Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1872-02-23
Washington Cor. n. Y. Tribune, Feb. ~.
The Alabama Claims Difficulty.
The American Claims for Indirect
Damaxes-The Probable Result.

a great many friends of the Administra-
ton believed week ago that the new dis
pute with Great Britain over the Alabama
claims would revive the declining POPULAR
ty of President Grant. The discussion, |
started in London for political purposes, |
might be used for political effect on this
side of the ocean also, and when the Presl- !
dent declared that he would consent to no !
modification of the American case it was
supposed that the people would rally en-
Enthusiastically to his support, and in n new
patriotic excitement Il multitude OF Oi6 dit
ferences would be forgotten. This hope
has not been justified by the event. The
Administration has been injured rather
than reinforced by the Alabama difficulty,
and whatever may be thought of the mer-
its of our claim, there can b lrCily be two
intelligent opinions about the matter III
which it has been presented. The question
of indirect damage has been the essence OF
our dispute with England for years, and 1t
was the very first point pTopOunded III the
conferences of the Joint High Commission
in Washington which led to the adoption
of the Treaty. How are we to account for
the extraordinary fact that this vital disagree
ment is still left open, SO that the Treaty,
which was supposed to have set
tied everything, has really settled
nothing at all? In the absence Of some
definite statement from our Government, L
think we are bound to assume that the
English Minister is sincere IN declaring that
| it does not unde stand claims for cOnse-
| quential damages to be embraced in the
questions referred Ivy the treaty to the TIL
| bunal Of arbitration. / am assured, indeed,
| by a member OF the Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs, that the British Commits
sioners certainly went home with the be
| lief that those claims had been excluded.
| They were claims which Great Britain had
! always refused to submit to arbitration, just
as we refused Oh our side to submit claims
/ for the Confederate cotton loan or the Fc-
MAN raids. And if they were to be cOnsid-
cred, they ought certainly to have been
| distinctly recognized either in the protocols
| or the text of the treaty. But the most
you can say" added the Senator whom |
have already quoted, sis that the treaty
does not expressly rule them out" The
! importance of a distinct understanding on
this point is all the greater i'll view of the
well-known rule of law that damages can
be awarded only for the natural and proNi-
| mate consequences of an act--a rule which
Mr.. Summer had in mind when he made
his famous speech in 1869: for, instead OF
| demanding consequential damages, he
claimed that all the injuries inflicted upon
| us by the actions and omissions of Great
| Britain during our war were direct losses
some to individuals, others TO the nation
bat all of them the natural and proXimate
consequences of wrongful actions.
The case presented by Our counsel al
Geneva has not only overlooked this dis
tinctinn, but has pressed claims for remote
and inferential losses which not even the
most sanguine American could hope t'
see recognized. 1t asks the British Gov
eminent not only to pay for our lost com
merce and our high rates of marine insur
ance, but to bear all the expenses OF Tho
war after the battle of Gettysburg. TIKI
excuse for making such enormous demands
probably is that the arbitratOrs may b'
reader to award us our legal dues wheI
they have heard the whole list Of grievan
ces in which the legal demand figures as
single item. But, DIS any one might have
fOreSeeE- The result has been TO proven
any arbitration whatever. No British
Ministry deliberately referring claims o
. such character to a Court of Arbitration
should hold power for week. The action
| of Mr.. GladStOneS Government, which ha
: raised such Outcry, was a political he
cessity, brought on by the cOnspicuou
. WANT of tact III tile management of on
case. J. lave already written you that tn
p United States never expected the claim
for indirect damages to be recognized
Members of the Administration are quit
frank in acknowledging this, and luan
f friends of General Grant are now convince
e that we lave made grave mistake. -
: never believed i'll higbfautin' ciailns,'' sal
: a Senator who enjoys intimate relation
h with the President; ~ think we ought t
c have asked no more than we had reason
: able hope Of getting, and then We ought t
e have stuck to our Demand
# What is to be done now9 The answe
9 to Lord Granville's note viii probably be
@ repetition Of the American assumption tia
/. claims for consequential damages, not bt
Il ing expressly excluded by the Treaty, at
: proper matters for the arbtrators to pas
: upon, and the whole question must be II
r ftrled 10 Geneva. . In case of arbitration,
says one Of the Justices of the United State
,+ Supreme Court, : it is a general rule thu
the arbltratOrs must decide all question
that arise respecting their own jurisdiction
: The obvious coarse in this dispute is IL
the Geneva tribunal 10 determine whethe
: the Treaty jus.ites the presentation
Claims Ter Indirect damages, ami then
Is proceed with the arbitration. If eithc
party believes That the arbitrator excee
IF their powers, that will be Il subject fur nt
y gotiatiOn after the award" An effort vii
It no doubt, be made TO follow this course
e with what su cess depends I.pon the ten
/ per Of the British public rather than til
"A disposition OF the British Ministry. In IN
II way 1t seems to he a iOTegOne cOncltISiO
. that our case will not be sustained. Il bt
e lieve," said Il 81 iatOr, :" that there will L
g. a good deal Of diplomatic correspondence,
r, and finally the United States GoyertlneI
y will manage To shuttle ont of its position
Ii and the arbitrators will go 10 work" Yer
IL few anticipate the republication OF the treat,
; but it is evident that arbitration. if we haI
il at AL, is to be what Mr.. Gladstone lon
ago promised tie House Of Commons
should be- a real, an honest, an emerge
n jc, though no doubt friendly contention,
e in which - all the resources of aiyuinen
o of knowledge and of legal skill would h
+ used for the purpose Of establishing the III
!, right conduct of England, and her fuIf!
|. nent Of her international duty
p THE LONDON TIMES ON THE QUESrIo
l.. OF INDIRECT TAXEs.
: From the Times of January o.
S No doubt it was from an honorable q,
0 sire to avoid every topi,: OF difference whic
5 could possibly be avoided that Lord RipO
t and his colleagues failed to itsist on a
\ explicit definition Of "the Claims generjcall
n known as the Alabama Claiins,'' notwiiI
: standing that Great Britain, and Gree
: Britain alone, was liable TO suffer by an
vaSueness in this essential article. Tb
protocol of May 4, 1871, however, couple
with the provisions of subsequent article.
= directing that each vessel shall he the sui
Il ject of a separate inquiry, is sufficient t
show that claims for indirect losses weI
not contemplated in laying down the basi
OF arbitration Whether claims for ,liIpt
II losses are admissible in respect TO all tn
t vessels comprised in the American list is
$ question left open by the treaty, and there
al, hvTf