The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-06-02

,o,re IN mind that whatever may have been the
demands originally known rs the Alabama claims
and however ommit,eG by the 'oI sn
cruisers, pretensions had subsequently been
advanced based on the Views expressed
by MIR. Sumner in well-known speech
In the Thirty-sixth protocol 1t is stated that
the American Commissioners set forth the claims
which they regarded growing out Of the acts of
the Alabama and other vessels, ana these claims
included those demands TO which we have since so
strennously objected For our present purpose IL
Is unnecessary TO inquire whether the amicahie
settlement In consideration OF which they con-
sented to waive the Indirect Claims was, in the
opinion OF the British Commissioners effected by
tue Treaty OF Washington. The material point Is
that those claims had been formally advanced were
never formally Withdrawn, and were not specit-
cally excluded from the field OF arbitration by the
provisions Of the Treaty. How was Ii, therefore,
the public asked that the Treaty drawn up In
rs present terms, and how came 1t that men oil IN
teiigence, assisted by an able lawyer asscnted toi
an order OF reference which passed these eXtraor
binary claims stib siie5cfo. The explanation ia 10
DC found In Earl Gfanve's late dispatches 10 Nh.
Fish,
1t is perfectly clear that the possibility OF the In
direct claims being advanced was recognized by
the British commissioners at the time they were
drawing up the treaty which was To prove an
amiablc settlement, and we have Earl Granvilles
word for 10 that IL was not until latter heightened
discussion in the Commission that the terms OF
reference as they now stand In the treaty were
settled the commissioners having previously
objected to form OF reference TO the arbitra-
tors which might from Its vagueness be taken
Ito permit the introduction OF the indirect
clalS.' Sucn, tntn, pclnp tic case, ~ II plhceu
beyond all doubt that the British Commits
!soncrs were alive to the danger with which
we were threatened If the language of the treaty
was LETT at all vague, and that they sought to pro-
tect those whom they represented against such al
danger. But why, III that case, did they not use
precise languageg The explanation, probably, Is
that the British Commissioners were led by their
American colleagues TO believe that II the indirect
claims We're expressly excluded by the terms OF the
treaty there might possibly be u difficulty in OBJ
tanlng the assent OF the Senate to hatinstrument
In other words the British Commissioners were
persuaded to assent to the treaty being drawn up
In language purposely vague, but on the under
standing that the indirect claims would never be
advanced by the American Executive. Earl Gran
ville in his final despatch, writes that "the British
Commissioners, In the information given to my gov
eminent, both during the negotiations and since the
prcsen tation ofthe American case have uniformly
maintained that the claims for Indirect losses were
not included, nor intended by them to he included,
In the terms OF the submission to arbtration and
Sir Stafford N0rthcote, In his speech at Exeter,
said I'VE, the Commissioners. were distinctly re-
spOnsbe for having represented to the government
that we understood promise to bc given that
these claims were not to be put forward by the
United States.N
There was, then, an understanding" and "prom-
Use y but we tempted to inquire what neces-
|sity was there for the one or the other If 1t was
desirable that the indirect claims should not be
presented the simplest mode one would suppose,
would have been to say so In the order OF reference
embodied in the treaty. But, instead OF doing 80,
the British Commissioner deliberately go out of
their way TO leave the language OF the treaty so
vague Us to necessitate promise and an under
standing, for 1t must be universally conceded that,
(n the language Of the treaty were clear, or|
lat least clear enough to satisfy the British
commissioners, they would have asked for no
promise from their colleagues, and the under
standing would have been unnecessary. The result
which every one ought to have anticipated has fol
lowed. The government OF the United States have
straned the treaty to serve their own purposes and
the difficulty of proving the promise and the under
standing is admitted by Sir Stafford Northcote
when he says, 'f we are to maintain this position
we Of course must be brought into painful rela-
tions and perhaps painful questions, between our
selves and our American COLLEAGUES on the Commits
sionn 1t seems therefore, that the error from which
much evil has sprung was much more deliberate
than we at first supposed, and that the British
commissioners, with a perfect knowledge OF the
risk they were running, preferred promise and an
understanding to drawing the treaty in unequivo-
cal language. Another conclusion We are also most
|unwilrgly compelled to draw-namely, that the
arguments by which the government have hitherto
maintained that the treaty taken with the proto-
coils, clearly and unequvocay barred the indirect
claims are stripped OF much oil their valnc. III the
treaty regarded by them or their Commits
lsoners, why receive and act upon representation
that separate promise had been gwen not to
present claims which eg hgpo1teSt could never be
IadvancedS