The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-05-22

whose memory on this point seems to fail
him-submitted to Lord Clarendon an add
tional article, comforting upon the Commission
created by the treaty the consideration Of 'all
claims made by the United States govern
ment," rs well as by individuals, and urged
the concurrence of the English Ministry
therein, on the plea that our Senate would
brace the national or 'indirect" damages as
well as individual damages and that the con-
cession wns absolutely necessary to save the
treaty. Lord Clarendon laid the proposition
before the Cabinet, but the government re-
fused its assent and the treaty was rejected
1t is clear, therefore, that when the English
government now assume to have heard of
indirect claims officially for the first time in
our Geneva case, they shelter themselves be-
hind diplomatic subterfuge to conceal the
whole truth. Taking these facts into con-
sideration, in what light does the conduct OF
England appear, when she affirms that the con-
sideration of indirect claims was never con-
templated by the Treaty of Washington, but
was, in fact, excluded from the province Of the
Geneva Tribunal? After the experience Of the
Johnson Clarendon Treaty, and after the in
tenton of our government to claim indirect
damages had been published to the British
High Commissioners, we are told that the
words used in the treaty designating the
claims to be decided upon as those sgenercally
known as the Alabama Claims confines such
claims to individual losses and damages, be-
cause England had officially known of none
other under the generic title of ''Alabama
Claims" This, too, in the face Of the solemn
declaration of the treaty that, /" in order to
remove and adjust all complaints and
claims on the part of the United
States" not of individual citizens thereof,
''the high contracting parties agree that all
the said claims growing out Of acts COM
mitted by the aforesaid vessels shall be re-
ferred to the tribunal Is it, under the cir
cunistances, unfair to suspect that these words
were purposely used to entrap US into belief
that our claims for indirect damages were to
be considered and settled, while the after
designation of the claims as those ''generically
known as the Alabama Claims" was designed
to enable the British government to resort to
the diplomatic pretence That under such title
they had no official knowledge of any but
the direct claims of individual citizens of the
United States?
But why was the word generic used in
relation to the Alabama claims? The Eng
lish government and writer's assert that the
hoe ;nt md i,,fa nJnJ
to limit the authority of the Geneva tribunal to
the consideration of one particular class of
claims-namely, those of individual citizens
for direct damages inflicted upon them by the
acts of the Anglo Confederate privateers.
Without referring to any musty Latin authori-
ties let us see the plain English definition
of the word as given by Webster:
''Generc, generical: l. Pertaining to
genus or kind relating to the genus, as dis
tinct from species or another genus, as gene
rio description. generic difference, generic
name, 2. Very comprehensive, pertaining or
appropriate to large classes or their character
istics." Looking further into Webster we find
the definition of the word genus given as
follows :-"Genus l. A class of objects di-
vided into several subordinate species,
n class moro extensive than species,
&c. 2. An assemblage of species pos
sessing certain characters in common,
by which they are distinguished from
all others; it is subordinate to tribe and sub
tribe; hence single species having distinctive
characters that seem of more than specific
value may constitute genus" The use of
the word generic in reference to the "Ala-
bama Claims,' in the treaty. would, therefore,
import that the term was intended to apply to
all the claims, direct and indirect, growing
out of the acts of the privateers,
rather than, as the English writer's con-
tend, to conhne it to one particular species.
The weight of the argument, in whatever
light the case is viewed, favors the suspicion
that England was fully sensible of the inten-
ton of the American government to advance
the claims for indirect, as well as for direct
damages; that Mr. Gladstone relied upon the
Geneva Conference to give Judgment adverse
to such claims, and that his dilatory protest
against their consideration grew out of politi-
cal necessity forced upon him by the OPPOSE
ton.
The spectacle presentedby the United States
government is not an envabe one, whether
we suppose ourselves to have been out-man-
oeuyred by England or clustered into an aban-
donment of our rights under the treaty. There
is but one short and direct road out of the
difficulty, and it is in the power of one man to
tread it and to rescue us from our dsgraceful
embarrassment with credit to himself and
to the nation. The Pal 1iaH Gazette points
it out as the pathway of safety and
honor. President Grant has been made
the victim of an incompetent and vacil-
lating Cabinet Minister. The time-servina
policy of Secretary Fish has brought all
this trouble upon us. If the President had