The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1872-05-16


extreme demands which they had at any
time requested and brought forward
Her Majesty's Government consider them
selves mortified In treating the matter o
Indirect claims In the event OF the ami
cable settlement preferred by the HigL
Commissioners Of the United States, d!
one which applied to any form of amica
BILE settlement; and therefore compromise
In like manner the form of settlement
proposed by the British aigh Commission
ers, accepted by the United States
and recognized IN the preamble Of the
treaty. Such q waiver was In fact neces
sary condition Of success in negotiating.
II was in full belief that II this waiver had
been made, that the British government
would have ratified the treaty. Her
Majestys government Is anxious that the
considerations whick made them hold
this belief, should be more fully explain.
cd to tho government of the United
States. That can be done In the form oil
q letter, and have accordingly embodied
them In memorandum which have the
honor to enclose, and which I beg may be
read with and considered as part Of my
present communication. Her Maiestys
government do not deny 1t Is competent
for the government Of the United States,
Us 1t Is tor themselves 10 assert that their
own Interpretation of the treaty is
correct, but what Her Majesty's govern.
mcnt's natural grammatical construction
OF the language used In the treaty and
protocols, Is In accordance with the views
which they entertain, and sustain their
assertion that tho terms in reference to
the arbitrators are limited to direct
claims; inasmuCil as the direct claims
only have throughout the correspondence
been recognized and impartially defined
under the name of the Alabama claims.
Thereon some pressure is brought to bear
In MIR. Fish's dispatch, IN which he de-
tends tho introduction into the American
case OF the claims for indirect losses and
injuries, which l cannot allow 10 pass
without more special remark. Itisstated
that thev are put forward In the case not
as the claims for which specifications are
made, butt losses and injuries consequent
upon the acts complained Of and necessa.
rily to be taken into equitable considera.
tiOn in final settlement Of all the differ.
enCes between the two countries, and as
not relinquished in the treaty but covered
by one OF its two alternatives. Her Ma.
jesty's government cannot perceive what
alternative in the treaty can cover these
claims. lfindced by this language Mr.. Fish
is to be understood rs referring to two dill.
iercnt modes provided by Articles 7 and
10 OF the treaty for arriving ut the amount
OF tho payment TO he made by Great
Britain in the event Of any liability
being established, the answer seems OBJ.
vious, viz: That these alternatives arc
applicable to the settlement of the amount
OF damages, and not to a measure of
the liability. Again Mr.. Fish states that
the treaty was not an amicable sttlemcnt,
but only an agreement between the gov.
ernmcnts US TO the mode OF reaching the
settlement, and that no protfer OF with.
holding an estimate Of indirect losses can
be claimed as waiver until the result oil
the arbitration Is arrived at, but he over.
looks the facts that the treaty is called an
amicable settlement, not merely in relation
TO the Alabama Claims, but as an entirety,
and even in relation 10 the Alabama
Claims alono, 1t must not only be taken
that the amicable settlement which Il
protessed 10 provide was arrived at. From
the moment when the treaty containing
an agreement to go into arbitration was
signed and ratified, according to Mr.
Fish's view, an amicable settlement upon
reference 10 arbitration can only
be arrived at by on adjudication of the
claims. 1t is obvious that no waiver of
any government claim could be under
such circumstances even voted; for before
the time for the waiver or this supposition
had arrived tho claim would have been
decided upon. That Her Majesty's Gov.
ernment never intended to refer these
claims to the arbitration, and that in rali.
tying the treaty they never contemplated
their being received in argument teiorc
the arbitrators must have been obvious 10
you from the language used in debate in
the House Of Lords on the 18th Of June
on motion for an address to the Queen
praying Her Majesty to refuse to ratify
the treaty on that account. Indistinctly
stated this to be understood by Her
S1alesty's Government, and qoted my
protocol of the 4th Of May, to which I
have referred above as q proof that
these indirect claims had been enti.
rely disapproved. When Lord Caion, to
whose speech allusion has been made in
the United States Congress, subsequently
said that the extravagant claims might
be put In and take. their chance,
he was met with an expression
OF dissent. Moreover, Lord Derby, while
criticising the negotiations and terms Of
the treaty, and in other respects particu.
larized the withdrawal OF the indirect
claims. The only concession, he said, oi
which l can see any trace upon the
Americans, is the withdrawal OF that
utterly preposterous demand that we
should be responsible for the premature
recognition OF the south as q beligeren,
power, in company with the equally wild
imagination OF which l believe never
extended beyond the minds OF two OF
three speakers in Congress of making The
United States liable, for oil construction
or damages made, and tho navigation
which may be proved or supposed Il
have arisen from our attitude DURING
the war. | observed that you were presenl
In the house Of Lords on that occasion
and you informed me on the 10th Of Do
cember that you werc present during thu
speeches Of Lord Russel and myself, ant
that you communicated the next day tht
newspaper report Of the debate to youl
government. Mr.. Northcotc, in thl
House OF Commons, repeated, In otheI
words, tho substance OF my remarks OF
the Limitation Of the terms in reference
and his speech Is printed in the papers OF
foreign relations recently laid beforl
Congress. 1t must also have beel
reported TO your government, bu
neither on the occasion OF my speech
nor Of his, nor where the rRtifcations o
tho treaty were exchanged on tho 17th o
June, did you call my attention to th
fact that different interpretation wa