The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-06-22

SUBSTANTIALLY AGREED
upon the points of difference noted in the
protest filed by the agent of Her Majestys
government on April Is, but that objections
of the British government to the language of
the Senate amendments, by which the differ
ences were to be settled in the future, were
founded on reasons to which they attached the
greatest Importance and which applied to cases
LIKELY TO ARISE IN THE FUTURE.
The British government therefore asked. for
time for the consideration of the supplemental
article to the treaty. Our agent admitted that
correspondence had been going on between the
two governments for some time. and
while confirming the statement of the
British agent that so far as the
terms of the proposed article were
concerned, they we're explicit enough to settle
claims such as were included in our case filed
on the 18th of December last, he had no
authority to represent this fact to the arbitra-
tors as the declaration of his government
until he was so instructed On Tuesday last
Secretary Fish sent two kilograms to Bancroft
Davis in which it was set forth that we had
NO OBJECTION TO AN ADJOURNMENT,
provided it did not extend beyond the 18th of
January next At the same time Mr.. Davis
was instructed to say to the arbitrators that
while the United States agreed in accept
ing the stipulations of Great Britain set
forth in the amended article, that she
would make no complaints or claims
against the United States for any
indirect, remote or consequential injuries or
losses resulting from failure to observe their
neutral duties, the United States would re-
frain from pressing for pecuniary compen-
sation for the indirect claims before the Geneva
Tribunal leaving the tribunal to make such
expression Of opinion as it might think proper
on that question. Upon the receipt of these
instructions the British agent was informed Of
the determination Of our government and on
Wednesday he presented to the tribunal the
statement that as to
THE DIFFICULTIES NOTICED IN HIS PROTEST
of 18th April, they had been removed by the
declaration Of the agent on behalf of the
United States not to press for pecuniary COM
pensation for the indirect claims cited, as the
prolongation of the war, enhanced rates of
insurance and transfer of the American ma
the people Of the United States, were con-
cerned, the British government was bound to
admit that this waiver had removed substan-
tally the objections first presented, and that
the tribunal was now fully seized Of the case,
and upon their decision Of the following points
Her Majesty's government agent was
READY TO FILE THE ARGUMENT
in accordance with their understanding of the
terms and provisions Of the treaty, viz THAT
according to the second article of the treaty
the arbitrators must impartially and carefully
examine and decide all questions that shall
be laid before them on the part of the
governments of the United States and Her
Britannia Majesty respectively; that the
agent of the government Of the United States
had averred that in the claims which had
been the subject of controversy pecuniary
compensation was not asked, but that the
points involved were to be settled by sup
Elemental treaty, hereafter to be agreed upon,
and that according to the provisions Of the
seventh article of the treaty the tribunal was
only empowered to
DETERMINE AS TO MONEY AWARD !;
therefore the claims in controversy were not
before the tribunal for adjudication, and on
that question they asked the arbitrators to
decide according to the power conferred by the
second article. To this our government
lnterposed no objection, having from
the beginning declared that it was for the tri-
bunal to decide whether these claims were the
proper subject Of claim under the treaty, and
that we were willing to abide by the decision
of the tribunal. The arbitrators it is expected
will on Wednesday next
CONFIRM THE OBJECTIONS
Of the British agent, and thereupon the mo-
ton for adjournment will be withdrawn, and
their argument filed, based upon the recog-
nized claims for direct damages, leaving the
international principle of the responsibility of
neutral to be settled hereafter. On this point
OUR GOVERNMENT HAS NO soIIcITUDE
knowing full well that Great Britain is far
more interested in establishing the proposed
new rule for the government of neutrals than
we are This is precisely where the last hitch