New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1872-02-22

10 an Instrument under which these claims can o tight
rantahly produced supported. Cheersl INV I'D
honorable gentleman has spoken OF their M bmte
has SAID that they o SynnSsSed at
termination Of sangunary war; thiun osds no had
the right honorable gentleman used moss M Germany
on France-paymens four times six times anu even bIs
times great furnished by any ay made by
tory do not know that the payment actuhiy ho W
France after the great amounted 10 lhoIe 'n"n
fourth fifth part Of that sum- .oor,oon cass does
figure for the indirect loss put !, supplies nr
data from which figures may be cOmPuneH o tose o data
but, far Judgment can DO formed upon theni,
and comparing them with the ome,ai ss1a' Of
the cost Of the Secession War, the statement o OF
the right honorable gentleman, bold as 1t was NV
in my opinion, not only Within but very conslGeraS
within, their extreme limits lCheers only say .o
to show that IN my opinion, nothing that mas eny
way partaken Of exaggeration But 1t is not tne,s IL
amount on which we stand, exceptlngJISsimns ia an
mportant-that the amount OF me Cia ta wbStber
important element In the argument as 70 rnter
II possible conceivable that IL coui , AN %,
any such claim at all [Choers.l The right honorable
gentleman has very properly h The CoD,missonors
are not responsible and while Parliament not RESPONSE
ble the whole Of the rests WIN te pS
ment in this great matter Is between the members OF
the House of Commons and their constituents IL isior
them. and not for US, TO establish PaInanentary re-
sponsblity is to be established at all do not entirely
apprehend or follow the doctrine OF the right honorao
gentleman the subject OF the ratification OF the treaty
but 1t is not for me to enter into contest Win
him upon the subject, because entirely agree WIN MN
that the Government cannot cast OIL any part or their re-
sponsblty upon Parliament sun is 1t more true Win
regard to the Commission and when consider how muca
indebted to them for their intelligent patent hnu
energetic abOr cannot but regret TO see cast upon them
the blame Of What Fns S9GFTd The esTe O
There is one other point which the right honorable
orable gentlemen have fresh in their minds the protocols
Of last year. but in OF the recitas the American Com
mssioners are stated to have produced very csreIu
classified sketch OF the claims they were about 10
make. These claims were divided by them into
direct loss and indirect loss due to the Alabama and her
sisters Among the indirect losses come te premium OF
Insurance. the loss Of trade the proongaon of the war;
and the addition to the cost of the war by s proonga-
tiOna claim perfectly distinct from that made ior tne
prolongation of the war. Now, what are me direct
which would present itself TO any impartial man
Wh Of the 6o, G5d To%a Dy by the
cruisers and they nothing else. The American Com
cargoes destroyed by the Alabama and sister ships but
likewise for the whole charge incurred by the American
of these vessels ana our liability in this respect we con
sented to refer TO arbitration not sure that have
show to tins country show to the United states and show
to the civilized world, that we are not using merely
were determined TO stretch to the utmost all the
considerations which were capable OF undergoing such
national safety should be rsked for the object priced
dearlynamey, the thorough reGstahshment OF cor
matter for discussion and consideration whether these
concessions were too large However, l need not cay
that If we have gone these lengths, If have made
these remarkable concessions, II they are epDodied
in the Treaty, ard il we arc prepared to abide by
them, there must at last, somewhere or another,
be close TO such proceedings. lCheers.l And
now the right honorable gentleman has put to me GER
can without minute and precise reference to docn
ments such do happen have at hand The right
honorable gentleman has put TO one question Of the
greatest NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. in the debate in June.
1871 carried IN the House OF Lords and reported in
Hausard. book with which we know the negotia-
tors Of this Treay in America 10 be familiar, several
Ministers OF the Crown did not declare IN terms the most
explicit that had obtained the exclusion of these
claims for indirect loss from the matters 70 be submitted
tenan assumes and think is right in assuming that
the knowledge Of the American Government, and
this statement and this assumption, beth
t fGna pes Whether any protest. ha BEEN
made the part of the United states against those per
swor is as brief and simple possiblethat no pro
test of the kind within my knowledge has been made in
LEHMAN says he will not ask me what Communication we
have made to the Government Of the United States but
he presses me upon the point as 10 when became
with The American case and upon what date
our communication was made 10 the American GOV
need scarcely say that tle first duty of the whole
strength of the Foreign once was me preparation OF the
ened il to be translated for the use OF some of
that bestowed upon the original. The American
500 or 600 pages When it arrived it had to printed
for the use of the Cabinet. believe that the right
month elapsed since the Case first sent to the
Foreign Office, but it has not been in my possession for
think more than fortnight, while the other membeTs
OF the Government have not had il quite so long The
scrutiny he institutes, but matter III winch we would
step without repeated deliberations and 1t was,
toned in }6e speech was actually forwarded hnk
have answered the questions OF the right honorable gen
have made The Queen has been advised to say to the
Houses OF Parliament: Cases have been laid before
In the Case so submitted on behalf of the United
States, large claims have been included which are
food 10 De
TToSnce Of the Arbtrstors have stated that
eve that to be adequate for the first words in tins mat
fer bat am from saying that IL will also be ade
ouate for the last words 1t has been assumed mat
fhere ia great ambiguity IL this document ana there
ia il undoubtedly follows that very serious blame
of a document of such Importance in terms Of such
smmqnitv. II has been repeatedly sad-I speak
of many of the articles which nave read in the London
Journals on this suJect-that really never meant It,
and that therefore beg to be let off, But we do not
mean merely to take stand upon the ambiguity OF
the Treaty we do not to allow in argument that
there are two contradictory senses, either OF which
ness be put forward. We have advised the Queen
"a mt in her Speech what believe we can show
IN he the meaning and the only meanlDg-that Is the
oDiy rational meaning the direct grammatical meaning.
Standard ana not Of several CONFLICTING and com
petng meanings which can attach to the Treaty but tho
iHst meaning which it uncquivOcally bears. Cheers
do not hesitate to that so far "a we are concerned
medium OF doubtful and disputed Interpretation. 1t
is never safe to say in argument exactly what
You will do until you hear what the other side have to
saw and as we have not that advantage speak with
some reserve. But far as We can judge according to
fbe best critical process can apply to this document,
we see no reason admit that any fault III point OF am
bigity has been committed and We shall appeal to the
direct and authentic sense OF the document itself for
frmation. At the time we do not make that ap-
neal alone We appeal to the declarations referred to by
The right honorable gentlemantO the public decara-
lions of the British Government In juno last uncon-
radced and received without protest in any quarter
The different articles OF the Treaty afford distinct
and independent argument OF great force in favor OF the
INTERPRETATION for which claim an entire and para
mount authority We do not think that the First Article
taken by ITSELF bears the construction endeayOred to be
attached to it, We contest that point and, OF course,
we reserve ourselves the right to fall back on the plea