The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-06-26

the damages thereby inflicted upon us. Eng
land denied this responsibility, and pleaded
that the British government had fulfilled all
its duties as a neutral America claimed that
England, if responsible at all, was re-
sponsible to us as q nation for our
indirect losses growing out of the acts OF
the privateers, as well as to our citizens for the
damages they had suffered through the direct
acts Of the rebel vessels. The Geneva Court of
Arbitration was formed, first, to find if England
had incurred the responsibility charged by
America, and next, to decide the measure of
damages. The tribunal was empowered to
award gross sum in satisfaction Of oil our
claims, or to prepare the way for their submits
sion in detail to Board of Assessors. The con-
clusion is irresistible that this authority to
name a gross sum was intended to be exer-
cised should the claims for indirect damages
be maintained by the Court in which event
the award would be matter of equity and not
question of detail while, in case the indi-
rect claims should be rejected, the Board OF
Assessors would become a necessary tribunal
for the adjustment of direct damages suscepti-
BILE of proof. The complication of these
apparently simple issues commenced with the
attempt Of England to leave to the Court the
power to decide the question of her liability
but to deprive it Of the right to adjudge for
what she is liable.
The motives Of England's policy can no
longer be doubted the details of the negotia
tons now before the world render them evil
dent Her government had two points to Sc
cure by the exclusion of indirect claims from
tho consideration of the tribunal-frst to
guard against the risk Of an adverse judgment
as to their admissibility, and next, to prevent
the adoption of o settled principle which would
lessen the responsibility of q neutral Power in
the future. England would thus escape the
hazard of being called upon to pay damages SO
heavy as to break down the administration
and create serious indignation throughout the
country while in case of war in which
England might be belligerent and America a
neutral our government would be bound by
the strict rules of neutrality laid down in the
treaty, and the limit of our responsibility,
should they be violated, would remain unde-
fined In her efforts to secure these advan-
tages England has proved true to her ira
ditional policy of selfshness and bad faith.
In the cavilling and hairsplitting to which the
English government resorted as an excuse for
rejecting the amended supplemental article
we recognize the determination of the Ministry
not to meet us squarely on the set
Element Of q principle to define for the
future the measure of neutral's respon-
sibility; and in the position taken by Sir
Alexander Cockburn in the Court of Arbitra-
ton the same sharp practice is apparent. Our
government is bound to resent the former and
to resist the latter. The question of any
alteration or explanation of the supplemental
article is now settled and cannot be revived.
The attempt to drive our indirect claims out
of Court by snap judgment must be resisted.
We presume that our government has ex-
planned to our agent ut Geneva that we still
demand q money award for our indirect losses
under the seventh article Of the treaty,
and only imply that we would be will
ing to waive such award in consideration
Of a settlement by the Geneva Tribunal
Of the principle Of n neutrals liability
for indirect damages This being the case, the
English plea raised before the Court, that the
indirect claims, not being for money award,
do not come under the seventh article and
cannot be considered, must fall to the ground.
Our counsel and agent will now doubtless
demand the consideration of our indirect
claims under any circumstances, an2~ if the
Court denies the English application for a
long adjournment few days must settle the
fate of the treaty. AT present, we are happy
to say, the prospect Of its destruction appears
promising.