New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1872-02-09

could be come TO 70 the points to which arbitra-
ton should apply" The subsequent discussions sc
far rs the official records show were occupied with
the new principles of international law which were
TO govern tho aTbitrators in the consideration OF
the Alabama claims, and the form Of submission
and manner Of constituting the tribunal. We find
no further allusion to indirect losses in
the protocol, except during the discussion
/ vi the Fenian claims; the British Com
mssoners gave it of their reasons for assent
ing 10 the exclusion OF these claims from the present
treaty that "a portion of the claims were of con-
structiye aud inTe.tidl character" Now whether the
claims for constructive and inferential damage re-
sultng from the depredatiOns Of the Anglo-Confe
crate cruisers also 10 be omitted seems to depend
upon the point whether arbitration WIS considered
an amieable settlement" in the sense of the Ameri-
can neeotiators II by that phrase they meant a
mutual agreement as to the method of setting the
controversy at rest, must assume that i'll con-
sideratiOn of that agreement the United States
scented to waive the old claim for indirect damages
If they meant the frank admission of Engands liza
bility and the payment of lump sum sufficient to
cover the direct loss then the condition has not
been fulfilled, and our demand for consequential
! damages has not been withdrawn.
The Treaty itself is quite ambiguous as the
protocols The preamble states that the Plenipo-
tentaries have been appointed TO provide for an
amicable settlement of all causes of difference
between the two countries" The 1st Article reads
Now, in order to remove and adjust all claims on
the part of the United States and provide for the
speedy settlement Of such claims which arc not adj
mitted by Her Britannia Majesty Government, the
high contracting parties agree that all the said claims
growing ont of acts by the aforesaid vessels
and generally known as the Alabama claims shall
be referred TO tribunal of arbtratiOn and the I'd
Article provides that the arbitratOrs shall meet ut
Geneva and shall proceed impartially and carefully
to examine and decide all questions that shall be
laid before them on the part of the Governments of
the United States and Her Britannia Majesty re-
spectvely." Thus far everything favOrs the Ameri
can construction and all that we have ever claimed
from Great Britain on account of her conduct during
the Rebellion, except constructive damages for the
hasty recognition of Confederate begereucy, seems
by these passages to be left to the decision of the
arbitratOrs The eth Article declares that the trbu
nal shall first determine to each ressel separately
whether Great Britain has, by any act omission,
failed 10 fulfill any of the dutiesn &c. and may, if
il think proper, proceed to award a in gross
to be paid by Great Britain TO the United
States This while it is not absolutely inconsistent
with the admission of constructive damages, Ger
tany indicates that claims of that nature were not
contemplated by the negotators. Suppose the tri-
bunal decides that Great Britain at fault in per
hitting the escape Of the Alabama and tue Florida
but innocent of wrong in the case of the Shenan-
doah how are YOU then going to hold her RESPONSE
! bic for the agency of two cruisers and not of
the third, in transferring our commerce TO the
British flag enhancing the rates of in
| surance, and prolonging the warf But Art-
Gle 10 is still more difficult to reconcile
| with our case Ii provides, in the tribunal
finds that Great Britain has failed 10 fulfill amy duty
and does not award a sum IN gross, that :" Board
of Assessors shall be appointed to ascertain and de-
ternine what claims are valid and what amount
or amounts shall be paid by Great Britain to the
United States account of the liability resulting
from such failure to each resell according to the
extent Of such liability decided by the arbitra-
tors" If there was any intention the part OF
Commissioners TO present claims for obstructive and
inferental damage it is hardly too much to say that
/ the acceptance of this article o fatal mistake.
! What the understanding Of those gentlemen may
have been l do not know; but there can unfor-
tunately be little doubt of the understanding of
their fellow commissioners the other side. Sir
Stafford Northcote, defending his own haDdwork
last August in the House Of Commons, spoke fol-
lows in reply 20 Sir Rounded Palmer:
THE honorable member for Richmond remarked that
the previous conventions left many points vague aud
! introduced a number Of claims which could
have admitted. They were left vague indeed that t
would have been possible under those claims To have
raised a number Of questions which this country
was not willing TO submit to arbitration. They
might have raised questions with regard what they
called EugaDds premature recognition OF delinquency
Io~oao, Of tie car and with regard % 10 other qnes
tons which this country could not have admitted
actually concluded aarored the questions At issue cery
closely by combining the reference solely 10 losses
Ing out OF acts Of particular vessels aud shutting
ot a large class Of claims upon chch The Americans had
heretofore insisted"
Now there can be no doubt that in this extract the
speaker expressed the honest understanding Of the
British Commissioners, and driven to the 10
ference either that the Treaty was so carelessly
drawn and the negotiations were so loose that the
two contracting parties away with diametri-
cally opposite opinions about what they had been
doing or else that the American Government has
presented at Geneva q case which II VIII be Obliged
TO withdraw Us unwauantable. 1t 10 absurd to say
that whatever claims are presented, the arbitra-
tors fmust decide whether they have authority
70 Scong;der them. We ihave always refused
to allow the Fenian claims to go to arbitration. We
refused to submit the Confederate cotton claims;
and though these were actually presented to the
Mixed Commission at Washington In cOntravention
of distinct agreement, and were ruled out as not
being within the jurisdiction Of the Board there
he no doubt that if the decision had been against
the United States would have repudiated it and
refused TO pay 1t was an express condition OF the
British assent TO the negotiation of the present
Treaty. that there should be previous agreement of
"the points to which arbitration should apply"
Gen. Grant has declared that our position must be
maintained The sentiment of Congress strongly
supports him. But even among the best friends OF
the Administration the conviction Is gaining ground
that the business has been wretchedly managed
We have presented a doubtful bill, Of such enor-
! nous magnitude that all Europe stands amazed at