The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-05-18

donment or Our Case Mt Geneva
why We Are Urged to Sacrifice Our
National Honor.
The arguments urged in favor Of the
abandonment of our case as originally pre-
scented to the Geneva Conference may be sum-
married. as follows;-1. The claims for indi-
rect damages to which England Objects ought
never to have been advanced by the United
States government. 2. It will be especially
advantageous to us as a nation with an ex-
tended sea coast insufficiently guarded, to pre-
clude by treaty provision the presentment of
any claims for consequential damages in cases
similar to the escape of the Anglo-rebel priva-
teers from England, in the event of England
being a belligerent and the United States
q neutral g. 1t is essential that we save
the treaty-which England threatens to
destroy if we refuse to recede from our posi-
tion-because the failure Of the present nego-
tiations would depress our securities on the
London market and deprive us of the
use of British capital for the prosecution
of our home enterprises. 4. If the Treaty
of Washington should be destroyed there
can be no other attempt at negotiation
for many years, and our citizens who hold
direct claims against England for the
destruction of their property by the Alabama
and other British built and equipped privatoers
will be kept out of their money. s. We shall
discourage all hope among civilized nations of
averting war through the instrumentality Of
arbitration if we suffer the failure of settle
ment that has progressed SO nearly to compile
ton. 1t is not necessary now to comment on
the selfish character of most of these argu-
ments it will be enough to show their falla-
ciousness, and for that purpose we propose to
examine them seridtins
l. The claims for indirect damages ought
never to- have been advanced by the United
States government The opinion prevails in
many minds that it would have been generous
itself satisfied with the expression Of. regret
made by Her Britannia Majesty for the
escape of the rebel privateers from Eng
land, and to have declared that, in con-
sideration Of that virtual apology for England's
past conduct, the United States would re-
frain from advancing any claim for ma
tional injuries suffered through her instrument
tality during our rebellion. There are many,
also, who believe that indirect or consequential
damages are absurd on principle; that they
could never be calculated, and hence cannot
form proper subject for arbitration. But TO
this it is replied that consequential damages
are awarded constantly in courts of law, in
- 20 -
juries, and given sometimes not only to plain
tiffs, but to their relatives 1t is insisted upon
by large number of thinking intelligent
persons who have studied our controversy
with England very thoroughly, that no COM
plete and satisfactory settlement could have
been made between the two nations that did
not embrace in its scope the American claims
for indirect damages and pass final judg-
ment, one way or another, upon them.
Ever since Senator Sumner, in a speech de-
ivered in executive session of the Senate-and
deemed of SO much importance as to have
been authoritatively made public-instilledt the
idea of consequential damages into the mind
of the American people, they have been so
generally recognized as portion Of the
Alabama claims that had they been ignored
in our case at Geneva many would have re-
fused to have accepted the judgment Of the
tribunal as O settlement in full, and would
have felt that they had still score laid up
against England. A frebrand, capable Of
kindling dangerous confagration, would
have remained in the hands of designing men.
The Treaty of Washington has been hailed as
peace offering that was to remove forever the
old jealousies and hatreds between two
English-speaking nations; but how could it be
expected to fulfil its mission if it left wound
ranking in the side of either? Can England
expect the treaty to insure brotherly feeling
and true friendship between the two peoples
when one of the conditions Of its success Is
an outrage upon our national honor2 These
considerations induce the belief in many quar-
tiers that the advancement Of the indirect
claims was discreet and proper, and that Eng
land would have been wise to have accepted
their reference to the Geneva Tribunal instead
of exciting the bad blood of our people by an
arrogant and obstinate opposition to them.
However this may be, the claims were included
in our case, in accordance with our clear right
under the treaty, and the preceding negotia-
tons, and whatever differences of opinion may
exist as to their character, President Grant
has consistently insisted on our right to keep
them there, and the American people endorse
that position. They care nothing about
money award, but they will resolutely demand
q consideration of our case as it is by the
Geneva Tribunal or the abandonment of all
further negotiations and the destruction of the
treaty.
2. 1t will be especially advantageous to us,
with our extended sea coast, to dispose
Of the question Of consequential damages
by supplementary article to the Treaty