The Emporia news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1859-1881, 1872-05-24
THE ALABAMA CLAIMS

When it was announced that, by
the terms of the treaty of Washing
ton, the settlement of the Alabama
claims would be secured amicably
and satisfactorily, the two nations
congratulated themselves and each
other, and the world applauded the
triumph of common sense in set
Ting a question peaceably which it
was quite generally believed would
continue TO be a source of irritation
between England and the United
States until it would eliminate in a
war and be quoted only by she'd
ding the blood of their sons. While
it is assumed by many journalists
that the presentation OF the claims
for consequential damages was a
mistake on the part of the Admin
istration, we can not see how, with
due regard for the rights of his
Government and his duty, the Pres
ident could have omitted the claims
as presented to the Geneva Confer
ence for indirect damages, so call
ed. In our civil courts, the ques-
ton of damages is not confined to
the mere destruction of property in
suits brought against individuals,
but all attending circumstances, the
loss of time, incidental expendi-
lures, real and probable annoyance,
ETC., are often taken into considera-
ton in actions brought for dam
age. In the case of the Alabama
claims there were no items enumer-
ated that could not be proved to be
legitimate expenditures of the
Government TO repair the evil done
us by the pirate cruisers sent out
from British ports to aid the rebel
lion, and if there is any good rea-
son why England should not pay
these "indirect' claims as well as
the direct ones, we confess we are
unable to see it. 1t was the Presi-
dents duty to press these disputed
claims. He would have been dere-
lect in his duty to the country if he
had not done so, fact that would
have elected a greater volume of
abuse from the Liberal" and Demo-
cratic press than his course IN this
matter has evoked. In fact there
was no cutlery against the claims
made by the opposition TO the adj
ministration until after Johnny Bull
began to below about them, and
now Grant is charged with making
a blunder in pressing the claims for
inferential damages upon the board
of arbitrator.
The British acted like fools in this
case. They agreed 10 submit the
claims to the arbitration of the
Geneva Conference, and should
have kept their mouths shut until
action had been taken on the claims
by that Conference. By the terms
of the treaty of Washington there
was no exception, Limitation or res
ervation in relation to the nature
or amount of the demands to be
presented by this Government to
the Geneva board, and no word in
that treaty forbids, positively or
inferentially, the presentation of
claims for consequential damages.
while in the protocols accompany
ing the treaty they are distinctly al
luded to as part of our complaint.
In short, we have no reason to think
that the British government was
ignorant of the nature of the claims
this government would present to
the Geneva conference, and the re-
fusal to accede to the terms of the
Treaty of Washington on the part
of the Gladstone ministry is only
another instance of the bad faith
and treachery of that government
towards the United States. The
treaty of Washington is a failure
because of British dupiicity, and no
supplementary provision that may
be agreed upon between diplomatic
Representatives of the two govern
ments hereafter will in the least
mitigate the force of this truth, to-
wit: That the harmonious rela-
tons OF England and the United
States have been jeopardized in this
case, as in former ones, by the
dealing OF the British min
istry.
Tho advance guard of pioneers