The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-05-07
The Alabama Claims Muddlc-Floun-
dcring ON Both Sides.

point in the Alabama claims OF submitting the
claim for consequential damages to the Geneva
Board of Arbitration seem to thicken every
day Both the British government and our
own are foundering in the ENHANCEMENT in
which tortuous and overreaching diplomacy
has involved them. The governing powers of
both countries are 80 bound by political con-
siderations or necessity that there appears to
be little hope of unravelling this ENHANCEMENT
Our special dispatches from Washington show
that the government there is in a quandary and
that the different members and branches of it
are not in accord upon the disputed question
or the policy to pursue with regard to it. 1t is
evident, too from our London news both by
telegraph and letters, that the British govern
ment is in similar embarrassed situation.
Both General Grants administration and the
Gladstone Cabinet desire to find solution of
the middle and to carry out the Treaty of
Washington for the sake of establishing the
best relations between the two countries and
for the ecld which that would bring to them.
But the matter has been 80 mismanaged that
the precious fruit Of promise which they
eagerly grasped has turned to ashes in their
mouths. Judging from our latest intelligence
the deadlock has become mora difficult of re-
moval than ever.
AS is generally known the question ct issue
is simply whether the United States will with
draw the claim for consequential damages en-
bodied in the case submitted to the Geneva
Board of Arbitration or not. No other diff
Guilty has arisen, nor is likely to arise, APP
parently, in carrying out the Treaty of Wash
ington. Great Britain stands firmly on the
ground she took that the claim for conse-
quential damages must not be considered or
acted upon by the Geneva Board of Arbitra-
ton; that it was never intended in making
the treaty that this claim should be submitted,
and that she cannot go before the Board for
arbitration with the Alabama claims unless
the United States withdraws the claim for con-
sequential or indirect damages. Though she
has given in her case and counter case, or
reply to the American case to fulfil the condi-
tons of the treaty that far, she persistently
asserts that she will not consent to arbitration
if the American claim for consequential
damages be not withdrawn. In this, too, the
government appears to be sustained by the
people and the press. Even the opposition in
Parliament, while denouncing the Gladstone
Ministry for mismanaging the matter and
bringing trouble upon the country, holds the
same view with regard to the inadmissibility
of arbitration if the American claim for con-
sequential damages be not withdrawn
Our government maintains the right to SUBJ
NIT the claim, and urges that the INTENT on
was all along to submit it. Our govern
ment asserts further that there is not only
nothing in the treaty prohibiting that, but
that the British government must have known,
from the discussions and the protocol when
the treaty was under consideration of the Joint
High Commissioners, that the United States
reserved the right Of presenting q claim for
consequential damages. Certainly the absence
Of any prohibitory clause in the Washington
Treaty and the presentation of this claim in
the protocol of the American Commissioners
show that the British treaty makers were
either very stupid-which will hardly be adj
mtted-or that they indirectly consented, at
least to leave the question open. Under
these circumsta noes it is reasonable to con-
clude that the decided hostility of the British
government to having the American claim for
indirect damages submitted for arbitration
sprung from after thought. The English
people, more sensitive than any other on
questions touching the pocket, were led to
suppose, through the press and politicians,
that consequential damages might involve
them in the payment of thousand millions of
dollars or more. 1t was the money point Of
view and not the principle involved that
aroused popular feeling in England. We do
not suppose that Mr. Gladstone or any other
English statesman imagined on overwhelming
award, if any award, would be made for con-
sequential damages; but the agitation of the
question, which appealed to the pocket Of
Englshmen more than to their patriotism,
answered the purpose 1t was political
trick, and might almost be designated con-
temptible, in view of the great interests at
stake.
On the American side the conduct of the
government has been little less reprehensible.
There is no doubt that in justice this country
had q right to claim consequential damages.
The wrong doing of England as friendly
neutral Power in hastily recognizing the rebels
and in aiding them through the Alabama and
the other corsairs, which the British govern
ment has virtually acknowledged in the Wash
ington Treaty, resulted in large and serious
damage beyond the destruction of the vessels
for which it admits the liability to pay. 1t was
only just to put in a claim for full damages,
direct or indirect, and to leave the decision of
award to the arbitators. But this ought to
have been more clearly expressed in the treaty,
leaving nothing to doubt or controversy after
wards. The administration, as well as the
British government, was SO anxious to make
treaty and to gain popularity by doing SO that