The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1872-02-15
s.-c,t Britain EInbarrnssed---As { q Ia
;sbcs MT the Care Bestowed on t:sc
American Case--Wtiy En@ia'a" VIII
not go Before the Arbi'rasoTs--Ao
confidence in Sir KoHnhesi E'a.iaer.
rrnn tho I,outlon Times. ,Iant.ary q.

Great B-3tGin is placed IN re1y 'nhn-
rass!ng position by the construction OF inc
w.shin.ttou treaty which the United States
Government appelrS 10 have adopted. VIC
orn naw informed hy orr contemporary the
New York H'O,id that before the American
case was finally drafted in the Dcparihlcht OF
State il was sent TO eminent phbiicl9is
throughout the country for Suggestions an"
c,ncuda,ions. This fact alone negative, the
sn,,nn.itiou, otherwise incredible, that Il
dn,r,mcnt of such vast Importance was pre-
,,,rrl without full tlclibcrattn. and we are
hound To .uupo>c that, in the opinion OF the
I.nited States Government, all the points en-
bodied in it are within the jurisdiction % tilc
arbitrtoIS.
On the other hand. we arc equally bound
10 1isayoW this assumption Oh tilc ifirt OF 'i's
coi,niry. No doubt ii was from an honolT!-
,Ie desire TO avoid every topic OF ulHcrchcc
which coi,id possibly be avoided t':at AoEd
Ejpon and his colleagues failed to !lls'si an
explicit definition Oi "the cl!ih' SencTas't
known As the Alabama claims" notwith-
standing that Great Brlt@lll. ana HrcaI DIT
t.i,, alone, was liable 10 suffer by any vague
nos in ,I,iS essential article. The protocol Of
Nav ]. ISL. however. coupled with the pro-
vision, OF subsequent articles directing that
,.,.h vessel shall be thr !Jecl of separate
;uquiry. i sufficient to show that claims tor
indirect losses were not contemplated in lay
inc down the basis OF arbitration. Whether
claims for indirect losses arc admissible in
ycs,,"c; Of all the vessels comprised III
The American list is Il question left open
by the treaty, and therefore property cog
nizr',ic l., the arDitrlors, who ere also per-
;,ctly competent to decide on the relevancc
of the prcSumptive argument against Great
B!itlin. But it is not 50 evident, nor are we
prepared to admit, that it Is Il question inr
the arhiJratorS mt all whether Great Britain
i &C. pon>iDe in damages for the general war
expenses incurred by the United States after
the battle Of Gettysburg. 1t is certain that,
had the intention TO press Such demand
been understood oil both sides at Washing
ton, al trouid haze brOuyH &c Cont+F"ni,H 10
tJu ab,upt conclusion. Not cniy would it
nave been impossible for Great Britain to
place on record the expression of regret to
which the United States naturally attached
50 much weight, and to aCluicscc IN f!n rc-
Prospective application OF the new rules; not
only must oar commissioners have insisted
on the right Ia plead 4 sc;-"ll on account o!
the Fcni;tu raids and other national injuries,
instead OF referring the Alabama cttl:Hs 80
arbitration bv themselves. bat il would have
been their duty 10 suspend all further ncgo-
ttitoEs till Il distinct waiver Of indirect losses
should have been obtained. II it he asked
why, nevertheless. the arhitfatorS should no;
bc Invited to decide OH their atlniSsibit,
the answer is conclusive.
Were the Judgment Of the arbitritors sub
Ijcct TO no express limitation OF any other
kind, il might not lie palpahly unfair, though
it would sill be incXpcdient, to leave The
measure OF liability absolutely indefinite. As
it is, the agreement for arbitration is entirely
onc-sded No matter how unreasonable the
arbtraturS may consider it to Judge our con-
duct ten Years ago by rites framed last year,
their award must bc governed by those rules.
and they are not allowed to consult t,icir
own scn>c Of justice. How, tl"n. csln ii be
argued that in estimating The damages. if
any, to he paid they should be relieved OF
all obligation to tnil0w legal principles COM
mon TO both the litigant nations, and taccStcd
sc'h discretionary porcr 10 impose on
Great Britain a penalty as great as picio-
71ouS Germany erQcted from PROSTATE
France?
it will be for her Majcsty's Government to
consider this matter with care proportional
10 its Importance before the meeting of Ear.
laincnt. The public has a right 70 know
whether the American Interpretation Of the
treaty is to be firmly repudiated rs inconsist.
ent with the understanding upon which tho
proposal Of arbitration WAS made, or whether
like the many issues of fact and law raised in
the printed cases, it is to he treated Us Il qlles
ton for the arbitrators. In the mean tim,
we trust that no effort will besnred to make
the British cOuntcr-caSc not merely crush
ing forensic reply. but state paper Worthy
OF this country. 1t is lamcntthle to comics.
that, while no other nation is so rich in thu
combination of literary with political and lc,
Sal ability, no other is so negligent of form Il,
public documents, not even excluding those
in which form is as necessary 10 effect as sub
stance.
The slovenlincss Of Queens speeches is O.
course proverbial, but Englishmcn arc tolc
rant of them from long familiarity, and never
think Of measuring either the scholarship OIL
thu craftsmanship OF the Cabinet by the loose
official style in which its policy for The yea
IS announced. With dispatches and olhel
papers designed to be read by foreign Gov
ernmcnts and nations il is f;,r otherwise
There powerful and lucid statement is of thu
highest value, and English diplomacy woul,
assyrcdly have been more influential of late
had Lord FalmerSton's SUCCESSORS been mas
tiers OF Us vigorous Il style rs himself. Tl,
curtness ana mcagreneSs Of Lord Russell
notes TO Mr.. Adams helped to embittcr the
early stages of the Alabama dispute: TIN
want of precise expression in the Washing
ton treaty may pcrpetuate the very dthcutie
which ii was TO have eXtinguishcd.
NhatcNcr be the faults of the America,
ease, and they are neither few nor slight, nc
one can deny that 4 possesses Tie ultucs O.
ctedrneSS ana concentration IN no CrdtaQr,
degree, being only ditftlsc where the objcc
Is to prejudice the issue by dragging in eX
traneous considerations. In this last respec
the British case may be fayorably COMPARED
with 1t, being encountered with 10 glatui
tous asperSions on the United States Govern
ment, but in arrangement and what publish
cls call readableneSs," it leaves much to be-
desired. Now it is no disuaragemcnl
OF the confidence reposed in the arbi-
traitors to suppose that it will be OF
advantage to lay our argument before
them IN the weishtiest and terscst form OF
Which, 1t admits. Three of them are repre-
scented to be very imperlectly acquainted. to
say the least, with the English language. and
the American case is said to have been ALREADY
printed In French and Portuguese. Wee
not doubt that similar TRANSACTIONS of the En-
glish case and reply will be executed. but tIis
will be Of little avail unless the originals are
Us perfect as they can be made, both from a le-
gal ana from literary point Of view. Nor is
TINS AL which may fairly be expected from
her Majesty's Government where natiora, in.
terests of such magnitude Arc at stake. The
washington treaty provides that ''each Of
Inc hlgh contracting parties shall name one
person 70 attend the tribunal as its agent, to
represent It generally in all matters connected
with the arbitration.'