New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1872-03-06
OPINIONS OF THE EUROPEAN PRESS.

OPINIONS OF THE EUROPEAN PRESS
A SUMMARY OF THE CAsE-AmERicA JUSTIFIED
IN MAKING THE CLAIM FOR INDIRECT Losses
s,o az t,anrr, n.,,h Hms1taniseh, GonO4att Of re- 10
The question of tho Alabama claims when
cation Of the washington TresAN has, through recent
events again obtained such en- mportance saS d ~
suspension Of tho pending negotiations have been 30
grossly exaggerated that 1t may prove S,tSt conceal
oroe the real state Of IT, the s cs ooson
American GoverRpent. shall endsavor 70 t tSa
eRracs from the case Of the United Land before
the Geneva ARBITRATOR In our todays pa Hs,ied
that she had been guilty OF any breach Of good ist
She spurned with contempt the deanas V ., sre aven
an apology and would not admit that thsre was any
pretense OF claim even for arbitrnton Aise' ,h E
rsb in 1869 did enter into treaty with tho
Minister OF that country by which was agreed 70
to sy tSs o the
IL not broad enough TO admit the efsi"s i '''''
which ara now called the indirect losses ,.,
After this time the demands repeated win
greater ZEAL and causes OF arose nes
states High Commission to treat on Ine oo b =,
settling the questions which hd n arisen fepy ~ this
posa the Secretary of state for tho United stas
that the President Thought tost sne h the sev
growing out of the acts by 'ns
eral vessels which have given re 20 the eias se.ol
ally known as the Alabama CLAIMS wal M rsseS ~ nv
the proposed High Commission 40 ms prSpoS sns M,
GLAND
eaIy among other things agreed refer 20 arbitrator
the claims growing out Of the acts oommten " .no
Alabama and other vessels escaped ,r9 aims This the
Joint High Commission adopt IN INC a, i" ny
the Language r OF 5he doas pos now deny
that the language is broad enoaga The ,rS;yeet
both the direct losses by those ships ana Iae gand
now says they did not so understand the
for commentator not only for the direct losses from
those vessels for indirect losses arising from Ins
existence, their suocesses ana inc asr sS II
wellknown that Treaty had been relectod DecaS
did not include hsse ahes TO noas those
claims or reject them the latter II was very easy
To nse language which should debar them plainly But
no such was used On the other hand language
used which plainly embraces them H. d bat
claims can submitted under the Treaty England aoes
not assent this, but assumes herself 10 say uas
insist upon its own construction OF an agreement
and itself terminate the agreement, by say
ing that they understand In the same manner
s the other marty claims understand 1t What treaty
or contract cannot annuled by this course Apery
aaS o and ~ The reference is ended L. position
sisent with the position OF England IN relation 70 .
Russian Treaty Of isSS Tasn 'ne '''A 90 SUZUKI
the United ses' to the Englsh members OF the same
Commission an amicabe settlement OF the AiaDanla
claims between themselves ana wspoat any
might be termed direct losses some OF wncn tney
other They CLAIMS nsS SSSn might be
Indirect losses" and which they reduced, but
s,ated that they made estimate OF them, IN
h home OF An amicabe settlement between themselves
wtbo,it prejudice their right to press them II tns
amcabIe settlement not made. They therefore pro-
nosed that the Commission should agree 70 pay nxea
members declined They declined TO agree that England
should consent amcably to pay any sum OF money
They however in their turn, proposed MDi,
tration provided the points TO DO reierreu c0ulu
he agreed upon. The United states members
stated that they regretted the refusal OF their PROPOSE
tons hut finally agreed To accept the proposal OF
England Thus attention called 10 the CHARACTER VI
the losses, both direct and indirect wnlch eno t6
points to be referred Of sSrssns aPsS wsre
in the Treaty which plainly admit both claims for
direct indirect loss. There exception to
limitation Of claims be presented 10 the Arbitration.
England denied liability FOR any damages. The United
States claim damages for all losses growing out OF the
OF certain vessels These losses could be divided
direct and indirect losses Tue proposition of the
United States the II it said II England
will waive the question of liability will waive our
claims TO the indirect losses and England shall pay
of money equal the amount of the direct losses.
says will refer the whole matter to arbitration, both
the question of liability and all claims growing out of
the OF these vessels" England did the
question of liability the United States asked in their
proposal Why should the United states then be held ~
continue their waiver, which they had consented to
make inducement after England had refused the
proposal The offer Of compromise having been re-
settlement is proposed and accepted and terms
agreed upon No has right 10 refer To any OF the
terms In the proposal Of the United states after its re-
lection unless they expressly repeated In the or
counter proposal What do the English members OF the
Joint High Commission themselves upon this pointl