Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1872-02-14
THE ALABAMA WAR-CLOUD.



NEW York, Feb. 15.--The London
Times Of Jan. 20, says of the Geneva arbi-
tration; that the Protocol of May 4,
1871, coupled with the provisions Of subse-
quent articles, is sufficient to show that the
claims for indirect losses were not contem-
plated. Whether the claims for direct
losses are admissible, in respect Of all the
vessels comprised in the American list is a
question left open by the treaty, therefore
properly cognizable by the arbisrators. It
argues that Great Britain would have ter
minated the treaty conference had it un-
derstood that demand would be made for
losses on account Of the prolongation of
the war that the agreement was entirely
onessided that the arbitrator have to
judge the Cond1ct Of Englad nby rules that
are unjust.
10 Discussion till Discussion Is Useless
LONDON, Feb. 13.-At meeting held by
the Anglo American Association last night
to consider the questions before the Geneva
arbitrator for indirect damages, a resolu-
ton was adopted that it would not publicly
discuss the Alabama difficulty while there
was hope Of its being settled in friendly
spirit.
Financial View.
NEW YORK, Feb. 13.-Messrs. Henry
Clews & Co., Of this city, received to-day
cable advices from their London house Of
Clews, Haloricht & Co, government agents,
confirming the recovery Of American secu-
rites from the decline in values occasioned
by the recent panic, and adding also that
the violent foundations of the American
government by the English Ministry meets
reprObation throughout London financial
circles, and that a conciliatory feeling is
manifested by the public at large, showing
itself in some instances by demand for a
change in the Ministry. They see no cause
for the apprehensions which have been so
prevalent.
In the House of Lords.
LONDON, Feb. 19.-An attempt was made
to bring the subject of the Alabama claims
before the House of Lords to-day for de-
bate. Baron Redesdale proposed to the
Government the following question:
Can A. and B., partners, sue G. for frauds
and defendant G. proves that B., one of the
plaintiffs acted with him in committing the
fraud, whether such proof would not be
a complete answer and debar them from
AL damages.
Applying this to the questions at issue
with the United States, he argued that the
North and South were now partners in the
Alabama Claims. If the law in the case of
persons was good, 1t ought to hold in regard
to nations.
Mr.. Granville said a discussion of the
treaty of Washington at the present juno
ture was undesirable, and he decided to
answer the question put by Mr.. Redesdale.
Several Lords expressed their regret tina t
Parliament was the only place where the
treaty could not be mentioned. They de-
clared that the Government ought to pub
lish the English case and other documents
connected with the Alabama claims and
give the British people an opportunity of
enjoying the advantages which the Ameri-
cans possessed for the discussion of pending
issues.
Lord Granville again declined to reply,
but said if melton was made for the pUb-
LEGATION of the English case it would be laid
before the House.
The motion was made and adopted.