New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1872-04-17

Treaty in In which the United States
four vessels known the Florida, Alabama. Georgia.
and Shenandoah. After sketch Of the course pursued
In relation to civil by Great Britain ana other
maritime powers, follows a statement on international
rights and dnnSs on the W. OF Rr oye gn
ment. and the manner and circumstance In ana I'M
In this part Of the telling account Is Inserted OF
neutrality laws. which have been in force for more
by the legislative authority Of the United states TO De
adequate for its purposes" while YET Notwithstanding
and armed within the United States cruise and com.
nit hostiiities against nations with which the United
were inflicted on those nations ~, ~ the
depredations Of such vessels Might not
on the part the neutral Power whose laws thus
volated Then, after brief chapter on the powers OF
neutrality laws and the methods OF doing follow
Statements Of facts relative" to the four vesse named
paSe co witch %a have noced having any apparent
OF it, The point considered ~ the just measure ana
extent of the liability to the United States which might
possibly be charged against Great Britain by the
Tribunal at Geneva Losses, it Is there said OF which
po-mae land s respect Of such only hst
eompenon could Justly be awaded are commonly NOT easy
generally ge not only 70 the force but to the nan aS Soqos
neutral against e;R.eqgenee' Ig s .nou'S So 10 own
want of capacity and enterprise Her Maesys Government
foregoing the OF the Govern
@ u ne , y states Or rs oeef' , a. bs Sna sv hal
been eree the enavo intercept and capure these the
h u o. sna We United States no" complain "O p'A' ~
Here the parenthess the reference, the context
shows is to losses inflicted caused by any OF the or
nary operations Of and In the rest OF the passage
the ann IA TO throw United States and their ON
much the oss that the four actually
easoned 1t is plain therefore. that remote injury such
thought by writer that parenthesis should
be thought to form an exception.
THE AMERICAN INTERPRETATION
Fourth: We come 20 the passage in our Case
Part w. and the passage in the protocol on which
is formed begging readers not to look at this
crambe repea but being we believe not entirely the
old story told The words "amicable settlement
occur four times in the documents which concern us
the protocols Of the conference Of the High Com
mssloners and the Treaty a. They in the letter
OF Mr. Fish of jan go 1871, where the President
presses the desire that the Alabama claims may be
treated OF by the High Commission, and thus be put IN
the way OF an amcabe settlement Here the meaning is
general and whether the words referred any final
agency OF the Commission or TO their initiation OF meas
beyond their action, they could be used equally
well o. In the full power given by the Queen Feb ID,
1871, where the words " for the purpose
OF treating for agreement TO the mode or their
amicabe settlement" Their refers TO all the differences
between the two Governments and the sense Is equally
general g. In the Treaty itself at the very BEGINNING
we find that the two Governments, being cesrous 10
provide for an amcable settlement OF all CAUSES OF
difference" etc. appoint penlpOtenuares ete. Wnere'
again, the sense can only be general O. In the proto-
col again Of May ISL mention is made OF conference
after their full powers we're exchanged-at whch
Commissioners enumerated
Great Britain to the people and Government OF the
United SatesbOth the direct and indirect lOsses-and
that in the hope OF amcable settlement no es
made Of indirect losses. without Prejudice
however 10 the right TO decentralization on their account
in the event OF no such settlement being made" go
Now, II the Treaty contained such an amicabe settle
men the right OF Naturalization for Indirect losses Is
contrary is intended a setement-e bloc. FOR instance
by the joint High Commissioners themselves, sucn
pinned our faith on declaration in the Case p 46s
that the British Commissioners declined 20 make the
OF the United states" And that this faith not en-
tirey blind is shown by passage in the protocol fol
that sth OF March, Commissioners proposed that
" the Joint Hgh Commission should agree upon sum
which paid In satisfaction OF all claims and IN
terest thereon" That ia, the hope was then enter
tanned that the Commission would settle everything; or
other words, bring about an amcable settlement NO
such settlement being made IL wac NOT W
bring indirect losses before court OF arDratoh WHICH
was afterward established.
UNAccoUyTABLE CONDUCT OF THE BRITISH CoMMIs-
sIoSERs
What puzzles not little just here is that after such
full and distinct statements, the British Commissioners
should never suspect that the subject OF indirect
losses might come up again. We cannot explain this
We hope that IL may be explained without the necessity
of imputing stupidity to party or want OF openness
10 the other or false Interpretation 10 the case OF the
United States But the moral from the whole is that
this mudde however caused Is an addiona reason ZOE
having IL sgnifed in way that the indirect anu
damages are not to be urged before the
Arbitration. II orders TO this effect have gone OUT OF
assurances been given, so much the better
IN il pty we add in closing that the Court is consti
tinted lust az il is The NONE disappearing members
10 be men Of no great standing and said 10
have but knowledge OF the English language
There are hundreds in Europe acquainted with
law with English and with history, whose voice would
carry tenfod weight OF theirs In order that the
principle of arbitration may make its IN the world,
there seems be need OF more intelligent mode or ex-
ercsing adopted in the instance before US
And that this principle may make its way is so vastly
Important that We should regard 1t better and even
cheaper In the long that the United States should
consent its just claims than that there
should be failure this crucial experiment at Geneva