The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-06-11
FQE WASHINGTON TREATY.
What Professor Montague Bernard Knows Of
. tho Treaty and the Alabama Claims.


b Blame for an 0versight-Ihe
Relations at Present Between
the Two Countries.
reh~. f LONDON. May 20, 1871
N. Montague Bernard. Chichele Professor Of In
Sensational Law, delivered lecture yesterday In
tAe University Museun oxford. before large
and1ence. on .sYhe Treaty OF Washington.n Mr..
Hsrnard spoke ct some length on the questions Of
the Canadian fisheries, the northwest boundary and
ether portions OF the treaty. He stated that he
was sattsAed that tho course which the commits
s1oners had been directed to pursue regards the
Withdrawal Of the claims on account OF the Fenian
raids was right. On the question Of the Alabama
slaims he spoke as folows:- -w -
There we're
sHvIRAL OBSTACLES
0ore o. leas serious In the way Of that anal ana
emicable settlement Of this question Of which Mr.
vsh had spoken In one Of his ocial letters to Sir
inward Thornton, "a principal object Of negotia
.ton- In the nrst place. the views Of the two nations
- to their respective rights were az far asunder
- east nom west. America believed that she had
sustained great and multiplied injuries at
the hands OF England England, on the contrary,
maintained her conviction that although American
commerce had sufleted severely nom the Confed-
crate cruisers, America had received no injury for
which England could justly be regarded IS respon-
-sible. Again, the complaint on account Of these
lesses had, In the minds Of the American people
been persstently blended and confused with other
complaints Of the conduct Of England during the
var, founded ON her early declaration Of neutrality
On the trafic with blookaded ports In the Confed-
crate states and the like. Prom these 1t was neces-
cary that 1t should be extrcated before 1t could be
submitted to arbitration for as to them no such
reference could be accepted by this government;
but. further, convention which provided for
reference to arbitration had previously been re-
tected by the American Senate, and 1t was
understood, though not oficially made known
70 the government Of England, that the chief
reason for this had been the exclusion
. from the terms of reference Of the other
supposed grievances to which have referred.
There was reason, therefore, to expect that some
1iniculty might be found in coming to an agree
pent on this subject and no little difficulty In
op the terms OF an agreement ne IN ,orm
acOepk There Is no DOUBT that at the time
WHEN THE COMMISSIONERS MET AT WASHINGTON
- possible two alternative modes OF disposng OF
this question-the payment and acceptance Of
reference to arbitration Nor can it be doubted
chat to either Of these IL was prepared to agree,
mat certain Conditions were attached to the refer
once. The nrst alternative (Which would have In
e. S Se 'as
{ CT by the American commissioners and rejected
On the part OF the British the whole discussion was
afterwards confined to the second. Il may here OBJ
6erye that what the Americans indicated as the
basis Of calculation for the suggested money pay
sruisers ftted out or enabled 70 augment tneir
brce In Great Britain or her colonies and for ex-
these estimates, as now presented at Geneva, are
buno to amount to between five and six millions
TIE DISCUSSION DURING IT'S NEXT STAGE,
which was protracted over long time, turned on
certain rules or principles which the Americans
wished to have settled by consent for the guidance
sisns they urged to throw open the whole Question
arbitrator or arbitrators, whose decision might
siby be at variance with the Views Of both nations,
the
aeS S nsd e d Rc a %
init the force Of these objections, and preferred an
material Concession, doubtless but not Without
ts advantages. This government had experienced
Ta the
% prohibited Instructed by this experience It had
revised its own municipal law, and 1t regarded as
desirable for the general interests Of peace and not
least for British interests, some increase OF pre-
CisiOn and strngency In the recognized law OF ma
hons Further, it must be observed that, while
constantly maintaining that
THE MUNICIPAL LAW OF ENGLAND
- 1t existed during the war, did not furnish the
measure Of her International Duties the govern
nent had never hesitated to make the ADMISSION
that II tRe law Of England, even where 1t exceeded
the bounds Of those duties had not been fairly ex-
pcutcd and administered during the war, this would
have given to tue United States reasonable cause
pr complaint and might furnish an equitable ground
TOR reparatlon. From these considerations to
The an IN Of an e
ment be reached) as q standard for the past as
wen cs for the future, was not very long step 1t
tberately resolved to take. 1t remained, however,
10 settle what the rules should be- rules proposed
sssS s sS
invited to propose counter project IN their turns
rns tHs
y during the
rules were framed as they now sta6d II the sixth
article OF the treaty. When these were settled
Of p sS the Ss
sovereign or head OF State as an arrangement
better guarantee OF responsibility. Under the plan
finally agreed to (Which Y IN sSoStanSe G9mn9I2;
pry enc Of e the
B proper selection to the soverelgns or govern
%snss by Whom those ere respectively
60 = THE MUoM-vExED QUESTION
Of las they Are now cailed the indirect claims OF,
nsy p Ds Sses win as
directly and proximatey occasioned by given act
or default; indirect losses those which can only be
traced to It Indirectly or remotely through chaln
or sequence Of intermediate causes. by general
principles common to all systems Of jurisprudence
and founded on reason, the former are customarily
taken into account In determining the measure OF
liability for any proved default; the latter are not
taken into account. For at each fresh step, when
you attempt to pursue the consequences OF any
human action, other causes enter In TO
assist or control the operation OF the
0rrt; the circle soon widens Indefinitely and
escapes the possibility OF any inst computation.
There IL at the same time no definite and ascer-
tanned line OF demarcatiOn between the two classes
hut in practce there Is rarely much difficulty in de-
gliding what losses may properly be assigned TO one
and what to the other.
THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON
II caron,lv framed to embrace only specific claims,
such as had previously become known to both gov,
ernmcnts under the name oil the Alabama cialMso
for losses and damages caused by the acts Oh certn
vessels OF which the Alabama was the typical IN
stance Further, the losses must be sucn as can pe
fairly ascribed to failure OF duty on the part
OF England In respect Of those vessels ana IN max
ing award each vessel is to be taken separatey.
But beyond this the treaty does not dehne py e%