New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1872-05-02
THE DIPLOMATIC MIDDLE
THE CLAIMS FOR INDIRECT DAMAGES.

| WASHINGTON May las misapprehenson exists
in relation to the case Of the United States before
tho Tribunal at Geneva, and as the community mas
been excited On both sides of the Atlantic Win sen
sationa reports that the Government OF the oni'eo
States has acceded to the demand of Great Britain
for the withdrawal of the claim for indirect dalh-
ages, pains have been taken to make
inquiry on the subject in well-informed
circles. 1t may BIO asserted with confidence
that nothing could be further from the fact than the
stories which have excited the public The presenta-
ton of the National, or so-caed indirect damages,
has been made by the United States at every proper
stage Of the proceedings They stand in the formal
| case presented at Geneva in December. They have
| not been Withdrawn, and will not be wlthdrawn.
| They were first presented to the notice OF Great
Britain by Mr.. Adams, under direction from MI
Seward During the excitement and irritation
caused by Great Britain pending the Rebellion.
| they were the pregnant subject OF complaint
| on the part of tho Government no United
States When the Johnson Clarendon Treaty failed,
they were found to be prominent topic of the lead
ing speech against the ratification of the Treaty, and
at once furnished to the public press, on both sides
| of the ocean, almost tho solo consideration in con-
nection with the difference between the two Govern
nents. When the Joint High Commission met they
were formally presented by the American Commits
sioners to their British associates as part OF the
American nplaint and there is authority for the
| assertion that, from the moment OF their pre-
sentation to the signing of the Treaty, they
| were never challenged or excepted to by
the British Commissioners, but were set forth in the
Protocol signed within four days of the date Of the
Treaty as if they had been presented as part OF the
complaint of the American Government. If any one
is at fault for their remaining in the case, it Is the
British Commissioners, who sat for two months In
the Joint High Commission with the written pres
| entation of these claims before them. and never
| raised a word against their admissibillty; or the
British Ministers, to whom the full proceedings on
| the Joint High Commission were daily telegraphed,
| but who remained silent
These claims are presented in the laid before
| the Geneva Tribunal in December last, on the part
of the United States, III the same way as they were
| presented before the Joint High COmmissiOn-not,
as were the Claims for property destroyed accom-
panied with demand for payment, but as part OF
the case which the United States had the right to
Law before the Tribunal for its equitable consdera
| ton. The Government of the United States is of
| opinion that they are properly within the
competency of the tribunal and within the subms-
sion intended by the Treaty. Whether they be of
the class of claims for which nation is liable to
make pecuniary compensation to another is ques-
ton which has lately elected the opinion of some OF
the ablest writer's on international law in Europe as
well as in this country. The fact above alluded to
| that in the American Case" they are not accom-
panied with a demand for payment, Is evidence that
| the American Government has always held them to
| be of different nature and perhaps OF more
| questionable legal admissibility than those
| which are called /" direct" Claims. while
their historic association with the Alabama contro
versy and the prominence they had acquired i'm
posed the necessity Of their present action to the
| n T,;b in ord tn
brought up hereafter to disturb the harmony of the
two nations 1t is in the interest of both Govern
ments that these claims which the British Commits
sioners neglected to eliminate from the protocol or
10 exclude from the Treaty should be disposed OF
| in some way This is what the Government OF the
United States has been endeayoring to accomplish
The recent discussion Of these claims by the pub
lie press of this country and intelligent public SEN
tment as ascertained through other channels OF IN
formation have exhibited an almost, if not entirely
unanimous expression of opinion, that the people OF
this country attach no Importance whatever to any
possible pecuniary award account of this class of
claims Nearly every leading journal of the country
has disclalmed the expectation or desire OF any
moneyed compensation for the indirect losses,
| and vet it is the apprehension Of some
| enormous mulcting in damages, payment
| heavier than that imposed by victorious Germany
on conquered France, which has chiefly excited the
British mind in connection with this branch OF the
American Case. The opinion OF the most eminent
Continental publicists and jurists has been ex-
pressed with large prepOnderance in favor OF the
competence Of the Tribunal Of Arbitration to pass
upon the questions which the United States have
proposed to submit 1t is due to candor to state that
these eminent writers do not thereby express them
selves in favor of the liability of nation indirect
damages
r,o oo;r,o In vim heen thus presented the Brit
ish Government as it's opinion expressed in the
Queens speech declares itself of opinion that these
claims are not within the province of the tribunal
The United States has already manifested its opin-
ion that they are within the province OF the trbu-
nal by presenting them, above stated in its case
Great Britain intimates that she may not proceed
with the arbitration unless they are Withdrawal.
Some Americans call upon their Government to
withdraw, thinking it to be magnanimous,
others thinking it to be wise. To all such Mr..
Disraeli IN his speech at Manchester, with Juster
appreciation of the case, has given the answer: 1t
is impossible for the United States to withdraw
their claimn II the British Government maintains
its attitude the two nations are at deadlock. Is
the Treaty. them with its hopeful promises and its
settlements of various questions Of difference, to be
abandonedi The President thinks not; at least.
not without exhauyting every effort consistent with
the honor and dignity of the Government. He
has not withdrawn any part of the case.
He does not contemplate any such with
drawal, and has made no proposal for such with
drawal In the correspondence which has taken
place with the British Government on the subject,
the Secretary Of State has most strenuousy insisted
on the propriety and the right of this Government
to present its own case. in its own way without
dictation or suggestion from the opposite party He
insists that the indirect claims have not been esi
iii.