The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-07-28
the claims were of constructive ana inisrential

only mentioned once, and then, as 1t were, Incl
dentally the Fenian raid claims were repeatedly ana
formally presented, and when their withdrawal
from the negotiation was agreed TO at its close
1t was with remark which could have no
just bearing had 1t not been believed that all con-
structive and consequential claims had been with
drawn and excluded on the American side ALSO
Mr.. Fish expresses doubts as to the points raised
washington Claims Commissioners have and the
arbitrators have not power to decide upon the ex-
tent Of their own jurisdiction, and that no words
similar 70 these comforting that power are TO be
found In the articles relating to the Ge eva arbi
tration; 1t viii be seen on comparing the Treaty
tween Great Britain and the United States, OF
the Sth Of February 1853, that the words which
had quoted nom the fourteenth article OF the for
mer are Identical with the words used the third
article OF the latter, under which the Claims
Sommissioners were empowered to give and
extent Of t6s as o as
In the claims for Texas bonds OF James Halford's
executors and Phillip Dawson; and for Florida
lSee Senate Executive Documents No. 1913, Thirty
fourth Congress, First Session pp SO, 64l The ar
ceedngs Of the tribunal and OF the claims commits
sion respectively,
AS FINAL SETTLEMENTS
Articles II and II are also adopted from the Con-
vention OF 1853, article s. and had 1t been desired
to give the same powers Of Jurisdiction to the arb
traitors as to the Commissioners clause similar to
that In the fourteenth article would have been In
serted to express 1t. In the absence OF such
clause, the jurisdiction OF the arbitrators
=
alabama claims" submitted to them in article
1. Her Majesty's government cannot admit that
power which, when IT is designed to be given to
the Claims commissioners in one part of the
treaty Is given in express words, can be
inierentially assumed to be given in another
broad Specification to the term question: in the
second article The questions which the arbitra-
tors are TO examine and decide are obviously all
by the respective governments in preferring and
refuting the particular claims on which their
In connection with the succeeding articles, three,
four and five, providing how the cases, counter
cases, evidence and arguments are to be brought
before Them Mr.. Fish cannot mean that the
ARBrTRATORs MAY DECIDE "ANY QURsTONs''
not coming within the terms of the reference to
might BRING fore sade as ea
set-Ofr against the Alabama Claims the questions OF
the injury done to British trade by the blockade, or
the Fenian raids or possibly other questions; In
short, scope would be given to the arbitration
which the United States government could not
have contemplated, and would probably be unwill.
ing to admit. Mr.. Fish states that "the United
States calmly submitted to the Commission the de-
cision OF It's jurisdiction" over the Cotton Loan
claim, but this statement does not appear to be at
all borne out by the argument for the United States
On motion to disr.iss these claims the United States
agent moved for
THE DISMISSAL OF THE CLAIM
as not being included under the treaty. and plainly
notified that the United States refused to permit it
to be considered as included, his argument being
that there was a constitutional provision which
prevented the payment OF such claims: that this
was known to the American Commissioners when
ha% the trsa TO .ee
flying 1t, and that it was impossible for
the United States to pay or to consider the ques-
mind" he said, ''that at the time Of this CORE
spondence, well as at the time OF the conclusion
and ratification OF the treaty. the constitution of
tine United States contained an express prohi.
bition Of the assumption of payment Of
these debts by the United States or
at Lori n w
bound by the supreme law OF the land, and by his
oath OF ONCE, to treat as utterly null any provision
constitutional prohibition, under penalty Of i'm
parchment or its equivalent The agent con-
Guided by saying:-"The dismission Of the claim on
the ground specified in his notion" In short, he
positively declared that
NO AWARD UNAVOIDABLE TO THE UNITED STATES
would or could have been accepted and paid.
Fish which are open to reply; but l have con-
sdered it sufficient for the purposes OF this de.
bear more Immediately on the negotiation and in
depreciation Of the treaty. am, &C.,
No. 81.
MR.. FISH TO GENERAL sCHENCK.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
WASHINGTON, June 3, 1872.
SIR-Your despatch No. 233, OF the 18th ultmo,
inclosng copy OF supplement to the London gazette
of the day previous, has been received. This copy
ns notice. It 0r has had on Es
note Of the 18th utimo, which prob
ably onS print sshss sr e the
Thornton, to whom it purports to be addressed.
The avowed purpose OF Earl Granvilles note is to
government have refrained from continu.
with the government Of the United states
upon the scope and intention Of the articles
in the Treaty of Washington relating to the arbi.
tration on the Alabama claims" and to put him in
reference to some passages which occur In my
note to you of the 10th OF April. OF course it
will not be assumed that the object
advance ofits possible receipt by the gentlemen
for whose instruction it was written, had any con-
nection with the influencing of public opinion in
Europe or near the expected scene OF the Geneva
Tribunal II never was the desire of this govern
ment to open, much less to prolOng discussion with
Her Majesty's government upon the scope and in
tention OF the articles in the Treaty of Washington
relating to the arbitration on the Alabama claims.
had reason to believe, that before the august tri
bunal appointed In accordance with the terms OF
the Treaty OF Washington to examine and decide
United States and Great Britain, and
designated 'the Alabama Claims. the
treaty would be its own interpreter. Resting upon
this most reasonable conviction IL has been the
earnest wish of the Presidents wish often eX-
pressed In the correspondence OF this department
on the subject-to remit all discussion as to the
scope and meaning OF the treaty to that tribunal.
Had this feeling been recprocated by Her Maesty's
government the discussion which has occurred be-
tween the two governments upon the true meaning
OF the treaty might have been in great measure
avoided. Upon the present point Of contention be-
tween this government and that Of Great Britain
namely, whether the claims for national losses,
popularity denominated indirect damages, are by
the terms Of the treaty fairly within the province
for the consideration and decision OF the Geneva
Tribnnathe United States it is believed, VIII lose
nothing by the fullest discussion Of the question,
In my note to you OF the 10th OF April
had occasion to say ut is difficult to reconcile
the elaborate line of argument put forward by Earl
Granville to show waiver of claims for indirect
losses with the idea that at the outset Of the nego-
tiations Her Majestys government did not consider
the matter OF public or national injuries as the
basis Of an outstanding claim against Great Britain
on the part Of the United States" His I.Ordshps
instructions Of the 18th nit, now before me, do
not serve to lessen, much less TO remove the diil
Guilty thus suggested. In this instruction Earl
Granville, with great skill and ingenuity, rccapitn
lates the previous arguments on the question. and
arranges with infinite care the facts upon which he
desires that the propositions advanced by Her Ma
jcsty's government should rest Passing Ovcra GER
tain tone Of criticism which may with prOpriety
be ascribed TO the pressure OF public
business upon His Lordship at the present moment,
Pa isna -tDfa 10 i,, nj