New-York tribune., 1872-07-15
THE DECISION OF THE ARBlTRAToRs AGAINST
TILE United STATES on THE INDIRECT

| THE DECISION OF THE ARBlTRAToRs A"AlNSr
THE UNITED STATES on THE INDIRECT
I CLAJMs-VIEWS OF CALEB CUsHlNG-HOW
THE DECISION ORIGINATED.
| TFRoM REGULAR CORRESPONDENT OF THE TRIBUSBl
| GENEVA, June 29-BefOre this letter can
reach you the indirect claims and much OF the trouble
they caused both sides the Atlantic, will be thing or
the past but nevertheless, 10 may possibly be worth
while to explain how the chief actors in drama which
has not been altogether credable to the existing Amer
can Government themselves for having subjected
themselves and the nation they serve TO the humiliation
of the utter rejection OF the indirect claims The theory
mt forward by the American officials here is that
they a quite contented with the action OF the Court
All arsradant and persist in declaring to all they meet
that Giants Administration has great diplomatic
yictory This morning called Mr.. Gushing to hear
his op Mon on the judgment of the Court found him
very cleery he always is and evidently determined
TO represent the result Of the last SIX months bunder
| ing asa victory for Gen. Grant.
"W" said al have to you to find out what Is
the lest answer TO make TO my English friends about
the rdeeon of these National claims, you prefer TO
call tlem for can tell you are laughed at most
heartily John Bull is In high feather, and his remarks
are natfer pleasant easy answer" Let those
laugh that win." Mr.. Cushings reply. We have
every reason be satisfied with the judgment OF the
Arb rtors There two for our satisfaction
The fst Ia that have compelled the British Govern
ment % recognize the supremacy OF the Tr buna and
have maintained throughout the long controversy
which has been going on between Washington and
Iondo--namely, that question of the admissbihty
of the indirect claims ought TO be submitted TO the
Tribunal of Arbitration. The second have for
satisfation at the result is that have succeeded in
obtaining a Judgment the Indirect or National
claims As 10 the boast Of the English press that we
hayebeen non suited, that do not think amounts to
much Nothing is more common in law practice than
for apeal courtswhch this Tribunal really In effect
jnasnuch there s higher court except indeed that
I'm yheh guns and monitors the arbtrator
to hve settle questions OF extent OF Jurisdiction The
paini-and it be too often and too forcbly
stated that the United States are the plain
tiGs and Great Britain the defendant in the
nreent instance-is continually endeay0ring 10 raise
pos on which 1t is at necessary for the Court TO
decide whether Jurisdiction. Nor 1t needfu for
the defendant to the Court to decide Judge
staItly says counsel Regarding such and such
po do propose TO hear counsel, the Court being
OF pnion that those points 1t has no Jurisdiction.
Tbis exactly what the Arbitrat0rs have said In the
preent instance" ado you think people will be sat
isad I'm the United States with the result" asked.
nT,ose that have claims will, l am very sure"
laufhed Mr.. Caleb Cushing thus parrying my
one,tion, and avoiding expression of
oni,ton on the diplomacy Of the Washington
Cabinet a. who the author of this arrangement
Inv which the indirect claims ruled cannot
either ade who had good deal to do with It, You
aware that / have always been OF the opinion that
pvarts Wayte ana / could soon manage matters with
Sir Rornde Palmer allowed freedom OF action
We have gone 10 the utmost limit OF instructions in
this matter and think both countries ought thank
for the result The London Times, see says IL is all
dne In Mr. Adams. That is wrong. So, too, Is Mr..
Gladstone In stating that the indirect claims forever
dsposed OF. Morally, the present Administration cannot
hiring the national claims forward again either before
this or any ,other Tribunal, but any may In
nv indemen nt raise the question Of the liability OF Great
Rritsn for national claims, mot, OF course before the
nresent arbitratOrs, whenever IL 1t." "And we
NAV have another Administration soon perhaps" added
MFR Cushing with smile. In TO my question
whether Art XII Of the Treaty Of Washington does not
bar All further claims OF all kinds he answered:
"No Sir; it would have done so # the British
Government had not. by their attitude and their
svowed intention never 10 allow the indirect
claims 10 be regularly adlEdeated upon produced
exnression oi opinion from the Tribunal OF Arbitration
sn far as the indirect claims concerned In other
words they decide that those claims outside OF the
Treaty therefore they not affected by that part Of
fs Xth article which that the result OF the pro
eeedpgs OF the Tribunal Of Arbitration 10 be consid
cred as full perfect, and final settlement of all the
claims heembefore referred to- Ii IA selfeyident that
the Indirect claims cannot, after this decision OF the
Arbtrat0rs be considered AZ hercnbcfoe referred to-
It may be worth whi'e 10 mention that the secrecy