Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1872-05-02


18th of April gives an interview with Caleb
Gushing relative TO the meeting of the day pre-
Yious at Geneva. He said the proceedings
were purely formal and that there was no talk
about anything connected with the Washington
treaty. In regard to the protest of the British
government, which was put in with their counter
case, Mr.. Cushing said that his deliberate opin-
ion was that both the presence of that document
and its decided though courteous and guarded
language shows very plainly that the British
government has determined TO Withdraw from
the arbitration unless between that time and
June the United States make some material
concession with regard to indirect claims. Mr.
Gushing further says that the United States
counsel do not regard the position of the Brit
iSh government as changed BY the presentation
either of their counter cases or their protest.
Had they not presented u counter case, it would
have been tantamOunt TO Withdrawing from the
treaty altogether, which if DONE would be de-
lberdte breaking of a solemn covenant, involv-
ing the honor of the British nation.
Relative TO the British counter case Mr.. Cush-
Ing said he had not had time yet to study it,
being much larger than our own. There is no
material difference with regard to the facts be-
tween the United States and Great Britain. In
deed, the British case actually admits some
facts we are unable to prove from lack of the
necessary documents. He hoped the British
counter case would not present as many faults
of expression as well as Of law as he remarked
in the British case.
( WASHINGTON, May lit is authOritatlvely
stated that our tclam for indirect damages has
not been and will not be withdrawn. Our gov
eminent is Of opinion that they are properly
within the competency of the Geneva tribunal,
and within the submission intended by
the treaty. Whether they be of the class of
claims for which one nation is liable to make
pecuniarY compensation TO another, Is a Ques-
ton which the lately ELECTED opinion Of some of
the ablest writers on International law in Eu-
rope as well as this country places in clear
light.
The fact that in the American case they are
not accompanied with 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 CON
troversy, and the prominence they had acquired,
imposed the necessity Of their presentation TO
the Geneva tribunal in order 10 prevent their
being brought up hereafter TO disturb the har-
mony of the two nations. Ii is in the interest of
both governments that these claims, which the
British commissioners neglected 10 eliminate
from the protocol, or TO exclude from the treaty,
should be dispersed of in some way, This is
what the government Of the United States has
been endcaYoriug to accomplish. Is the treaty,
then, with its hopeful promises, and its settle
ments Of various questions OF differences, to he
abandoned? The president thinks not. At least
not without eXhausting every effort consistent
with Tue HOHOT ulu ul1HlY OF Tile
government. He has not Withdrawn any part
of the case; he does not contemplate
any such withdrawal; and has made no propo.
sal for such Withdrawal, Ia the correspondence
which has taken place with the British govern
ment on the subject, the secretary OF state has
most strenuously insisted on the prppFety and
right of this government to present its own case
in its own way, without dietatiOn or suggestion
from the opposite party. He insists that indi-
rect claims have not been estimated, and are
properly included in the submission to the Ge-
neva tribunal. The problem now pre-.
scented is TO find mode of recon
Cling the antagopiStic positions of the two
governments on this incidental point respecting
a class Of claims for which the party complains
ant-the people of the United States-haye
shown themselves indifferent rs to the recovery
of damages, but which involve questions of law
of vast importance to them, and to other ma
tons which expect to be neutrals larger part
of the time rather than belligerents Great
Britain, by her acts during the war. has
put herself in a position to have the question
tried upon her, and the United States does not
think il wise TO abandon the question without
either a decision or au agreement and stipula-
ton which will relieve the United States
in future; and before ineurrins the possible
liability which now rests upon Great Britain
from the presentation OF like complaints in case
of any omission on their part to observe their
neu riil obligations, in the event OF Great
Britain being belligereBt while they are neutral.
Should Great Britain propose to stipulate
that in the event last contemplated she will
make no complaints or claims against the United
States for any indirect, remote or consequential
injuries, or losses resulting from failure to Oh
serve neutral duties; the United States, by ac-
cepting the suggestion, would gain an impur-
tant concession. In consideration thereof the
United States might very well agree to say that
they will refrain from pressing for pecuniary
compensation Tor indirect claims before the
Geneva tribunal, leaving the tribunal
to make such expression Of bpin.
ion as it may think proper on that
question. The apprehension Of Great Britain
of an award in monled damages on ac-
count of these claims, would thus he relieved
and the United States would disclaim asking
for moned award which they had not asked
from the tribunal, and wh.sh their people do
not expect or desire. II by such agreement the
two nations could be brought into accord on
the subject OF submission, the arbitration could
proceed. 1t is not known whether such agree
ment will be or eau be reached. l.ti ID
The United States has made no proposals in
the premises; but il is believed that an arrange
ment of the nature indicated, II proposed by
Great Britain, might be accepted by the United
States, and il would be honorable to both ma
tions. This, beyond doubt, is the extent Of
what the president or any OF his advisers have
thought possible or have had in contemplation.