New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1872-02-16
=, AIMS FOR INDIRECT DAMAGES JUSTlFI-
ABLE.

inches and h,l we-knOwn friendship Tor this couni'
III always command respectful Consideration iol "I"'-
no NAV write. II is all the more necessary th"' We
I'm n care mi that Lis are not adopted because
" = tri,q f,t the nan. In the matter OF the case OF
,,ed states the interests involved az too eonsd-
ho 10 permit 10 allow ourselves to be put II 'ue
80 oven b, a friend esteemed as lie. Inc Issue
NOV no po3ce OF war; ought 10 know whethef W. art
,rtt ar wrong IN a matter so momentous' Inc Ioyal
tnc United states feel strong convictions that
En-, have becu greatly wronged by Government whose
,,n,,sy they had a right 10 expect The injury was
a., rr,or me cxcencies of our affairs prevented any
t-+hcr acton than circumstances, which were dlSre
.,iod Even then spoke IN no uncertain utteran'e,
an, ENGLAND did not lack statesmen honest ana Ooiu
,noueh 70 warn the British Government on the noor OF
Parliament, that they were rendering themselves Ioie
,r these very indirect losses" which DOW so disturb
.Vep our good friend. From tho beginning In season
md out Of season We have made continuance OF claim
lh,- the rejection Of the JOhnsOnC arendOn Treaty ON
the accession % Gen. Grant violate no confidence no"
III say!u- tLat It formally determined 10 press 'he
el no srt her until Great Britain hereH openeu 'ho
yay for rcsuning negotiations. The Franeo-GerInan
var laid England under such stress that the CONTINUANCE
Of these prcccIcus, liable TO be adopted by our
ent became so intoerdble that she called up the case
not because She wanted pay these claims OF ours Vu
because she needed to be protected against nel o"H
precedents before she involved in tho same coiDner
eial ruin she had brought on u.s.
Right upon the Interpretation Of the Treaty when
England was more interested having concluded than
Se were sooner however, have they secured In the
tay that protection for the future which they coveted
,hau they seem to have made mp their minds that all
oncStious relating 10 their past were TO be lightly
pressed aud they BEGAN OF once 20 congratulate them
pyes on their escape from danger The Treaty, how
ever settles nothing except certain rules Of law, all
sues;ons Of fact remaining TO be disposed Of by the
tribunal OF Arbitration. The question Of Encland's
wrong and her liability therefor is the part Of the case
(which we are interested.
ms tribunal must first conclude specifically accord
hgto tie testimony in each case, for what vessels
Eneand has by her conduct, made herself liable. Hav
Ing this they to determine how the measure OF
Ger liability be fixed They may do either Of two
Anss, award sum in gross, or, conclude that the
measure Of damages should be the amount OF actual
injury done by each vessel Ak the extent Of the liability
or each vessel and refer the question OF the extent Of
such special damages by each vessel, TO Board Of
Assessors be subsequently appointed under Article
the Treaty Certainly the United States as the plain
If may ask either TO done according TO own view
.. cur interests The distinction between general
and special damages is well known both in England
and the United states for we have the common
bv But the claim now set up would seem 10 imply
hat the understanding upon the part of Great Britain
that the damages in gross which might be assessed
by e Tribunal of Arbitration to be ascertaned IN
ne sane manner the liability in detail for deternin
ae which the Board OF Assessors is provided The Ian
Iuaee employed 10 imply very different modes OF
eachinc result and yet the clam now set up would
require the result 90 be reached IN the one case as
he other. II Great Britain. in her case should plead
.xtcuuating circumstance notwithstanding technical
liability might established, and ask the Tribunal
., Arbitration IN awarding in gross TO give only
nominal damages amount less than our actual in
dvdua losses will II he admitted in such case that the
United states would be justified in withdrawing from
.rf,rt lffoy,f how ran he he
claimed that because Of circumstances of aggrava-
nOn the United States, having asked for award of
tam IN gross greater than the Of our actual ind
sdual losses Great Britain Is justified in Withdrawing
any such distinction exists 1t must be found in the
terms Of the Treaty And this brings Inc to review Of
he points made by Mr.. Hughes.
II would be difficult find language comprehen.
ave than that employed Article OF the Treaty. I'm
rider TO remove and adjust al complaints and claims
apon the part Of the United States the high contract
ng parties agree that all the said claims grOping out ~
.ts committed by the aforesaid vessels AMI generally
Known as the Alabama Claims shall Do referred &c.
Article II says that the arbiratOrs shall proceed i'm
partially and carefully examine and decide all CUES
sons tina, shall be laid before them the part of the
United States and Her Britannia Majesty,
rpectively." Every person connected With the
execution Of that Treaty certainly well
ware that the claims Of the United States
nghtfuly wTongfuy it does not matter constituted
slams" MI Hughes refers to the words OF the pre-
smble before quoted referring differences "grow-
mg out Of the committed by the several vessels"
and connecting them with the expressions OF regrets
spon the part Of Her Majesty (which, however, be II
noticed 90 not admit and apologize for wrong done by
Der GOVERNMENT, and jumps at the conclusion that In
consideration Of the regrets" America limited her
Claims to the acts committed by the several vessels
such limitation, he understands it, agreed upon.
Tor damages Of any kind out OF the acts COM
nted by the several vessels" after their escape En-
glands liability therefore, arises out OF her ao wing them
70 escape. they had done damage afterward, 1t
would have been Of damnum dbsqte tnjrtd, for
which the expression Of regrets would have been entirely
satisfactory But having sustained such damages, We
art at Liberty to fix the amount OF compensation which
We ask 70 be allowed The expression OF regrets may be
enough 10 dispose Of the cdss be but they do
L0, reach they were not understood TO reach our
calh for damages resulting from the alleged wrong
done u.
MI Hughes has fallen into the singular error Of quot
ms against the language OF our case, though 1t
formed part OF Article XII OF the Treaty, not Observ
ng that the quotation from the Treaty had terminated
al The top Of the page from which he quotes; and thus
he makes the point that prevented from making
IL claim Of which he complains. Our genial
ineHd, when the excitement OF the moment subsidies
vi" be ready 10 appreciate the joke which he has thus
made on hnselL His final point, which has been made
b. writers in country, is shall show, abso
lutey conclusive against the position now taken by
Great Britain. the protocol IL appears that Com
nsoners urged before the Joint High Commission that
England should then acknowledge the wrong done us
aud TO a sum TO be paid 10 gross a compensa-
ton aud as an inducement, after stating claims
direct and Indirect offered TO withdraw the latter max
ing however the following reservation Without preiu-
oic however 10 the right Of indemni1catiOn their
account IN the event OF no such settlement being
made" What sett elnent Specifically the then
fnnnl Ia nno..t. IL r.LcL fis inDncn-ncn