The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-06-28

Question by the Geneva Conference
Who Triumphs and Who Il Humili-
ateds
The HERALD announces this morning the
final settlement of the vexed question Of indi-
rect claims and their withdrawal from the con-
sideration of the Geneva Tribunal. The fact
is stated In our special cable correspond
ence from Geneva, and confirmed by our
special Washington dispatches and by the
report of the proceedings in the British Par
lament yesterday. Taken together the &c
counts show pretty clearly the manner in
which this result has been reached. The arbi-
traitors, without having the question Of the
American claims for indirect damages brought
directly before them, were yet 80 far officially
made aware of their existence through their
introduction into the American case and argu-
ment, and through the protest fled by
the English agent, as to regard it as
not inconsistent with their duty to ex-
press an opinion as to their admissibility.
They agreed that such claims must be rejected,
as not being contemplated by the Treaty of
Washington, and this fact was made known to
the agents Of England and America. There
upon the American agent was instructed to
withdraw the indirect claims, with the under
standing, however, that each of the arbitrators
shall file written opinion on the question of
their admissibility. This opinion, we pre-
sumo, will be in reality extra judicial, no
actual verdict in relation to the claims hav-
ing been reached and recorded in the Court.
Our special Geneva despatch says, on this
point, it becomes certain that with the written
opinion of the five arbitrators on record there
would be- formal and positive verdict against
the United States, ruling out by adjudication
that part of the American case to the very pres
entation of which England objected But it
is evident that the English representatives do
not regard the opinions Of the arbitrators
in the light of ON official act, far less
of Judgment of the Geneva Tribunal
but only as part of those arguments by which
the American government has become con-
WINGED Of the untenable nature of the indirect
claims and has been induced to withdraw them
from the consideration of the tribunal. Our
special despatch, indeed, says that the Court has
only stated 'in effect that claims Of the
exact nature Of those presented by the United
States could not be admitted to competition as
subject for damages between two nations, but
intimates that both sides claim victory.
While the United States assert that they have
brought the question of indirect claims before
the Court and received judgment upon them,
hcc
of having them ruled out or Withdrawn from
before the tribunal.
The debate in the British Parliament yes
terday leaves no doubt of the Interpretation
put upon this settlement of the controversy by
the English government and the English peo-
pie. The announcement of the Ministers,
both in the Lords and Commons, took the
character of an announcement of victory for
the British arms. Lord Granville gave his
tory of the proceedings before the Geneva
Court since its assembling on the
18th of June, concise, pointed and
altogether creditable to the English
side. The American agent had on that day
presented the argument on which his govern
ment relied The English agent had pre-
sented no argument, but asked for an adjourn
ment of eight months. At the meeting on the
10th inst the arbitrators had made state
ment in relation to the issue between
the two governments, carefully guard
ing themselves" the purport of which
statement was that after careful
perusal Of all that had been said touching in
direct claims "by the representatives of the
United States may presume that the
English representatives refrained from men
tioning indirect claims at all-the arbitrators
had individually and collectively concluded
that such claims do not constitute, upon prin-
ciples of international law, good foundation
for awards of damages between nations, but
should be wholly excluded from consideration,
and would have been even if no disagreement
had arisen as to the competency Of the tribunal
to decide thereon. The American agent had
asked for an adjournment for the purpose Of
communicating these facts to his govern
ment and upon the reassembling of
the Court had informed the arbitra-
tors that "the United States would not
further insist on the indirect claims before the
tribunal, and that they might be excluded from
oil consideration" On the ratification of this
withdrawal Of the American case, so for as the
indirect claims are concerned, the English agent
withdrew his demand for protracted adjourn
ment and filed his argument In the House
of Commons Mr.. Gladstone further declared,
in answer to a question by Mr.. Disraeli, that
it was agreed by both governments that the
Treaty of Washington was an efectual bar
against the revival Of the American indirect
claims at any time or under any circumstances.
The several statements were received with
demonstrations Of satisfaction, and the manner
in which Peers and Commoners shouted them
selves hoarse evinced that the English regard
the result as national triumph.
What is the true position of the case so far
as our own nation is concerned2 If the SUBJ