The Tipton advertiser. [volume] (Tipton, Cedar Co., Iowa) 1856-1962, 1872-02-15

Az OvOS dPt~uI uAc tuat uc
asked, mortified.
I'm sure, John, you don't intend
to, but I'm afraid you make Us all very
uncomfO Portable sometimes"
(" Then I'll turn over new leaf,
Mary, and whats more, I thank you
for the lesson"
From that time forth, John Golding
strove tn get his peevishness and fault
finding under command, and found
his own happiness as well as his wife's
greatly increased thereby.
Our Case Before the Geneva Arbi.
| traitors.
At last we have an explanation of
the outcry in Great Britain which has
followed the publication of the printed
"Case" of our government, as present
ed 70 the Geneva Commission on the
Alabama claims. The great outrage
on justice which we have committed,
in view of the London journals, II
that our government has given an
implied promise not TO claim compen-
satlon for indirect damages, such as
the prolongation Of the war and the
like and that, in spite Of its promise,
the case in question does urge the in
direct injury done us IN aggravation Of
Of damages.
This complaint il most plausioly set
forth by the London Spectator, whicl,
gives It substantially Is follows: At
the Washington conference on March
8, 1871, the American Commissioners
said that claims already presented
for damages done by British cruisers
amounsed to $14.OOO, 600 that there
might yet be large sums added to this;
and that the cost to the government
OF pursuing these ships could easily be
determined. They added that, lin
| tho hope of an amicable settlement, !,
no estimate was made of the indirect
losses, without prejudice, however, to
the right Of indemnification on their
account, in the event OF no such set
tlement being made" The American
commissioners then asked two things:
An expression Of regret on the part of
Great Britain for the depredations
committed by the British vessels, and
m agreement by the Commission at
once upon certain gross sum to be
paid BY Great Britain, in satisfaction
Of all claims, with interest.
The British Commissioners agre ell
to put on record the expression Of re
gret asked for, but declined to agree
upon any gross sun, to be paid, believ-
ing that there was still a defence
which, in case Of arbitration, might
protect them from the necessity of
paying anything. The American
Commissioners accepted the express.
ion Of regret "as very satisfactory to
them aud as token of kindness. =
Now the Spectator insists, and other
British journals assume, that the
treaty which followed was an "amica-
ble settlement" that 1t was doutly
30 In view Of the cordia. acceptance by
our Commissioners Of the expression
of regret made in it; and that having
reached this settlement, the United
/ States were bound to avoid making
any claim whatever fo. indirect DAM
ages thereafter. In presenting the
frightful looseness Of conscience which
permits our government thus to break
Its implied promise, the Speotator be-
comes strangely hewildered. aud finds
Itself wholly unable to explain the
matter consistently with its resp ect
for our country.
| Tue London press Is childish.
There is no other word which fairly
describes its state Of mind in peevishly
and obstinately adhering to the appar-
ent sense OF one incidental word, aud
binding itself to the meaning Of q
whole series Of negotiations. Tho facts
are these !: The United States made q
definite offer to settle the whole case
at once IN the Joint High Commission,
by accepting an expression Of regret
and the payment Of gross sum to be
fixed by them. This was the precise
amicable settlement" they asked,
and they offered, in direct connection
with this proposition, to fix the gross
sum to be paid with reference solely to
direct damages, leaving out Of sight
the indirect. While they made this
offer, IL such q settlement should be
made at once, they expressly reserved
the right to urge all claims, for indi.
rect as well as direct damages, IL 1t
were not made.
The Xpectdttr quibbles on the word
amicable." and can see no other
word In the whole history. It asks |:
Was not the treaty an amicable set.
tlement?" We answer what every
schoolboy knows, that the treaty was
amicable," just as much so as tho
Spectator insists, but In no sense q
settlement" Our proposition was,
II the High Commission would set.
tie" the case, 70 sbandon certain
claims. The Commission refused to
settle 1t, aud adopted treaty which
merely provides means for the future
settlement Of 1t. 1t Is evident, there.
fore, that the refusal to settle it, re.
manced Us to all our rights and claims
in that future settlement.
! Precisely similar cases occur In
courts Of Justice every day. Bef IRE I
cause Is tried the counsel for plaintiff
offers to accept round sum - . ret
tlsment Of the case, without preju
die !" that h to say, ressrving the ful
right, II The offer II rejected, to pres