Geneva
Conference not admit this claim in full, the
American government and people will submit
to the decision, because that was agreed to In
the Treaty of Washington.
A large portion Of our citizens never looked
with favor upon the Treaty of Washington,
and it would not require much provocation to
create general disgust. 1t was thought by
many that England had cunningly inveigled
this country into the new rules regarding the
duty of neutrals under the pretence of friend
ship and in the interests of commerce. while
she did so only to save herself from the
destruction of her own maritime greatness in
the event of war. She has in one way or
another, or under one pretext or another, de-
stroyed successfully every maritime rival.
This country was the last. She seized with
avidity the opportunity which the Southern
rebellion appeared to afford to destroy our
commercial marine, and, having succeeded in
that, she then seeks treaty with the United
States by which her own maritime interests
may be exempt, in the event of war, from
like disaster. The payment of thousands of
millions of dollars would not compensate us
for all the loss England caused, while she has
been benefited thousands of millions by her
unfriendly conduct to this country. The
treaty was cunning piece Of strategy on the
part of England to save herself in the future.
Yet her press now would deny the United
States even a fair presentation of claims be-
fore the Geneva arbitrators. We can only
hope the government of Great Britain will not
stultify itself by following the course pointed
out by the Incorporate press of England, and
that the Queens reference to the subject of
the American claims may be ''friendly," even
if it should be little general in words.