New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1872-03-02


right 10 mako what claim we pleased The limitation OF
tho Treaty does not apply TO the character OF the ca
which shall he made, hut only as to the manner III "no
they shall DO treated after thoy are made In inc ru
adoped to guido the ArbitratOrs. there Is ample anu
sufficient guard against all claims for constructive u
res and II ia this very important point that Is so clearly
established by your correspondent and IL is TINS iac'
undoubtedly that led Earl Rpon and bord uran''o '"
boast In Parliament, after the return OF inc isn Uo"
mission, last Summer that they had secuieu " "'ou
area of defined claims and given TO the "hoo Po'oou
ings o limited ana defined character IN woru'
that tho Americans had substantially waived thcir
claims for constructive damages The error made
in tho American Case lies In making such Iormdapio
presentation Of stupeudOus constructive CLAIMS WIN
detail and circumstance down to the rate ut when In
teres should DO computed ana the time 1t should attach
inst as though they had bona dde substance and reality
which the very protocol which they are based ana
which ia quoted in the paragraphs presenting them'
shows they had not. For example tho American Case
saws: ain tho opening conference OF tho JOINT hsh
Commission tho American Commissioners lafter enumcr
ang direct lossesl spoke OF indirect damages Ihey
added that in tho hope OF amcablc settlement no
estimate was made Of indirect losses without preuuce
however TO the right of naturalization on their account
in the event Of no such settlement being made
What was this "amlcable settlement here reierreu
IN which the Case" SAYS the British Commissioners
declined to make II appears setementof some KIND
was proposed which left out all this prodgious agsre
Of constructive dain0BeSi bnONlnB
WAS thought OF this part of the claim and that the Com
missoners were ready TO abandon 1t for considcra
ton Now what was that consideration Because II
we can get It, will enable to measure the precise
value OF constructive claim ITSELF In the minds OF the
Commissioners 1t Is plain enough what twas III was
that the British Commissioners should say that they re-
GREETED the escape of the Alabama aud her confederate
shps and that they would consent 10 pay for the sc
cAc damage they had DONE and TO dcfray the cost of
| our Government In pursuing them. That Is all. Whyi
Because that is all tho we had all the claim we
had all the claim we mako, except that for conse
quental damages.
So it plainly demonstrated from the tSxt q t1e
Cease itself, that we were willing TO settle up Od
Scores and call everything square, sponge the slate of
every complaint and begin anew on the basis of having
disposed OF every grievance through "amicabe set
Element" That Is TO cay, willing TO cry quits,
| constructive claims and all, for sum less than
s2OOOOOOO, and tho acknowledgement OK regret which
! was paid down in tho Treaty. Now, In the light
Of this admission duly set forth and in WHO disguised
In tho Case IS 1t not palpabc error IN fact gross
absurdty for us 70 set up serious and circumsauta
claim for the payment by England of the expenses Of
two years OF our war-a sum not less than
two thousand million dollars For this is the OF
| our claim for consequential damages We demand pay
in the Cease" for the OF the prolongaon OF
after the battle Of Gettysburg IN 1863 This claim is de-
Hberatey and urgently made, after proposed TO settle
for of less than twenty milionsl We said to our
advcrsarics II you will make "Gmcablc settlement
without the Intervention OF third party, will take
twenty millions II we have 60 before arbtTltors
shall make claim Of two thousand millions. Who does
not see the gigantic absurdity Of such u position
But this is the precise position OF the American Govern
men stands to-day according to its showing in
It's Case" presented for the consideration Of the &c
neva ArbitratOrs. submit that the attitude Ia not
reputable before the world We show by the record
Of action that We not In earnest In our cain
But this fact DC shown in variety Of other ways.
The claim for constructive damages is bantling Of Mr.
Sumner he Origna ted it alone, anG supported it alone
He is entitled to the reputation Of being its sole sup
porter His views have been repeated Endorsed
by anybody thaye known Of When tho Clarendon
Treaty rejected by the Senate, he made tho
elaborate speech which took this ground 1t was at the
close session. aud nobody Endorsed lis sentiments
nobody spoke had time to speak on the subject
| know Senators who totally opposed TO the view
Mr. Sumner took. but his speech was regarded as good
enough Jrttia Jmen, and was allowed TO go to the
world without comment From that Time to this an
not aware that tho claim for contingent and
constructive damages growing out OK the prat-
ical depredatiOns on our shipping has ever
been seriously discussed entertained by the public
And far the present Administration ia concerned
If am wholly mistaken early took ground against
any such view Of our claims 1t censurcd Mr Motley,
Minister TO England and finally recalled linn In dis
grace chiefly for his ocOus presentation Of Mt Sum
ners views this very question: ana distinctly int
And when the question of arbitration was rcOpcned,
year and more ago. II anything under
stood about the position of tho Administration
It was that its opposition to Mr. 6umncr5 extreme views
put il In very favorable attitude to approach tho
sderaOn Of tie whole subject with great prospects Of
success. The initiation OF The reopeung Of the question
was made In this understanding, and Mr.. Sumner
seem consulted and coIciliaed the and chief OBJ
stacle to the negotiation OF sucL treaty as was alone
possible and this treaty which 1t wds Understood
was not to recognize claims to constructive damages.
The High COmms sion met and transacted its business
In the atmosphere Of this sentiment, and went home,
never dreaming that by some occult hocus-p0cus the
very thing they had supposed by common consent
eliminated from the Treaty was tho very thing which
had, after all, crept into it.
tits plain therefore, that the State Department notwh
standing the ability and 0droitDess with which 1t has
managed several conspicuous situations aud this Treaty
negotiation among the number has finally got itself and
the country into scrape by too much eaScrnes, and
too little consideration of the bearing of its acts. The
Department stranded upon the untenable post
ton originally taken by Mr.. Summer. And yet fully
believe it never intended TO put itself into any such posi-
ton II has made the mistake Of not continuing 10 act
in spirit in which tho Treaty conceived and ne
eotiated It to have looked upon the final negO
ation OF the treaty the close Of diplomatic job and
the appearance before the Board OF Artrators tho
opening Of another and different one instead OF looking
as should upon the two parts Of transaction 1t
Is the common mistake of lawyers Of lower grade than
Mr. Davis press their weak points 10 the detrment OF
the strong This il the mistake into which he has fallen
What Mr.. Davis ought to have DONE was to have pre-
sented hs Case" without his claim for consequential
danages II he thought they had been introduced
the protocol they should appear In the "Case" no
should have thrown them IN, In general terms, make
weight ~ matters 1t bis duty TO present but which
must be considered excluded by the arbratOrs ac-
cordlng to their discretion. If this had been tho form