The Portland daily press., 1872-05-06
Indirect Claims.

The Boston Advertiser candidly states the Do
sition of the Administration on the question of
indirect damages: sMMbsa s4ih
The authoritative statement of the position of
our government with regard to the indirect
claims will, we are sure, prove highly satisfac-
tory to great majority of the people of the
country. 1t has all along been a mere techni-
cality that separated the two governments
There have probably not been at any time
hundred people in the United States who ex-
pected that mill would be awarded for indi-
rect damages, nor did our case estimate the
amount, or hint that the United States would
press them before the arbitration. 1t has been
and is now, the general opinion that the British
government and people clustered too soon and
too much, and that the misunderstanding could
have been settled more speedily if there had
been less Indignation and prOtestation on the
other side. We on our part felt that we were
clearly within our right in putting the claims
into the case; and the only question in the
mind OF any one is, whether it was expedient,
in vie " of what has since taken placer The
problem Is how to meet difficulty that has.
arisen, and not to discover how it arose. Both
parties are DESTROYS of better understanding.
and it has been, in all the diplomatic cores
pondence that has taken place the effort of
both sides to find some common ground on
which the two governments could meet Our
government has now stated its position 1t will
not withdraw from the ground it has deliber-
ately taken, but it will agree to act as though
the ground had not been taken on certain CON
ditions. The recognition of indirect claims
would impose OnerOuS duties on neurals. We
are as little DESTROYS as Great Britain of assum-
ing great burdens of this character. We are
quite as likely to be neutral when Great Brit
ain is belligerent, as to be fighting when Eng
land is at peace. 1t is proposed, therefore, that
we shall agree not to mention consequential
damages any further before the arbitratOrs and
that it be practically recognized as a new rule
of international law between Great Britain and
the United States that in any future events of
the kind that resulted in the Alabama contro-
versy and treaty, only direct claims shall be
considered. We say it is proposed that such an
agreement shall be made, but it would be more
correct to say that our government is prepared
to receive and to concur in such proposal
We are unable to see why this should not be n
satisfactory settlement for both parties Great
Britain will be relieved of all apprehension for
the present and for the future The duties of
belligerents will be no more onerous than thew
are made by the treaty according to the con-
struction put upon it by Great Britain herself
The mere fact thatthe indirect claims still stand
as part of our case does not injure her i'm the
least, for she has an assurance taht neither now
nor hereafter VIII advantage be taken of the
claim For our part we abandon no position
we have assumed. We only claimed the ripbt
to state to the arbitrator that we regarded The
injury done us by the rebel cruisers as greater
than was measured by the actual amount of
property destroyed. We ask nothing, more than
Is clearly our due. We should probably NOT
have pressed the indirect claims at all; we will
promise not to do so if it shall be understood
for the future that only direct claims are to be