Semi-weekly Louisianian. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1871-1872, 1872-02-18
THE DIFFICULTIES OF ARBITRATION

servers, the Washington cores
pondents, into the belief that the
Treaty Of Washington is in no dan
ger. 1t is in very considerable
danger, and the danger comes from
a source which must fill those who,
like ourselves, valued the treaty nc
less as precedent than as a means
OF terminating an existing quarrel,
with genuine concern /; for the diff
ference which has arisen is one
which well illustrates the difficult
ties which attend, and must attend,
all attempts to decide great inter
national questions by arbitration.
We believe nothing was better un-
derstood by both parties, when the
Treaty of Washington was under
negotiation, than that the question
of consequential damages-that is.
the question whether England was
responsible for the loss caused by
the prolongation of the war after the
escape of the "Alabama"-was not
question of dispute between the
two countries. Mr.. Sumner made a
great uproar by trying to put this
question into the guise of a legal
proposition, but no sensible man,
lay or professional, in either coun-
try, gave his performance any at
tention, except as passionate ex-
preston Of feeling likely to create a
good deal of popular excitement. 1t
was never considered by any lawyer
as a question which could be grave
ly submitted to any human tribu-
nal. The American Commissioners
produced it, as the newspapers pro-
duced it, as general and vague
description of the American cause
of complaint against England,
to be used in the further pro-
secution of the quarrel in case no
"amicable settlement" was arrived
at. But nobody hoped or be-
lieved that a thousand million dol
lars, the sum Germany has wrung
from unhappy France at the point
of the bayonet, was to be obtained
from England by any process short
of war. 1t was evident from the
protocol that the British Commis-
sioners were under the impression
that they met and disposed of this,
the immeasurable, incompatible,
and therefore sentimental part Of
the American complaint, by their
expression of regret and their
to give the three rules
an er-postJacto operation. 'Appar-
emily the American Commissioners
accepted these concessions in this
sense, but, as so often happens
where two disputants, after being
much embittered against each other,
come to terms and make up" un-
expectedly, there was SO much "ef-
fusion" over the apology that both
sides forgot to put on paper what it
was the apology atoned for. 1t
would now appear that the British
looked on it as quieting and for
ever disposing of that vast noun
tain of indirect and incalculable
wrong of. which the Americans had
so often made threatening mention,
eaving nothing to be paid for in
cash except what could be exactly
appraised. The Americans, on the
,ther hand, seem to have looked on
he apology as simply an expression
If contrition which it was the moral
luty of the British to make, but
which in no degree modified the
relations of the parties before the
aw, and which left the conse-
luential damages in their old
,osition-that is, good things to
lrge on the attention of whom
t might concern, as an embel-
ishment or aggravation of the
case, even if there was no
nope of getting them recognized
oy the arbitrators. This view of
he matter, however, unfortunately
'ound no expression anywhere, but
t would seem to have been excluded
rom the Treaty by the provision
hat the arbitrators should consider
he damage done by each vessel
separately. 1t is easy enough to